New Editorial: My latest editorial, which dovetails nicely with our talks at the Republic post, deals with the Democrats' possible approach to the Abramoff scandal. I say it again : term limits!
The editorial can be found here under "Opinion." Mine is the lead editorial under the cartoon. Sorry I can't make a direct link, it's something with our Website.
The editorial can be found here under "Opinion." Mine is the lead editorial under the cartoon. Sorry I can't make a direct link, it's something with our Website.
posted by Joshua @ 4:52 PM
8 Comments:
I still think term limits are the wrong solution, if they may be considered a solution at all, but I agree with your assessment. As I feel that Tacitean and I are on different sides of the aisle, let me say that any republican would be hard pressed to give me a single reason to vote for them. The hate and corruption is so imbedded now that I find the whole party to be evil, and I'm a (civil) libertarian - aka the new moderates.
But the democratic party offers little more. They are so bereft of ideas, inspiration, and balls that they nominated Kerry, the epitome of the "Hey-I-wouldn't-be-too-bad-right?" candidate for fear of alienating anyone. I will continue to vote democratic, and I'll probably even vote for Hillary again in her Senatorial campaign, simply in the hopes that a few more Obamas and Feingolds and Kuciniches might come out of the woodwork, uncorrupt, unashamed to announce their beliefs in public, and willing to fight the hate machine which holds all the power (though none of the support!) in present-day Washington. But as long as the few congressmen (and executive powers) who aren't addicted to graft are too frightened to speak up against those who are, the Republic is in shambles.
We can agree upon that.
I would like to take exception with a few of Bookie's (can I call you Bookie? Too late.) claims and then offer a thought of my own. I'm not sure that you really want a Kucinich representing the Democratic party. He strikes me as a Nader. Admirable for standing on unpopular principals, useful for adding perspective and new ideas to the public debate, but ultimately a little too loopy and detached from reality to hold major power. As for the machine which "holds all the power (but none of the support!)" I think it is fair to say that at the very least, a sizable plurality of the country supported said machine in the last election. So saying that they hold "none" of the support is perhaps a bit of an overstatement. Also, you should distinguish between Republicans (people of many differing and conclicting ideas, all of whom see one reason or another to align themselves with one of the two main parties rather than go independent (probably for pragmatic reasons as much as idealogical ones) and the Republican Party Machinery, which comprises certain powerful republicans who are focused mainly on playing the game of staying in power (and playing it far better than the Democrats at this juncture). This machinery is as much a product of the overall system and (lack of good and abundance of poor)rules as it is of the nasty self interest of those individuals. What you seem to be saying, is that the Party Machinery is SO thoroughly corrupt that any individual republican, whatever her particular virtues and views, cannot help but hurt the country (by adding to the Machine's power) more than she might help it (through her own good ideas). I guess that is a question of how effective you think the Republican party is at reigning in people who step out of line. I think that there are many signs of stresses within the party now that it has achieved majority status and we will not have to wait long (2008 at the latest) for those stresses to show up as real idealogical fractures in the party.
As for my idea, I suggest the following. In a given political race, if you reach a point where either a) you don't feel you know enough about any candidate, or b) you feel all candidates are equally bad, do the following. Vote against the incumbant. I've heard it suggested that there is really only one party in this country and that is the party of incumbancy. It seems to me that there is some truth in that and that the system, at most levels, favors incumbants more than it should. Thus, all other things being equal, I vote to shake things up.
By "none of the support" I mean right now. Presently. Burried under scandal and their own sliding poll numbers. AKA the point of the editorial.
"I find the whole party to be evil"? Pray tell, what exactly does that mean?
That everyone who votes Republican in a given instance - for governor, for state representative, say- is committing a purposeful evil?
Explain to me how this is not 'imbedded hatred' in your own case!
(More to follow on your 'civil libertarian' comment...)
It means that I'm prejuediced against it, but that my own side isn't doing any better, so I'm left leaderless, essentially. I wasn't trying to state my views as fact, but rather the fact that they are my views. But as for the Republican side - no. Republican voters are choosing what they think is the best choice for themselves and their families. HOWEVER, as I do find the party leadersip to be evil, particularly in the Bush administration, it would take a miracle for me to want to do any tiny thing to give them any more support at any level. That's where my priotities are. McCain would have a shot at winning me over, but I'm hard pressed to think of anyone else.
Okay, that makes way more sense.
Now explain to me how a civil libertarian can support a political party so hostile to property rights.
Well, I can't heartily support EITHER side at the moment, butneither side was particularly stellar on the issue in New London. Maybe this is due to "the prejudice" again, but I was under the impression that was a primarily Republican maneuver. Was I wrong?
Post a Comment
<< Home