..........are we that insecure?
Alright, I know I said I would not be back until next week. I had to leave with one more political thought. Why do so many people feel they have to belong to one political party or another? I don't see that either side, the Republicans or the Democrats, have the answers I'm looking for. I think that the strength in America is the ability of the people, throughout our history, to compromise. There is so little compromise right now in politics that it makes me sick! NEITHER SIDE IS TOTALLY CORRECT, IN FACT, NOT EVEN CLOSE!!! I guess I will admit it - I'm a fence sitter to all of you who are diehard one way or another. When I vote on November 7, I will vote for who I feel will do the best job. If I have not heard anything about them, I won't vote for anyone. To vote merely on party lines is stupid at best, and shows little consideration for our communities and country. Don't give me that crap about one party standing for the people and the other one standing for morals. Neither party has very good moral values. Basically, one has spoken out aganist abortion, and one has spoken out that it is a right for a woman to choose. I know, that is making it too simple; but, so many voters rely on that one issue to judge morals. The fact is, we need some of both to balance America. Questions need to be raised. Issues need to be debated. Important issues need two points of view. You then take the needs of the many over the needs of the few, and compromise. It is so very easy for us to think that one line of thinking is the answer - end of story. It's not like that at all. Look at all the back-stabbing politics that we are dealing with right now. Is that the result of good intentions for the American people? Absolutely not! On top of it all, we have the media trying to make a buck! I'm not really convinced that it is the liberal media so much as it is the capitalist media that we lothe. At any rate, it is the freedom of speech and we have to tolerate it and make our own decisions. If you look hard enough, you can find a conflicting view to most stories somewhere. I say this - Beware of the Elephant and the Donkey in Tall Grass - they both have a hidden agenda they wish for you to believe and follow! Luke, Luke, come to the dark side.
posted by Scott @ 11:12 AM
1 comments
1 Comments:
i've never been bothered by "polarization," the media's favorite word to describe what you talking about. despite what ralph nader says (and i can definitely see his point), there are some big differences between the republicans and democrats. one of the things i liked about bush during the 2000 campaign and the following year or two was his ability to champion a conservative agenda. he was able to do that because of compomises with the likes of ted kennedy and other democrats. bush made a lot of friends in washington because of his charisma and willingness to compromise. it looked like he was actually changing the tenor or politics on capitol hill. then 9-11 happened and bush saw his approval ratings sky rocket, not on compromising, but on taking a hard line and sticking to it... but then americans got tired of his hard line because time kind of blurs or erases strong emotions. or maybe our brains take over or something. but even though bush today sounds like he did on 9-11, americans have moved far away from that rhetoric. you can see the rift in bush's approval ratings. personally, i don't care about polls, approval ratings, etc. but i think with the media's influence, americans equate low ratings with poor performance. and so eventually, it had to happen that bush lost clout within the government and media and actually became a poor performer. i'm not blaming the media only. bush quit playing the politics game after 9-11 and that has really hurt himself, his administration's ability to fight terrorism, and his party's chances to keep control. it's a terrible risk on his part, and though i can't help admire his conviction, it's becoming ridiculous. politics is an ugly affair, but it seems the only way for a democracy to function. otherwise we end up with a dictator.. which is where we get all the comparisons of bush to various dictators. there's a sense that he doesn't tolerate dissent because he doesn't compromise. he sounds so my-way-or-the-highway that people feel intimidated to protest. bush isn't quelching free speech (as indicated by this and thousands of other blogs), he's just being firm and unwavering. but that just doesn't work in politics. its effect is to enrage the opposition (as demonstrated by the irrational anti-bush invective across the country and the world). and when you enrage the opposition you can't get much done by way of compromise. it's a very interesting situation. but a frustrating and irritating one.
Post a Comment
<< Home