Glenden BrownMcCain’s Cynicism and the Deep Unseriousness of Sarah Palin
Last night, I caught a show on CSpan that showed a series of clips from the international news on the RNC. Watching the international reporting got me re-examining both McCain’s choice of Palin and McCain’s own speech.
First, I think it’s fair to say that McCain’s VP choice is the single most cynical political move in American politics in decades. It puts the first George Bush’s choice of Dan Quayle to shame. Palin’s choice serves demonstrates nothing more than a venal attempt to please the Republican base, to appeal to women on the basis of “she’s a woman, so if you are a woman you should vote for her,” and to engage in a new version of the Republican politics of resentment. McCain’s choice was so deeply cynical, so entirely and utterly devoid of anything other than the bit of political traction it could give him that we do not have to treat it, or him, as anything other than a cheap hack. John McCain is truly Nixons heir.
That the McCain campaign has done everything in their power to keep Palin away from the media demonstrates something else - Palin is a fundamentally, deeply unseriousness politician.
Look at it this way: Anyone who reads OneUtah - and I include even our most fundamentally conservative readers - finding him or herself in the position Sarah Palin was in, would have said, “This is the most important job interview I will ever have for the most important job I am likely to ever hold. I will give a speech equal to the moment. I will demonstrate that I am worthy of holding the job - I want to prove that I am a person seriousness enough for this important job. I want to demonstrate a mastery of the important matters, that I have given serious thought to the issues facing the nation and when I am done, I will have nailed my job interview.” Palin seems to have treated public office as her due - a place in which her needs, wishes and agenda should be paramount and she has treated resistance to that as unthinkably wrong - and a firing offense. Unlike John McCain who at least has a real and demonstrated history of public service, Palin seems not to consider public office as a position of trust.
Palin delivered a speech full if snide, sniping personal attacks, jokes, and mockery. The speech was prepared before McCain had chosen her, you might object. Doesn’t that make her seem even less substantial? Okay, I’m the Veep nominee and I’m not going to say, “If I have to, I will write my own speech. This is the most important speech of my life and it’s going to come from my heart; I will deliver a speech that Americans will celebrate for hundreds of years. I will follow in the footsteps of Seneca Falls and Susan B. Anthony and Sojourner Truth. I will not deliver a canned speech”? Sarah Palin just says, “Okee dokee, let me practice this speech your wrote weeks ago.”
Palin was offered an historic moment and treated it as a joke. Here you are - giving what will be the most important speech you have ever delivered - and you have a choice: Treat it as an historic moment, one filled with gravitas, an opportunity to speak to the ages or treat is as a moment to delivery snippy and snide attacks on a current political opponent. Do you rise to the occassion or not?
Sarah Palin chose not to rise to the occassion. If for no other reason, that demonstrates that Sarah Palin is manifestly unsuited to be Vice President.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Thanks for this assessment, Glenden. I agree with your general premise, though not to the same extent. Yes, even as a conservative, I can see what you are saying. You, and I, really don’t know Palin’s intentions or how much of the speech she prepared or changed or if she’s “treating public office as her due.” I think your criticism is a bit overboard, but I get the point. I wish that with all politicians we could know that they are being 100% sincere when speaking in public rather than pandering for votes. Sometimes it seems easy to identify panderers and other times I’m not sure. I think they all pander a little bit.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:24 am
You hit the nail on the head Matt. They do all pander… The question is how much of it are we willing to take before switching our vote or worse not voting at all. To some extend, we all want to believe that politicians will try to live up to their promises, if for no other reason than to stay in office. In most case it seems to me that people vote more often against someone than for someone.
This year I am voting against Obama because under him, late term abortions are certain to remain legal, overall taxes will likely go up, government programs/spending will increase and he will likely remove the troops from Iraq regardless of stability. While these things may not change under McCain, at least with him I feel I have a chance. (fingers crossed very tightly.) Also as a bonus, I may be voting for the first female president.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:29 am
No matter the naysaying, she has a better chance of becoming vice president than Hillary has of becoming president.
That is about all the seriousness you need to consider. To be sure the joke could be on the Democrat party.
I consider your opinion of how seriously she is going to take the job as subjective humor.
My opinion is that as a matter of tactics, and some means to blunt what this pick means, progressives should just clam up and ignore her. The more you point, the more people look. To use an Alaskan fishing term, “She’s a jumper”, and anyone who has been around the block knows you should never point at them. Attracts other fishermans’ attention you see.
Good job, though not whistling quite quietly enough past the graveyard Glendon.
How cynical is it of Obama to pick a hack for veep that claims McCain as his true friend? Scratch that, how smart is it? Speaks to judgement. This game is so old and hackneyed by now, any outrage is hyperbole of the most un-serious nature.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:48 am
Matt and Richard - Shouldn’t we as voters hold our politicians to a higher standard? Jimmy Carter was a fundamentally honest person who did his best to speak the truth to the voters. Like children, the voters rejected it and him. As a result, we live in a weird political world where we seem to say to our pols “Make us happy and listen to us cry when we’re not.” Tell us the hard truth.
When you look back at American history, the leaders who have been most effective have been able to speak the truth - hard as it may be - and inspire us to overcome the great challenges. FDR, Lincoln, Truman, even LBJ had a gift for dealing honestly with the truth - as difficult as it may have been. Obama strikes me as someone not afraid of the truth - that things in American have gone badly awry. I see none of that traint in Palin.
In the end, I think that speaks to my central point - that Palin seems not to get that history is watching and waiting for us to face the hard truths and figure out how to overcome them.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:59 am
“even LBJ had a gift for dealing honestly with the truth - as difficult as it may have been”.
Are you kidding Glendon? LBJ decided not to run so he wouldn’t have to answer to the truth. Nixon ended what he botched utterly. Almost as a bad, but not quite.
On Lincoln, depending on ones subjective opinion, Lincoln exceeded his presidential authority, in a way very reminiscent of Bush, except that Lincolns’ excesses caused some 550k Americans to be killed. Some would name him tyrant. Had the south been successful, he would have been hanged for treason, under Constitution. As it was, he didn’t get to live his legacy anyway.
Face it, you know nothing about the woman Glendon, and are responding in a fear based reactionary manner. It is a pretty good bet that you don’t hang with many women that have her priorities. When she gets the position, I would imagine she will be quite difficult to stop. There is a sign of some backbone in her, and simple shrift of consensus based politics.
Best bet for the progressive loony left Glendon, is to ignore her.
Anyway Glendon, standards are subjective. Clinton proved that with his affairs in the Oval Orifice. Bush with his ignoring his scope of power, which the loyal opposition allowed. Some cared, some didn’t.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:10 am
NEWS ALERT! New Gallup poll just released show McCain at 49% and Obama at 44%!
September 8th, 2008 at 10:21 am
Well there you have it. Means nothing these polls.
We do have to perhaps admit that Palin is at least popular with those who were thinking of voting for McCain. The more Palin is attacked, the better the GOP will do. As much as spewing vitriol is fun, though hard to control, as an Obama supporter, I would make it stop.
It isn’t helping Obama. It is negative campaigning, and is harming the possibility of consensus based leadership after the election. We don’t want there to be any hard feelings if our guy isn’t selected do we?
September 8th, 2008 at 10:39 am
This morning, I was at the dentist, who has installed flat-screen TVs (with the best intentions, I’m sure). I challenge the most stout-hearted among us to watch Sarah Palin talk about “the coming victory in eye-rack” — while having a root canal! As John McCain says, “they broke me.”
I was my own man, but after this experience I’m totally committed to saving this country from the Republicans who have controlled either Congress, the White House, or both for 26 of the last 28 years.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:48 am
I for one am more than weary of her ironic tone of delivery and sarcastic script. When will she get serious? I compare her to comedianne Judy Tenuta in my blog post today. Do you see the resemblance - in style I mean? I suggest she get a little accordian.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Yes, I do expect politicians to speak the truth and their sincere opinions. For the most part, I don’t think they do, at least when they get up to the presidential level of politics. Speaking of “speak[ing] the truth - hard as it may be,” isn’t that what John McCain is supposed to be all about? Straight talk express, etc. He told the people in Michigan that they’re auto manufacturing jobs weren’t coming back but that he’d help them get other jobs. Perhaps McCain is just saying those things to say them, but he seems to be pretty honest and sincere to me, maybe a little less so lately.
Anyway, I think the point is that we should expect honesty, sincerity, and transparency from any politician. The trick is figuring out which ones are like that. I agree with the Watcher. If you want to minimize Palin’s influence, then stop attacking her. I haven’t heard many attacks on Joe Biden. I’d bet that in his 30 or whatever years in the Senate that one could dig up some pretty interesting stuff. But since nobody seems to be doing that, at least from my limited reading, Biden seems to be a neutral. He’s just a dud, nobody cares what he has to say.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:08 am
That’s just one poll, check out all of these…
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html#chart
September 8th, 2008 at 11:29 am
bekkieann:
Palin tried over the weekend to get serious and look what happened: the Republican vice presidential nominee claimed that lending giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had “gotten too big and too expensive to the taxpayers.”
Oops. Even conservative economists readily concede the statement is simply not true. Indeed, not only is the statement not true, the statement evidences how little Palin truly comprehends concerning the economic turmoil the country now finds itself.
But not to worry, as Palin knows how to field dress a moose.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Matt, you can expect honesty, sincerity, transparency, but that’s not to say you’re going to get it. Even when a cantidate reflects same, there are the focus-group spin-miesters who will hone in on, reframe and attempt to refocus on their alternative to reality. See how Barrak is being portrayed as an islamo-nutcake terrorists by the mighty whirlitzer?
Any of them are likely honest but between the spin and an individual’s reticense in speaking freely given the consequences of a ‘misspeak’, and the media’s tendency to block or or promote some pet belief, gettin to that ‘honestly’ ain’t easy even if it’s right before ones face.
Richard, try not to conflate that bright shinny political star with a root canal. It would just be wrong. She’ll likely make a wonderful president when Johnnie the POW succumbs to his stressors. (snark)
September 8th, 2008 at 11:42 am
I’m sticking with my 18 month old prediction that Obama, or Hillary, are unelectable.
Sarah Palins’ popularity is the the proof. It doesn’t matter who the republicans run, compare them with democrats for any length time in the glaring light, and no one wants them.
It is not that I think that they are bad candidates, agreeing with positions they hold often, it is simply that there is something in them that turns off the larger part of the electorate. We are seeing that something right now. Given the opportunity to elect a mean girl success story, America is going with the knife it would seem.
Using Bush vs. Algore as my guide, an election that dems should have won, but didn’t…I would say that in the ensuing few weeks, Obama, given this history, has no chance.
Hillary might have been electable, but that choice was gleaned by the party elite, and thrown out unceremoniously. I don’t see the Democrat party recovering this cycle out.
I am contented that we are on the track we are on. The weak dems control Congress, and the reps get the White House. Should be at least 4 good years of not much happening, which the public desperately needs. We sure don’t need change of the measure Obama speaks of. Unrelenting pressure relieved from the neo cons will do just fine for now.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
What is it that is untrue in the statement Albert? The are too big, and indeed are costing us too much money.
F and F certainly do cost the taxpayer money, the loans are federally insured, just like deposits in a bank, if they are made badly, or are defaulted on, the taxpayer pays. There is no question in this.
Fannie Mae is a GSE. Government Sponsored Enterprise. Don’t know ANY of those that do not cost the taxpayer money.
One thing certain, private or not, when the shit loans come due and no one can pay them, many loanees end up in government assistance programs, section 8 housing, complete with all the associated costs and lack of necessities associated with bank home foreclosings. Food stamps, lunch programs, etc. etc.
Are you sure you have any concept of how F and F are really run Albert O? Does Palins’ comment reveal your ignorance, is that why it angers you?
September 8th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Matt - Joe Biden is a relatively well known commodity. We know his votes, his opinions. Palin, by contrast, is not just a newcomer but apparently a rank amateur. She doesn’t know what Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are or how they operate. And she expects us to treat as credible any claim that she can be VP? Pointing out her woeful lack of basic knowledge isn’t attacking. If you or I applied for a job our potential employer would expect us to possess basic knowledge. Palin apparently doesn’t have that basic knowledge. Pointing that out isn’t attacking her. Treating her with kid gloves because she’s got a uterus isn’t the answer either. It’s not her personal life or decisions that need to be examined - it’s her policy positions, her decisions and her lack of knowledge.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
If you examine the context in which the statement was made, it is undeniable that Palin mistakenly thought F&F was a government entity, which is not the case.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Arianna Huffington has a terrific post today: Sarah Palin is the Trojan Moose.
September 8th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
All I see is a statement that says it is costing us money. Woe that more of us couldn’t glean as much from a penetrating stare. There is a government entity that will account for the shit loans at public expense.
So what is your point then? It isn’t guaranteed by Federal largess? Which is it? This is sad, even the spin is easily unspun.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Who:
Defend Palin if you will, that is your choice. The point is, however, that prior to Palin’s statement, F&F were private entities not funded by taxpayers.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
They aren’t funded, they are guaranteed, so I will ask your PH.D legal mind again.
Who is it that gets holding the bag when the privately granted shit loans come due and no one is paying in a Government Sponsored Enterprise such a F and F? That would be the taxpayer.
To describe F as private is like calling a Thai whore your own.
Sounds like a porn movie, with a whole lot of F’n going on.
Rather interesting isn’t it that many on the board of F are Clinton style progressive democrats?
September 8th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Also ask who required mortgage lenders to increase the number of low income loans they gave?
Let’s be honest, the mortgage industry responded to government pressure to increase loans to low income borrowers. Now everyone is screaming the banks took advantage of the sub prime market.
More government isn’t the answer, it is the problem.
September 8th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Who:
Tell that to the stockholders of F&F who just lost everything. Tell the stockholders who collectively just lost billions not to worry because the loans are guaranteed. I am sure that your little Thai whore tale will provide them much needed comfort, too.
As I said before, defend Palin all you want; it is, after all, your right to do so.
September 8th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Bob:
Correct me if I am wrong, but the CRA does not, on the other hand, mandate that banks act foolishly and issue high-risk loans on little more than stated-income loan applications.
This problem arose not because of the CRA, but because of greed and carelessness - the type of greed that might just have cost your 401(k), I might add.
PS. I am curious just what right-wing website you found this little CRA ditty on. My guess is the website blamed the whole mess on Carter, too. Am I correct?
September 8th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Hey they are fuckin’ idiots, and there isn’t much to be said for it. There are elements that are government backed in F and F, and then those that are not. So whose responsibility is it really that investors don’t lose money? Or what to buy. Ours?
I would venture to say that what started as a government backed loan originator, got sucked up in the bi-partisan greed. As it stands there is yet an excellent chance they(the whiners) will get some of their money back. Though I can’t agree with it.
I will stick to the Thai whore story, those who lost their cash are just sorry right know that she isn’t dancing to their tune. She is however entertaining other players, 100% govt’ inspected, and free of diseases…that we know of.
Not defending Palin, just pointing out that the details quit mattering about a week ago, and repubs are now fixin’ to kick some commie Obama ass. The country can’t wait. Better than angry gun totin’ rednecks in some backwater town at a grudge wrestling match, from what I see. Should be a hoot.
Not that I agree with it, but can surely see it coming.
September 8th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
And just why did the details quit mattering about a week ago? You obviously have heard all you need to hear - Palin loves creationism, earmarks and shoots moose - but I’d like to hear more, thank you very much! A lot more!
September 8th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
A week ago she made her debut, and the only people asking questions are those that are afraid of what a person like her means. It means Nobama.
I don’t figure her for the professional congressional club team, cut her loose on that hackneyed worthless do nothing crowd. Herd them like the cattle they are. Bi- partisan style.
You miss the point. Peoples’ minds are made up and you won’t get more, purposely. Vote your vote and be done with it. Obama has drawn all he is going to. The longer it goes on noisily, the worse it will go for him.
Please remember I have no interest in who wins, just waiting to see what the outcome will be, and if I am right. I knew who she was before she was announced, she was a perfect tactical choice the vp slot, it not being much of a job unless you are Cheney. I am thinking that we will see what she will do with it, the way things are shaping up.
I am frankly astounded at the shrill reaction towards her. She should have been ignored as there is no plus side to attacking her. Another Dean screw up at the tactical level? Please remember Albert, there was once a time when you deemed it impossible that a Bush presidency could be followed by republican victory. I demurred and said why, as the country elected Bush twice.
What has changed since then?
September 8th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Albert,
Follow the link for the website I found it on…as a helpful reminder, links are a different color and are underlined. It seems to be a “progressive” web site.
Here is the thing I would like you and the others to understand. I don’t care about political parties or philosophies as far as blame goes. You’ll note that I have consistently said both parties are the problem.
I’m trying to point out that government is problem….more government leads to more problems. The government mandated greater home ownership for low income, banks responded. Now banks are in trouble for making bad loans required by the government. And some folks want the government to act–again!! Why?
The ‘greed and carelessness’ you talk about is part and parcel of the problem. It’s greed on the part of the elected government officials who are only trying to be re-elected. Carelessness on the part of the people in letting the situation get out of control and giving up their rights. This is not a party issue, it’s an issue of those who think they know what is best for everyone instead of serving the people.
The government is responsible for the sub prime issue because it allowed the banks to make loans — often requiring the loans as a condition of staying in business. Regulators may not have directly required the loans, but the pressure was there. It was there in the Clinton admin and the Bush admin…..get more people owning homes. It didn’t matter if the people were capable of maintaining a home or were ready for it, give them a loan anyways.
It’s the people’s fault, a small portion of the people actually, for taking the loans for more house then they can afford….but then the government steps in and rewards their bad behavior by forcing the banks to re-do the loans.
More government, more problems. Plain and simple.
September 8th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Bob:
Thanks for the update on your style of web-citation. While rather unique (one usually does not cite a news article by linking the name of a statute), your clarification will prod me to check your links more often for whatever may lurk beneath them.
September 8th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
Albert,
I was being sarcastic because it was clearly linked.
I linked to the name of the statute to point out it was a government action that started the ball rolling. I’m trying to point out the partisan politics practiced on this site isn’t working, isn’t helping and is definitely missing the point.
Let’s put aside the petty bickering, name calling and focus on inanities; let’s concentrate on getting our political “leaders” to remember they are servants. That we need less interference with our lives not more. Can you disagree with that?
Let’s focus on taking back ALL of our rights instead of giving them up.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
What W3 said.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Sorry, Bob…
Liberals can’t consolidate the world in their brains without using stereotypes. If they can’t put you into a box they can’t figure you out. I suppose it has come from being told what they are, what to think and what to do for so long; hence the reason for the establishment of the “Democratic Oath.” (I will post the Oath below for those that won’t follow the link.) They don’t want people to think for themselves but instead require religious support for dogmatic beliefs. For calling themselves “progressive” I haven’t seen a single original thought or creative piece of problem solving. If I were to belong to a party, I would choose one that invite free thought and intellectual debate in solving the nation’s problem. Not what the Dems have now become… I should also state, for all the declarations made in The Democratic Oath there is no mention of upholding the Constitution of The United States of America.
Simply because I am Pro-life, which violates this “Oath” I am regularly labeled as a right wing, Republican, Church Boy, etc…
It is actually quite amusing…
You see… when you write something here they mindlessly search through every sentence, like Nazi’s searching for a good book to burn, looking for the single phrase they can take out of context to misrepresent what you’ve said.
You see… I’m independent (little i)… Now you read that and probably think; no party affiliation because he doesn’t care for party corruption or something like that.
The liberals here read that and think, Awww… That’s CODE for Church Boy trying to push his Republican religion down everyone’s…
Still, you have to admit… This is good fun…
September 8th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
The Democratic Principles
——————————————————————————–
September 8th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Even though you posted it RO, I still can barely get through it.
It is incredibly egocentric.
Have these people ever considered that people might just want a world, or country without such a slew of busybodies?
BTW, we are tolerating terrible schools, and the new democrats are primarily responsible for bringing it to its current failure due to outcome based education.
It stresses consensus, it stresses people out.
It reads like the Commandments, its the turd way alright.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
Who, Bob & RO:
As stated before, if you want four more years of Bush policies, then proceed as you are.
You have company and are certainly not alone.
September 9th, 2008 at 6:37 am
Bush policy is now predicated by the situation. We do not have that many options. No matter what blame is awarded, someone has to finish out the policy, hopefully to as positive a conclusion as we can get.
I would venture to say that not many want any of these choices, and Obama is an out the fat into the fire choice. He can only do what he wishes through increased taxation. The public just has no interest in this. With what money?, should be the public mantra.
People aren’t interested in that, and if the rich are taxed, maybe they will just retire, or move their monies offshore. We are not operating under old assumptions. The best thing gov’t can do now is get out of the way.
Anyone that advocates do nothing politics is OK by me.
Ernest Shackleton lived with his men on the Antarctic ice for some 17 months, all lived. When asked how he accomplished this incredible feat of survival, he said.
“When I was in doubt, I did nothing”.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Who:
That’s the most schizophrenic comment you have made in a long time.
Regardless, may we correctly assume that you plan on the do-nothing course of action, including not caring enough to vote?
September 9th, 2008 at 9:23 am
In the action of doing comes demise in error…is all Shackleton meant. If you don’t know what to do, which democrats obviously have not these last 8 years, do nothing. As American government goes, when Congress does nothing, things get better.
What I am concerned about is a great deal of pent up progressive anger launching out if it obtained power, and completely leaving us out on the ice to freeze and die. They are not competent enough to carry this through. They could not halt the Bush parade, in fact marched with it, and can’t even win an election that should be way in the bag. They are qualified for nothing.
As for schizoid, I reserve that for the Democrat party, an idiotic group of misfits, that continually piss and moan, while doing absolutely nothing to effect what they wish other than to tax anyone and everything.
As it stands Sunny Jim, the progressive side of the Democrat party is qualified for absolutely nothing.
No way, I’m voting, use your imagination. I figure the presidency in McCains hands, and then the slight Democrat majority that Cliff is always talking about in the House and Senate, and the government could be effectively turned into moribund thing for at least 4 years, so there could be a chance that the People will be left to figure out their problems without government “help”. The kind of help that has bankrupted the nation.
In foreign policy the choice between Brezezinski or some dumb neo cons, I’ll take the incompetent neo-cons with Democrat party help. They have run their schtick to near exhaustion, and will be well on a leash. Brezezinski is just a return to the old Cold War. Who do you think it was that helped set up the scenario in Georgia anyway?
September 9th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Who:
As I suspected, your paranoia will rule your thought process for years to come.
Welcome to America, where you have the right to be a dumb ass!
September 9th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Your own comments prove the right Albert O. We respect that right.
I’m hardly paranoid, it just a perspective. Simply trying to get the most effective government I can, which is a crippled one by the looks of things. What is there left to fear that has not already befallen the Republic? Since the opposition can’t preserve it, and the elected in power use it as a doormat, what pray tell should an intelligent person do? Vote for it all again? Hope for the best? Is it wrong to wish our government to stay out of most issues? Is it wrong to wish to defund it?
So I guess there was nothing in the above analysis you would attempt to intelligently refute?
Tally me up all the successes of government, hell you work for it, should be easy.
Paranoid is equating Bush with dictators, the American experience doesn’t know what a dictator is, at least no one our age.
September 9th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Richard O:
You have to pay more attention. The real, grass roots, (non-corporate), democrats in this country reject the DLC, although the stance on abortion in the document isn’t bad.
September 10th, 2008 at 6:06 am
Larry,
I’m glad to hear you stand up to the likes of Hilary Clinton and her DLC. If you also oppose the use of allegiance oaths when registering to vote in primaries, then we have agreed on a major issue. If nothing else this illustrates something that I have been saying for some time now; both parties could use a good exorcist. The Republicans on the right have their Theocons (evangelicals is a misused term) and Democrats on the left have something else that I will leave you to give a name to. Regardless, dogmatism destroys discourse, breaks down the political process and only serves to drive people out of the party.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Well writ Richard. Now we’re getting somewhere.
September 10th, 2008 at 7:44 am
Richard,
I was never a Clinton fan and am ambivalent about the DLC. Allegiance oaths strike me as strange, but so does our whole party system. I think we have some serious agreement here.
Without a too prejudicial name, what would you name the part of the Democratic Party that should be exorcised? And is it the part with the social issues, the part with the economic issues, or the part with the foreign policy issues? And why are all these parts linked and why are the corresponding GOP parts linked?
September 10th, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Leo,
I would have to say that the members of the Democratic Party that I disagree with the most are the ones that lean toward heavy socialism. I have a strong libertarian streak in me and feel that there are those in the Democratic Party that would use government to control far too much of our lives. Because the socialist party is so weak here in the US, some of its potential members have gravitated to the Democratic Party in an effort to push socialist reforms. While my libertarian streak isn’t strong enough to keep me from believing that there are areas of our lives that the government is best positioned to provide, I also believe that it is important to allow free markets to work where possible. If I had to make up a name for such a group I might call them SociaCons.
While there will always be wedge issues like abortion, I believe that most Republicans and Democrats agree with what is wrong and right with the country, we only disagree with the best way of resolving issues.
Also, I should say that there are many points within the DLC Democrat Oath that I agree with. I only disagree with the dogmatic way that it was labeled an oath. To me it implies that any disagreement with any of the points constitutes disqualification in the Party. It would have been much better if it were presented as a current platform, rather than something deserving of allegiance or a code of belief.
Finally, Exorcism is probably too strong of a term, Marginalized is a better one. If I start declaring that certain people aren’t allowed in a party, I might as well write my own oath. But certainly these groups should be recognized for what they are by their agendas and spoken against regularly especially by even minded members of their own party. It is not always better for a party to show a unified front.