The areas where we agree are things like this. George HW Bush was an underrated and unfairly maligned president. Bill Clinton was exceedingly popular and good at uniting the two sides of the aisle (even if what he was uniting them in was sometimes embarrassment at his excessive libido...but I digress). We need leaders with the ability to be centrists.
My biggest disappointment with the Obama administration, for whom I voted with the utmost hope and excitement, based on the "Change" mantra, is that...not much has changed. And President Obama seems largely unable and unwilling to strike a centrist note. He's intent on blaming Wall Street (which includes two of my brothers and one of my sisters in law) for the vast majority of the country's ills, which is...misguided at best. Meanwhile, we have the GOP and the Tea Partiers, launching more and more frequent attacks on things like Women's Health.
What happened to presidents like Reagan and Bush I, who went their entire presidencies without feeling the need to re-address Roe v. Wade, since, you know, the Supreme Court ruled on that one in 1972? What happened to presidents like Clinton, who found a way to work WITH Wall Street, to, what I think we can all agree, were favorable results (You guys, remember the late 90's? Yea, those were awesome.).
The two major parties keep diverging further and further from the center. And because things have been crappy for three plus years now, people cling to that passion in hopes of achieving some cataclysmic change. And in the course of this panic, we've all forgotten that things were better when people could and did work together. Is it too much to ask for a candidate who has charisma AND moderate views? These days, it seems so.
4 comments:
I couldn't agree more!
I identify myself as a conservative, but more and more, I am growing disgusted with both sides of the political aisle. I had hoped that the Tea Party would be the movement that would define the centrist, "silent majority" in the US, but alas, the representatives who identify themselves as "tea partiers" do nothing whatsoever to quell the rumors from the left that they are racist idiotic biggots. Based upon some of the legislation I have seen suggested by such candidates, I'd be hard pressed to disagree (at least with the idiotic and biggoted parts)
Though I did not vote for him, I had hoped that Obama would "change" the name of the game. Change it to "Cooperate for a better tomorrow", instead of "Blame the other party for the drawbacks of today". And don't get me wrong, the Republicans are no better! Its as though Obama hit a brick wall when he got into office. He had all these big changes in mind, and then found out that it just DON'T WORK THAT WAY, pal. Sad!
I honestly have no idea how to fix the current situation, except to express in no uncertain terms, that I will only vote for the candidate who has the most consistent record of working with the opposing political party, and will refuse to vote for a candidate who has voted against legislation not because he disagreed with it personally, but because his or her PARTY did not hold to such a piece of legislation.
Short and sweet, if they don't play well together, vote them out of the sandbox! And don't look at promises, look at performance!
I have been thinking lately that the solution just MAY be a third party that truly is moderate and truly does fall between the two major parties (since, I agree - the Tea Party started out that way but seems to have devolved into adopting more fringe elements of the GOP, making them more extreme and vitriolic). Of course, the problem with THAT is that it would likely take a very long time for such a party to gain any traction. So, I like your idea of focusing only on candidates who can truly cooperate in a non-partisan way. Maybe if more people adopt that approach, change could truly be achieved.
I've been trying to comment on this post for days, finally snowy weather and a sleeping baby allow it to happen! Last week I was out walking with my co-worker in a neighboring town that shall remain nameless, and there were two women demonstrating outside the town's public library. "let's get rid of Obama" was their message. And they illustrated this message with visual aids, one of which was a giant poster of his face...with a Hitler mustache added in. I mean, I'm sorry but I simply cannot take "Obama sucks" messages seriously when they are communicated thusly. If you're attempting to say he's a socialist, ok, surely there are other socialists in history BESIDES EFFING HITLER you can use to make this comparison. Just insane. I had to restrain myself from screaming at these bizzos. Anyway, to tie it back to your post, the lack of civility and embracing of such inflammatory rhetoric just completely undermines the message. There's no quicker way to make me dismiss you altogether than by something as appalling and ridiculous as that particular stunt.
Ugh...HAAATE. I saw some similar imagery featuring W back in the day and I hated that, too, even though I disagreed with so much of what he stood for. Hateful rhetoric is hateful regardless of whom it targets. Blech.
Post a Comment