posted
Haven't the losers been gracious? Do you think we would have seen such graciousness if it had gone the other way? I'm not trying to start anything, but be honest: If McCain had won, do you think we'd be seeing an end to the nastiness anytime soon?
I've been looking for the silver lining to having a far-left president with socialist leanings at the same time as a House and Senate firmly in the control of the Democrats, and a few things stand out:
1) I expect to see a more civil conversation in the political discourse. This is not to say that Republicans are at fault for the shrillness and immaturity of the past several years. Quite the opposite, actually.
2) We finally have a black president. I think it is now safe to put away the tired old accusations of pervasive racism in this country. The most egregious race-baiter must admit that only a fraction of the people who voted against Obama did so because of racism, and the anti-racism forces must surely overpower those racists in the spheres of influence and power. Without that to trip us up anymore, we are at least one step closer to civilized dialogue.
3) Finger pointing will generally be in the right direction. For the last 8 years, if anything went wrong in the country -or the world even- GWB was automatically the first person everyone looked to. This gave him too much credit in the first place, but it was also non-constructive. If you want to figure out how to fix a problem, finding the responsible party is an important step. Reflexively blaming the same person eeach time is a hindrance to problem solving.
4) Related to 3; when something goes wrong, who will take responsibility? Loud voices will continue to proclaim that the evil conservatives are culpable in everything that goes wrong with the country, but most of us know that responsibility lies with the crown. The Democrats are wearing it now.
And so when the country wakes up to the fact the mere change is as much a virtue as a canvas is a virtue of the painting on which it resides, we will begin to determine whether unhindered progressive ideology is the cure that this country has needed for so long. I believe that the so-called cure is actually the poison that has been killing us all along. We will know soon if I am right or not.
Each day that we continue to possess the ability to carry on this conversation is a day in which I eat these words. This I will happily do. But I feel that if we were sick before, surely now we lay upon our deathbed.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Haven't the losers been gracious? Do you think we would have seen such graciousness if it had gone the other way? I'm not trying to start anything
You suck at not trying to start anything.
quote:I expect to see a more civil conversation in the political discourse. This is not to say that Republicans are at fault for the shrillness and immaturity of the past several years. Quite the opposite, actually.
This borders on self-parody. "Well, at least now that you guys are in charge, I expect to see more civil conversation in political discourse. Of course that's not to say that it's anyone's fault but YOURS, ha ha ha."
You are a terrible poster.
post #2
quote:Seriously this is the (semi) abridged content of your post:
quote:I'm not trying to start anything, but if we had won you guys would have been totally incivil.
That's the silver lining of this election guys! It's good in a way that you won because you would have been such terrible losers otherwise.
It's a good thing I looked for the silver lining. Now, remember, I'm not trying to start anything. I'm just saying, you know, that it's hard to find anything good about how we just elected a far-left president with socialist leanings.
And think about this. I expect more civil discourse! Now, don't get any wrong ideas. I'm not saying its our fault there was a lack of civil discourse. That was not the fault of us republicans, its the fault of YOU guys! I'm just saying! I'm not trying to start anything!
We just elected a black president, that's good, because it allows us to ignore racism! I'm not trying to start anything! It's just one step closer to rational dialogue.
And I found more silver lining in that I think that this election results in more people pointing the finger at the right culprits, by which I mean ... you guys! I'm not trying to start anything it's just that since democrats are now in power that means that instead of finger pointing in the wrong direction (at republicans) it will be at you guys now, and that's part of finding out how to fix a problem!
And, keeping in mind that I'm not trying to start anything, I am happy because now you will all find out that Obama was just a bunch of empty promises and his campaign really meant nothing and was nothing more than empty platitudes. I'm not trying to start anything guys! ha ha ha ha!
You liberals' so called cure of progressive ideology is actually poison which has been killing our country! I'm not trying to start anything! Lol!
quote:Haven't the losers been gracious? Do you think we would have seen such graciousness if it had gone the other way? I'm not trying to start anything, but be honest: If McCain had won, do you think we'd be seeing an end to the nastiness anytime soon?
Well, first off, who are you referring to when you say the "losers"? Are you talking about McCain, or the room full of people that booed him when he gave a gracious speech about supporting Obama? Are you talking about President Bush congratulating Obama, or are you talking about the cadre of die hards on Conservative blogs and websites howling about how we're all going to die now that Obama is in charge? Do you think we've SEEN an end to the nastiness? The post-election shine is barely over and already there's chatter about doing everything possible to oppose Obama. The rank and file don't mirror your rosy picture. It remains to be seen if the vitriol is really over or not. But do I think it would have been the same if McCain had won? Actually yeah, pretty much. I think the leadership of the Democratic party would have given just as gracious a reception to McCain, Keith Olbermann would have foamed at the mouth and passed out, and the rank and file Democrats would have been shocked and pissed, and then resigned to depression for four years.
quote:1) I expect to see a more civil conversation in the political discourse. This is not to say that Republicans are at fault for the shrillness and immaturity of the past several years. Quite the opposite, actually.
That makes no sense for two reasons. A. The shrillness was in effect while your guy is in office, and you think it'll go away when MY guy gets in office, but somehow it's my side's fault? You'll have to connect the dots there for me. And B. What makes you think that a total collapse in the Republicans' ability to wield national power would make them more pliable on the national stage? They are already all over the news shows saying that Obama "didn't win a mandate", saying it over and over like political rainmen. They're already trying to dampen his power come Innauguration Day. I think for sure some of the rancor on the Democratic side will die down, because anyone can be magnanimous when they wield power, but I don't at all think it is guaranteed that grumpy Republicans booted from the White House will be all too willing to become compliant to what you've described as a "far left president with socialist leanings." Does that sound likely to you?
quote:2) We finally have a black president. I think it is now safe to put away the tired old accusations of pervasive racism in this country. The most egregious race-baiter must admit that only a fraction of the people who voted against Obama did so because of racism, and the anti-racism forces must surely overpower those racists in the spheres of influence and power. Without that to trip us up anymore, we are at least one step closer to civilized dialogue.
Because we elected a black president all the problems are solved? Sheesh. The other day a guy on NPR from western Pennsylvania said that because the economy was bad, he was going to vote for the n*****. He didn't like it, but he wanted to get the economy moving. So we're supposed to wax poetic about the fact that racists care more about their wallets than their prejudice? Huzzah! That's not the end of racism, it's a smokescreen. If anything, now is precisely the time, better than any in 40 years, to confront racism head on, both as a social and economic issue by addressing the long ignored plight of millions of destitute, undereducated poverty stricken blacks (and white) stuck in crumbling schools and in hungry hovels. Some things change, some things stay the same. But the problem isn't gone.
We just took the first step on the next journey, not the last step on the final one.
quote:3) Finger pointing will generally be in the right direction. For the last 8 years, if anything went wrong in the country -or the world even- GWB was automatically the first person everyone looked to. This gave him too much credit in the first place, but it was also non-constructive. If you want to figure out how to fix a problem, finding the responsible party is an important step. Reflexively blaming the same person eeach time is a hindrance to problem solving.
I'm not sure what this means. I think what you mean is that finally people can blame the Democrats for everything, because it was their fault all along and now they'll have no one else to blame since they're in control. Somehow I'm not feeling the love and lack of shrillness that you alluded to in your opening statement. Republicans aren't helpless. They'll still have to be consulted and they will still wield a powerful minority dissension that can block Democratic rule.
quote:4) Related to 3; when something goes wrong, who will take responsibility? Loud voices will continue to proclaim that the evil conservatives are culpable in everything that goes wrong with the country, but most of us know that responsibility lies with the crown. The Democrats are wearing it now.
Well I guess that confirms my guess at what number 3 meant. I wonder, you say that Bush was unfairly blamed for everything, but then when a Democrat gets in power you say that "responsibility lies with the crown." The man isn't in office yet and you're already trying to change the nature of the game? Does it work both ways or are there special rules for Democrats and Republicans?
quote:And so when the country wakes up to the fact the mere change is as much a virtue as a canvas is a virtue of the painting on which it resides, we will begin to determine whether unhindered progressive ideology is the cure that this country has needed for so long. I believe that the so-called cure is actually the poison that has been killing us all along. We will know soon if I am right or not.
Which is funny, because a lot of us think we were doing just fine and dandy under those ideologies until the last eight years of radical conservatism took over and ruined it for everyone. I think you seriously fail to acknowledge the ways in which the Republican party committed a slow political suicide over the last eight years. Nothing has been taken from you; you gave it away.
quote:But I feel that if we were sick before, surely now we lay upon our deathbed.
posted
Samp, it's the same thread. I don't know what happened to your posts, but the deleted ones were a lot more hilarious, especially the "abridged" version of Resh's post. Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do agree with you on Number 3, Resh. Otherwise intelligent people have a tendency to turn into gibbering idiots whent he subject of W comes up. Let's be honest, people, the Patriot Act was sitting around in a drawer in Republican headquarters for a long time. Whatever Republican president was in charge of the next big security crisis was getting saddled with that one.
Like most politicians, he's biggest flaw is in not being great with following up the initial problem. He really looked liked he believed that state and local officials had Katrina under control. But when he found out they didn't, he didn't make them do better.
While I'd have preferred Syria as our big Middle East target, he had a reasonable case for Iraq. But when he hit unexpected resistance, he didn't reexamine his options; he just pushed on until he got his way.
As for the stock market, well, we all knew the CEOs were up to no good and the Boards were asleep at the wheel after WorldCom and Enron and all that. We should have fixed things then; we as a nation should have been marching in the streets demanding that our officials do something. I blame all levels of America for the current meltdown. We knew better.
While I still believe W did the best he could with a series of bad situations, I think it'll be good for everyone to get some distance and perspective. When Obama can't just wave a magic wand and rebuild New Orleans, secure Iraq, save the stock market, and restore every personal freedom while preventing terrorism, I think we'll get actual discourse on the issues and our options.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: 1) I expect to see a more civil conversation in the political discourse. This is not to say that Republicans are at fault for the shrillness and immaturity of the past several years. Quite the opposite, actually.
I think both sides are quite shrill and immature and I expect the shrill and immature to continue as it always has.
quote: 2) We finally have a black president. I think it is now safe to put away the tired old accusations of pervasive racism in this country. The most egregious race-baiter must admit that only a fraction of the people who voted against Obama did so because of racism, and the anti-racism forces must surely overpower those racists in the spheres of influence and power. Without that to trip us up anymore, we are at least one step closer to civilized dialogue.
Although I don't remember the source there was talk for a time about Obama not having slave blood and he is also a descendent of slave owners. We have made progress towards ending discrimination but as Prop 8 has shown we still have a long way to go especially in the black community.
quote: 3) Finger pointing will generally be in the right direction. For the last 8 years, if anything went wrong in the country -or the world even- GWB was automatically the first person everyone looked to. This gave him too much credit in the first place, but it was also non-constructive. If you want to figure out how to fix a problem, finding the responsible party is an important step. Reflexively blaming the same person eeach time is a hindrance to problem solving.
President Bush will be blamed for about the first year and then the wheel will turn and President-elect Obama will be blamed for whatever crisis is going on. The honeymoon period only lasts so long.
quote: 4) Related to 3; when something goes wrong, who will take responsibility? Loud voices will continue to proclaim that the evil conservatives are culpable in everything that goes wrong with the country, but most of us know that responsibility lies with the crown. The Democrats are wearing it now.
The responsibility will be owned by the same people who always own it in politics....The Other Guy... Loud voices will continue to proclaim that the evil conservatives/evil liberals are culpable in everything that goes wrong with the country. Just like it always has been and always will be. A new President is not going to change either side. History will repeat itself again and again only with different footnotes.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Because we elected a black president all the problems are solved? Sheesh. The other day a guy on NPR from western Pennsylvania said that because the economy was bad, he was going to vote for the n*****. He didn't like it, but he wanted to get the economy moving. So we're supposed to wax poetic about the fact that racists care more about their wallets than their prejudice? Huzzah! That's not the end of racism, it's a smokescreen. If anything, now is precisely the time, better than any in 40 years, to confront racism head on, both as a social and economic issue by addressing the long ignored plight of millions of destitute, undereducated poverty stricken blacks (and white) stuck in crumbling schools and in hungry hovels. Some things change, some things stay the same. But the problem isn't gone.
We just took the first step on the next journey, not the last step on the final one.
Major league ++
I would add that polls for a president still place an Arab President and an Asian President significantly lower than a black president. Also, not to marginalize the size of Obama's accomplishment, but the Republicans had almost a perfect storm in the combination of President Bush, Katrina, Iraq, and the stock market crash. It remains to been seen what would occur in a closer race.
Like Lyrhawn said, its a good start but far from a finale.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Agreed. I'll be feeling more confident when we have two "minority" candidates. The odds should be greater for that than constantly having white males run for office; there aren't really that many of them, in comparison. But, then, I've never been that great at probability.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it makes you feel any better, America has a higher percentage of minorities in Congress respective to our population than any other Western nation.
Considering Europe's growing minority population and the conditions many of them are living in (France comes to mind very, very quickly), and their lack of representation in the halls of government, maybe we actually can stop and give ourselves a little pat on the back...but then it's back to work. American gets a bad rap I think for our history. I think too often the focus goes to the fact that we have to struggle to make progress as opposed to supposedly more enlightened nations who just magically got there. But, 1. They're just starting to deal with a problem that we started dealing with a century ago. Let's see how they handle it. And 2. We never seem to get credit for the fact that, rather than let a bad situation fester, we CHOOSE to tackle it and struggle with it, and never get complacent on the problems still ahead of us. There's as much value in the struggle as there is in the culmination of victory.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Haven't the losers been gracious? Do you think we would have seen such graciousness if it had gone the other way?
In general, asserting that others would have acted badly had something else happened is not the height of graciousness.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, I was talking specifically about McCain and Palin, and some their more prominent supporters in the media. This is in comparison to Kerry, Edwards, and Gore in past election cycles.
Lyrhawn, pretty much every point you made -which Mucus gave two (2) plusses- was either missing the mark or attributing intentions that I didn't have. You should go back and try again.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This wasn't what I expected when I read the topic title.
As long as the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west, I suspect that politics will continue to be shrill and uncivil. It has nothing to do with who is in power. It doesn't even have to do with our country and our present situation. Our world has a long and glorious history of nasty politics. At one time, this made me sad. Now, I find it amusing. It's easier to deal with that way.
You see, democrats are socialist left-wing nut jobs.
And republicans are greedy right-wing bigots.
We throw the words around, in many cases demonizing their meaning. We overstate, oversimplify, and create fear of the other side because it is easier than promoting our own.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: For the record, I was talking specifically about McCain and Palin, and some their more prominent supporters in the media. This is in comparison to Kerry, Edwards, and Gore in past election cycles.
Lyrhawn, pretty much every point you made -which Mucus gave two (2) plusses- was either missing the mark or attributing intentions that I didn't have. You should go back and try again.
Perhaps you'd best explain yourself better then, because I think everyone in this thread is misinterpreting you.
Your meaning looked pretty clear to me, but if there's some sort of veiled civility in there that I missed, feel free to point it out to me.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Considering the Ohio shenanigans, it was grace itself. As a matter of fact, it parallelled Sen. McCain's speech once or twice.
And VP Gore went beyond graciousness when he declined to use his position as president of the Senate to allow a contest of Florida's vote in 2000.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Haven't the losers been gracious?[quote]Yes, they have. If this McCain had been the one running for president, I think more people would have voted for him. Too bad that didn't happen.
[quote]Do you think we would have seen such graciousness if it had gone the other way?
From Sen. Obama? Yes, I think it would have; chances are, the speeches would have been very similar. Do you have reason to believe otherwise, given that, according to your later post, we're only discussing the candidates and high-profile supporters rather than the rank and file?
quote:I'm not trying to start anything
This is like starting a sentence by saying "No offense, but . . ." Really, most people use it like some sort of Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card for the rude statement they're about to make -- which is what you're doing here.
quote:If McCain had won, do you think we'd be seeing an end to the nastiness anytime soon?
Given that the headlines on, for example, Rush Limbaugh's website are 1. Obama Recession in Full Swing; 2. Drive-By Fear: Who is Obama?; and 3. The Rahm Emmanuel Theory (w/sub-line "Will Obama eventually be hated in the Middle East") do you honestly think that 'the nastiness' has ended at all?
quote:1) I expect to see a more civil conversation in the political discourse. This is not to say that Republicans are at fault for the shrillness and immaturity of the past several years. Quite the opposite, actually.
I think I get what you were going for here. To use an analogy:
If we imagine that the level of shrillness in political discourse can be represented on a numerical scale from 1-10, with 1 being least shrill and 10 being most shrill, then the average for the two parties will be lower now. I'm betting this is because you think the Rep.s were at about a 3 on this scale prior to the election while Dem.s were at, I don't know, 11 (avg. 7). Now that the Dem.s have gotten what they wanted their number will go down to, say, 7 while the Rep.s will still be at 3 (avg. 5).
While I agree that this would be a more civil discourse, I think you are VASTLY underestimating what the conservative reaction is likely to be (you do know who Anne Coulter is, right?). If anything, I'd expect the two sides simply to switch numbers.
quote:2) We finally have a black president. I think it is now safe to put away the tired old accusations of pervasive racism in this country. The most egregious race-baiter must admit that only a fraction of the people who voted against Obama did so because of racism, and the anti-racism forces must surely overpower those racists in the spheres of influence and power. Without that to trip us up anymore, we are at least one step closer to civilized dialogue.
No, it is not 'safe to put away the tired old accusations of pervasive racism.' Reaching one milestone does not mean the journey is over -- if I were driving from LA to NYC, could I get to Denver and declare that I'd arrived in NYC?
While I certainly hope that anti-racists continue to push any and all racists out of influence, I have absolutely no doubt that it could all be undone if we do not continue on our present course. Race will be a part of our cultural and political dialogue until/unless another division takes its place (nationality, perhaps planet of origin, or maybe, one may wonder, species) -- humans seem to take great enjoyment from sorting other people into groups, and race is no exception. All of this is to say that racism was not magically ended with the election of Sen. Obama, so please do not pretend otherwise.
quote:3) Finger pointing will generally be in the right direction. For the last 8 years, if anything went wrong in the country -or the world even- GWB was automatically the first person everyone looked to. This gave him too much credit in the first place, but it was also non-constructive. If you want to figure out how to fix a problem, finding the responsible party is an important step. Reflexively blaming the same person eeach time is a hindrance to problem solving.
Of course he was -- that is part what it means to be the President of the United States. As Pres. Truman's sign patently exclaimed to all who entered his Oval: "The Buck Stops Here." When it comes down to it, any and all major events that take place during a president's time in office are his or her responsibility, and claiming otherwise is specious at best.
Did Pres. Bush have more of these major events than most presidents? You bet he did -- off the top of my head, he had 9/11, Enron, Afghanistan, Iraq, Katrina (and other natural disasters), and the recent housing/credit bust. But does that mean he should get a free pass because Pres. Clinton had it easier? Not a chance.
We elect presidents to be the spokesmen of our country, the leader with whom we can celebrate in times of joy and behind whom we can rally in times of need. Much as I think I would like him personally, Pres. Bush did not have these qualities; he was not what was needed for the trials of the past 8 years, and as a country we are the worse for it. There's a reason BOTH presidential candidates were running on platforms of change.
To sum up: While other parties may be partially responsible for specific crises (Congress for allowing the invasion of Iraq; Louisiana officials for the preparation for and reaction to Katrina; etc.), the President is ALWAYS responsible.
Now, of course, we get to see if Sen. Obama can rise to the challenge, or if he too will not prove true silver.
quote:And so when the country wakes up to the fact the mere change is as much a virtue as a canvas is a virtue of the painting on which it resides, we will begin to determine whether unhindered progressive ideology is the cure that this country has needed for so long.
With all respect, sir, please excuse me if I think the unrestrained market system and the free-running (one might say it was running amuck, for a time) neoconservative agenda of the past 8 years -- which got us into large military engagements, lost us the goodwill of most of the civilized world, and generally made us poorer and less intelligent as a nation -- isn't something I want to keep trying.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
quote:But I feel that if we were sick before, surely now we lay upon our deathbed.
And this is the greatest glory of this country -- you can believe anything you want to, and I can't stop you. Even more, I don't want to! More than anything else, the legacy of the United States of America will be the ability of a populace to hold and express any opinion without repercussion.
But do not expect me to agree with you, sir. Do not ever expect that.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Where would they move?
Alaska.
Find Todd Palin. Inquire into that organization he was a member of...and presto! The United State of Alaska.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Haven't the losers been gracious? Do you think we would have seen such graciousness if it had gone the other way?
In general, asserting that others would have acted badly had something else happened is not the height of graciousness.
I like you Dag despite the fact that we disagree on most everything. You are a man of integrity! You are both gracious when your side wins and looses.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:JT: Lots of my conservative friends are threatening to move out of the country.
If I thought they'd follow through with it, that would be enough to make me wish Resh was my friend.
Mucus: Where would they move?
I'd say France, just like the liberals in 2004. It was more liberal then, and it's more conservative now. And it will always be beautiful, so there you go.
Some great posts here, in spite of the low quality of my initial post. I wish I was able to follow up in a timely manner.
quote:Christine said: Some really awesome things that I think I agree with 100%, especially the part about being amused.
kmboots, I wasn't thinking about concessions speeches specifically when I postulated a difference between how Republicans have and Democrats would have handled a loss this year, but since that's all we have to go on so far from the losers this year, I guess it's not fair to compare McCain and Palin's concession with everything I could go on concerning Gore and Kerry (and some local politicians that I won't bore you with.)
I do take exception to your statement about how "Gore went beyond graciousness when he declined to use his position as president of the Senate to allow a contest of Florida's vote in 2000," since this is completely untrue and stands in stark contrast to actual history. It's funny, because I still hear the arguments about how if only one last recount was allowed in Palm Beach County, Gore would have won. Sure he would have, if he'd gotten his way! Do you know what he tried to do? Only recount Palm Beach County's votes, not to include the as yet uncounted mail in ballots, and under no circumstances allowing a full recount of the entire state. Because only by getting an accurate recount of that one county as it would have been reported on the very night of the election would Florida have been called for him. It was under this pretense that we came as close as we did as a nation to having the peaceful transfer of power disrupted. You consider that to be beyond gracious?
[edit]Some of my facts may be wrong in the above paragraph, but I'm certain of its general truth. It's been awhile, but I've read of few books/articles that pretty much discredit every argument in favor of Gore having had the election stolen from him. If you believe otherwise, check your sources.
Yes, they have. If this McCain had been the one running for president, I think more people would have voted for him. Too bad that didn't happen.
quote:Do you think we would have seen such graciousness if it had gone the other way?
From Sen. Obama? Yes, I think it would have; chances are, the speeches would have been very similar. Do you have reason to believe otherwise, given that, according to your later post, we're only discussing the candidates and high-profile supporters rather than the rank and file?
Yeah, but just because of the way Kerry and Gore handled their losses. Like I said in my previous post, that's not a fair thing for me to say. So I don't really feel like defending that statement any more than to say that I just feel it to be the case, based in part on various things that could be unrelated but left me with an overall impression that I should expect a lot of trouble if somehow McCain pulled off a miracle.
quote:
quote:I'm not trying to start anything
This is like starting a sentence by saying "No offense, but . . ." Really, most people use it like some sort of Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card for the rude statement they're about to make -- which is what you're doing here.
I pretty much wish I had left that first paragraph out. It was added as an afterthought in the first place.
quote:
quote:If McCain had won, do you think we'd be seeing an end to the nastiness anytime soon?
Given that the headlines on, for example, Rush Limbaugh's website are 1. Obama Recession in Full Swing; 2. Drive-By Fear: Who is Obama?; and 3. The Rahm Emmanuel Theory (w/sub-line "Will Obama eventually be hated in the Middle East") do you honestly think that 'the nastiness' has ended at all?
I should have said a decrease, rather than an end. My main point is that if McCain had won, we'd probably be seeing an even more bitterly divisive, petty, and partisan atmosphere. As usual, I think this would have been mostly the fault of the Dems, since I already blame them for most of the bad air that has emanated from Washington for the last several years.
quote:
quote:1) I expect to see a more civil conversation in the political discourse. This is not to say that Republicans are at fault for the shrillness and immaturity of the past several years. Quite the opposite, actually.
I think I get what you were going for here. To use an analogy:
If we imagine that the level of shrillness in political discourse can be represented on a numerical scale from 1-10, with 1 being least shrill and 10 being most shrill, then the average for the two parties will be lower now. I'm betting this is because you think the Rep.s were at about a 3 on this scale prior to the election while Dem.s were at, I don't know, 11 (avg. 7). Now that the Dem.s have gotten what they wanted their number will go down to, say, 7 while the Rep.s will still be at 3 (avg. 5).
While I agree that this would be a more civil discourse, I think you are VASTLY underestimating what the conservative reaction is likely to be (you do know who Anne Coulter is, right?). If anything, I'd expect the two sides simply to switch numbers.
I mostly agree with you here. I think that the numbers would be want to switch, but our incumbent Republicans are mostly cowards who believe that criticizing Democratic ideals will kill their careers. So they'll all just keep their mouths shut and let the Democrats run rampant.
quote:
quote:2) We finally have a black president. I think it is now safe to put away the tired old accusations of pervasive racism in this country. The most egregious race-baiter must admit that only a fraction of the people who voted against Obama did so because of racism, and the anti-racism forces must surely overpower those racists in the spheres of influence and power. Without that to trip us up anymore, we are at least one step closer to civilized dialogue.
No, it is not 'safe to put away the tired old accusations of pervasive racism.' Reaching one milestone does not mean the journey is over -- if I were driving from LA to NYC, could I get to Denver and declare that I'd arrived in NYC?
While I certainly hope that anti-racists continue to push any and all racists out of influence, I have absolutely no doubt that it could all be undone if we do not continue on our present course. Race will be a part of our cultural and political dialogue until/unless another division takes its place (nationality, perhaps planet of origin, or maybe, one may wonder, species) -- humans seem to take great enjoyment from sorting other people into groups, and race is no exception. All of this is to say that racism was not magically ended with the election of Sen. Obama, so please do not pretend otherwise.
Of course racism still exists. But to use that fact to further political causes is disingenuous at best. Whatever lingering influences of racism persist are surely outweighed by the counter-forces of anti-racism. Here I am postulating that more people were more likely to vote Obama because of his race than the people who viewed his race as a negative. To be more specific, I think that more people either stayed home or voted for McCain for reasons other than Obama's skin color than the people who went out and voted for him with at least some positive consideration of the same. This principle can be generally applied to our culture as a whole, I believe, and so I find it safe to assume that overall, anti-racism is a stronger force than racism. I am not suggesting that we stop trying to root out racism in this country, just that we should stop using racism as a political trump card.
quote:
quote:3) Finger pointing will generally be in the right direction. For the last 8 years, if anything went wrong in the country -or the world even- GWB was automatically the first person everyone looked to. This gave him too much credit in the first place, but it was also non-constructive. If you want to figure out how to fix a problem, finding the responsible party is an important step. Reflexively blaming the same person eeach time is a hindrance to problem solving.
Of course he was -- that is part what it means to be the President of the United States. As Pres. Truman's sign patently exclaimed to all who entered his Oval: "The Buck Stops Here." When it comes down to it, any and all major events that take place during a president's time in office are his or her responsibility, and claiming otherwise is specious at best.
Did Pres. Bush have more of these major events than most presidents? You bet he did -- off the top of my head, he had 9/11, Enron, Afghanistan, Iraq, Katrina (and other natural disasters), and the recent housing/credit bust. But does that mean he should get a free pass because Pres. Clinton had it easier? Not a chance.
We elect presidents to be the spokesmen of our country, the leader with whom we can celebrate in times of joy and behind whom we can rally in times of need. Much as I think I would like him personally, Pres. Bush did not have these qualities; he was not what was needed for the trials of the past 8 years, and as a country we are the worse for it. There's a reason BOTH presidential candidates were running on platforms of change.
To sum up: While other parties may be partially responsible for specific crises (Congress for allowing the invasion of Iraq; Louisiana officials for the preparation for and reaction to Katrina; etc.), the President is ALWAYS responsible.
Now, of course, we get to see if Sen. Obama can rise to the challenge, or if he too will not prove true silver.
Yes, the buck stops there. But Bush was getting blamed for things that were never his buck. This was taken way too far, out of a deranged hate for the man, and the end result was a lessened ability to find solutions to problems.
quote:
quote:And so when the country wakes up to the fact the mere change is as much a virtue as a canvas is a virtue of the painting on which it resides, we will begin to determine whether unhindered progressive ideology is the cure that this country has needed for so long.
With all respect, sir, please excuse me if I think the unrestrained market system and the free-running (one might say it was running amuck, for a time) neoconservative agenda of the past 8 years -- which got us into large military engagements, lost us the goodwill of most of the civilized world, and generally made us poorer and less intelligent as a nation -- isn't something I want to keep trying.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
No it's not. Do you expect 2 sixes every time you roll the dice? Do you expect heads every time you flip a coin? Besides, you are making an either-or argument. If I do not think that Obama's plan is correct, must I automatically approve of Bush's strategy for the past several years? There is an ocean of possibilities between those two extremes.
quote:
quote:But I feel that if we were sick before, surely now we lay upon our deathbed.
And this is the greatest glory of this country -- you can believe anything you want to, and I can't stop you. Even more, I don't want to! More than anything else, the legacy of the United States of America will be the ability of a populace to hold and express any opinion without repercussion.
But do not expect me to agree with you, sir. Do not ever expect that. [/QB]
Please don't! If everyone agreed with me, we'd really be doomed!
Prologue: Kieth Olbermann (of all people) was accusing Chris Matthews of compromising his journalistic integrity for saying something to the effect of needing to show support for the new president (rather than constant and oftentimes unwarranted criticism of the sitting president, something I'm sure Olbermann has no problem with) and Matthews said something I was surprised to find myself agreeing with. He said that as a journalist, he had a duty to help America, and that what this country needs more than anything right now is to be supportive of our president.
You all know how cynical I am, and I don't think he would be saying the same thing if the election had gone the other way. But the existence of a double-standard doesn't make the appropriate attitude incorrect simply because it is not applied evenly. And the trend I have noticed is that even among conservatives, we are hopeful that things may turn out alright, and even if it means tolerating things that are distasteful to us, it may be more important to show some solidarity.
Right now, we are (I am) looking for evidence that our support of a president whose values at times diametrically oppose our own will be rewarded with a stronger nation in the long run. Because I believe I speak for everyone -left, right and center/undefined- when I say that no matter how much we disagree with the direction in which this country is being taken, we do not wish to see it it die.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Right now, we are (I am) looking for evidence that our support of a president whose values at times diametrically oppose our own will be rewarded with a stronger nation in the long run. Because I believe I speak for everyone -left, right and center/undefined- when I say that no matter how much we disagree with the direction in which this country is being taken, we do not wish to see it it die.
But that's not really what you mean, what you mean is that when Obama tanks the country, you want to be able to say you disagreed with it and that your view is and was always the correct view of America. It's the same problem George Bush had when he went to Washington as a uniter and not a divider, he believed that to unite people they simply had to vote and embrace republicanism and conservatism. In that sense, it is a form of intellectual elitism that pervades your argument here, and it is the reason I find it less than genuine when you seek the high road. Genuine humility and fair-mindedness are not fleeting nor are they products of that elitism for which Obama was criticized, they mean something only when motives and beliefs align accordingly.
I could be wrong of course...
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
I used to be fairly liberal, and in my 19-year-old ignorance, I was outraged at how the Republicans stole the election from Gore in 2000. It was the death of Democracy!
Then I joined the Army, and I went to Iraq for a year. Perhaps because of some sort of cognitive dissonance, when I returned I sought out opposing viewpoints and pretty much became an arch-conservative. In many ways I still am, particularly on the abortion issue.
I hate to admit it, but after 4 years at University, I have moderated my views. Well, maybe I shouldn't say that. I have moderated the manner in which I determine the strength of my views. I don't want to go too much into it, but suffice it to say that if after a few years of improvement in this country, and no real disasters, and no real reason to attribute the improvement to something other than Obama's policies, then I promise you all that I will admit that the presence of some fundamental flaw in my reasoning and ideological construct is likely.
The reverse is true. If things continue to go to sh*t and I can't find any reason why left-wing policies are not to blame, then my convictions will be strengthened.
Understand that I recognize that some effects may be completely beyond the new administration's control. It wouldn't be fair for me to recognize how Bush isn't to blame for many of the things for which is blamed for, and then not do the same for Obama. However, I have already reached conclusions that many don't agree with and so I am certainly more likely to assign blame to his policies for things that go wrong.
Of course, you can continue to believe that my attempts at fair-mindedness are just a cover for my intellectual elitism, but we're not going to to get anywhere like that. You could instead just take my words at face value.
[edit] Hold on. Do you think it would be wrong of anyone to point to the myriad disasters that can be directly traced to the Obama Administration's social experimentation and say "now do you see? We opposed this all along, and we warned this would happen! Now will you listen to us?" Because most certainly those will be my words if that scenario comes to pass. Or are you just accusing me of setting the stage for this outcome, and actively hoping for further deterioration of America just so I can be right? You seriously don't think that I'd rather admit to having been wrong all along?
quote:Of course, you can continue to believe that my attempts at fair-mindedness are just a cover for my intellectual elitism, but we're not going to to get anywhere like that. You could instead just take my words at face value.
You know, I could just say I rest my case, but that would just be too easy.
quote:Hold on. Do you think it would be wrong of anyone to point to the myriad disasters that can be directly traced to the Obama Administration's social experimentation and say "now do you see? We opposed this all along, and we warned this would happen! Now will you listen to us?" Because most certainly those will be my words if that scenario comes to pass. Or are you just accusing me of setting the stage for this outcome, and actively hoping for further deterioration of America just so I can be right? You seriously don't think that I'd rather admit to having been wrong all along?
If you oppose something all along, are you seriously giving it a chance? Of course, that's not really my point but it is an interesting question. I don't think you want to see this country fail at all, I think you want it to succeed, but I think you want it to succeed on your terms.
Let me ask you this, let's say Obama institutes all of his policies and we enter a new Golden Age of American power where politicians work together, we solve all our problems, and we get as close to a utopia as possible under 8 years of an Obama Presidency, what would you do?
Because you have already told me what you would do if he fails...
Edited: Better question--Do you even believe that vision of America is possible under Obama?
Posts: 457 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I already told you what I would do. I would recognize that there is something seriously flawed with my outlook/perspective/ideology/whatever.
I believe anything is possible. I don't think that vision of America is possible whatsoever, regardless of the correctness of anyone's policies. That's one thing that I identify as being correct with standard conservatism (indulge me the label;)a more realistic view of government and human nature. But I could be wrong. I know from bitter experience that I am 100% certain to be wrong about some things right now. Some miraculous outcome of Obama's policies would help me determine what those things might be.
Interesting question though, about giving something a chance when you have opposed it all along. Although at this point I have no choice but to give a Leftist American government a chance. So we'll see, and honest to God I'm hopeful that I'll be proven massively wrong.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I already told you what I would do. I would recognize that there is something seriously flawed with my outlook/perspective/ideology/whatever.
You know, I've never really found arguments all that intellectually interesting when it comes to politics. To me, motives and agenda are what make a person interesting, more so than anything because we have heard the tired arguments on both sides before. We have heard Michael Moore stand up and say that he gave President Bush a real shot, we can read or hear about Rush Limbaugh and his love for his country--well not really love for his country, just those red parts of it that agree with him--, and the like, but motives are what make people interesting and give meaning to the world. In that sense, it is about humanity and about how interesting our own nature truly is as we evolve.
You told me that you would admit the presence of a flaw in your logic, you claim that you are open to the idea that Obama might not destroy this country, and that sounds all well and good but then you claim you have no choice but to do so and that you hope to God you are wrong. Being intellectually honest and maintaining a degree of open-mindedness are virtues to be valued, they are moral imperatives that are meaningful only when they are strictly and rigorously applied, and that's why partisans are none of those things. And if you have no choice, if you pray to God, and if you fail to admit that something "might" happen (not that something will happen, but that something might happen), then you do not have any claim to "intellectual honesty" or "open-mindedness".
In the end, you hope you are wrong but you know you are right, and that is the basic problem.
posted
Is that such an uncommon attitude to have? Hoping against your better judgment that things will be different? I imagine you hope that I am actually sincere in my desire to see everything turn out all right even if it means my own personal reduction. But you know your hopes run contrary to what you actually know to be true about me.
quote:Being intellectually honest and maintaining a degree of open-mindedness are virtues to be valued, they are moral imperatives that are meaningful only when they are strictly and rigorously applied, and that's why partisans are none of those things.
How certain are you of this? Because there is a lot wrong with this statement. Why are they only meaningful when strictly and rigorously applied? Most, probably all, people fall short of perfection in this sphere. Do you include yourself in the small, elite group of people who manage to maintain open-mindedness and intellectual honesty?
If you do, surely you claim this virtue as a trait that allows you special insight which defines for you certain groups of people who reveal their lack of the same through various statements/acts/ beliefs. If not, how can you make any judgments as to who is in fact a possessor of these qualities?
Even though you use the word yourself, you neglect to include the concept of "degrees" of open-mindedness and intellectual honesty in your assessment. Furthermore, you deny anyone with partisan leanings (also a matter of degrees) the capability to possess said virtues. I think you should look a little harder for the flaws in you reasoning and reassess your conclusions.
[edit] At any rate, to say that "if (I) have no choice, if (I) pray to God, and if (I) fail to admit that something "might" happen (not that something will happen, but that something might happen), then (I) do not have any claim to 'intellectual honesty' or 'open-mindedness'" is a conclusion that has nothing to do with the premises.
Especially considering the fact that I never failed to admit that something may or may not happen. I said I don't think something will happen, but I also acknowledged that I've been wrong before and I know and even hope that I may be wrong again. So again, take another look at your reasoning before you start denying my claims to virtue that you yourself must possess in order to deny them in me. It's a bit tacky.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
