Well, after a long absence because of the first couple of weeks of teaching, I'm back. I was going to start of with something humorous, but supergoober has forced my hand and I will talk politics. Don't worry, this will not be just another neocon rant, I am actually going to list a number of my pet peeves about political discourse, including the judgemental attitude that supergoober had in his last blog - and, yes, it was angry and judgemental my friend, I am sure you realize that, but I believe that your assessment of politics and your die hard belief that centrism is the right way sort of misses the point.
There are points where compromise is the best, as a way to advance any ideology. The problem with this is that with incompatible arguments, compromises generally just piss off both sides. The classic example is the partial birth abortion bans that have been bandied about many legislatures for many years. The process is reprehensible to most pro-lifers and pro-choicers as it involves inducing labor on a 7 to 9 month old fetus, forcing a breach birth, and essentially stabbing the unborn child in the back of the head to scramble the brain and kill it. This has to be done while the head is still in the birth canal, because otherwise it would be considered infanticide. It is a rare procedure as there are not many doctors willing to do this (that any are in anything other than the most extreme circumstances makes me worry a bit) and as it is extremely dangerous and traumatic for the mother as well. The compromise that virtually all pro-life people are willing to make, even in politics, is when the life of the mother is jeopardized by the pregnancy. For the ardent pro-choice candidates, the political move is to try and replace life with health - lowering the standard to the point of absurdity - people have made the argument that pregnancy itself is a health risk (which is true) and so any term abortion can then be justified, effectively nullifying any compromise. To compromise to this point is anathema to the pro-life person and would not make sense to most Americans who fall somewhere between the two extremes were it ever explained this way. However, the pro-life people are cast as obstructionists who are unwilling to compromise in this situation.
Which leads me to my next pet peeve - compromise is always defined as conservatives moderating their beliefs and agreeing with liberals. It is frequently the Republicans who are accused of gridlock, and the Democrats are "sticking to their principles". In actuality, much of what supergoober wants is Republicans to abandon their principles - this is the definition of bipartisanship - Repubs moving over to the Dem position. If you look at it as actual motion to compromise, McCain has a great track record of reform and compromise, while Obama has never compromised on anything. I am not really in favor of either; many of McCain's compromises did not match my personal views, and I feel that he may have done some of those deals to get face time on the news and garner personal popularity.
As to supergoober's indictment of Palin's pleas to ignore Obama, I would agree with him if she said that (as I have said, I didn't hear the speech). I think that more people should listen to Obama critically (not in terms of criticism, but in terms of critically thinking). One would be hard pressed to find any actual policy stance on anything. He vacillates from one opinion to another, saying what needs to be said at any given time to appease whatever crowd he is in front of. He hesitates to be pinned down on anything for fear of alienating voters, and if he continues he will end up losing the election. Voters have classically voted for the person they think is honest and standing on their principles - that is leadership. People will vote for someone with actual vision, not banal platitudes. If Obama wants to get elected, all he has to do is elucidate his actual vision and not the bland rhetoric that is ultimately undefinable. It really is his election to lose, and if he continues in the current vein, then lose he will. The experience thing is not an issue, the authentic leadership is what may damn him in the eyes of the 10 percent of voters who actually decide the election.
The first bell for class has just rung, so I will continue this post later today.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Abortion issue-point taken.
Re. your saying we accuse the Right wing of gridlock and praise the left for "sticking to principles", I certainly don't agree. The left pisses me off EVEN MORE SO than the right re. gridlock (and I'll give you a dozen examples when I see you next) Re. principles and how the left believe that they should hold to theirs and that the right should relent, NO. That is NOT how I see things. Re. aspects in health care and welfare, I am decidedly inverted.
Prof., you really need to youtube her speech. I thought it was well written and perhaps I'm making to much of it. I cannot imagine you watching that speech and not getting creeped out a bit.
Okay, to help you out a little, just imagine if you saw a Matt Gonzalez of the Green Party get up at the DNC talking about how we should respect a homeless persons choice to be homeless, or that we should eliminate inheritance, that we should ban SUV's and allow only Hybrid cars into the market, and that McCain followers were all a bunch un-educated simple-minded folks easily manipulated by the top 5%....thats how it was for me.
She is proudly and unabashedly a "Small town girl" with "small town values" (her own words). They are innocuous and certainly endearing to other small-town folks, but when you combine that with her book banning creationist record, you realize you're dealing with an Evangelical...and if you actually need me to detail my apprehension about this because you can't fathom why you or I or anyone might feel that way or have anything to fear...no, I KNOW you know how I feel.
The thing is Prof., and I know you know this about yourself, you are not your typical garden variety conservative. You are a rational, open for discourse and debate sort of guy. And you accept people, no, CARE about people regardless of their beliefs. I am spoiled with you as my conservative friend. But you have to agree that while your beliefs have been formed and cemented from gathering knowledge and critical thinking, you know in your heart, that most Evangelicals don't go the route you've taken. They are blinded by their faith, and feel compelled and god-granted in their work to mold the world into their narrow vision or a moral society. I know, I can hear you know talk about Leftist thinking and its religious nature, so THERE you understand my apprehension.
I absolutely agree with you on the religious nature of the extreme left and the extreme right, and I wasn't saying that the sticking to principles line was yours; that was more of a comment on the perspective of most media outlets currently, mainly because the left is much more savvy in their manipulation of media in terms of legislation. The right is much more adept at utilizing the media to illustrate that their more extreme views resonate with middle America (this isn't entirely true, but they are very adept at manipulating the media to make it appear that way). Ididn't mean to imply that this was your belief, i just used it as a springboard to leap into another topic. Sorry if I offended (this is an actual sincere apology, not a snide sarcastic comment - damned internet not being able to read tone). See you tomorrow.
Furthermore, re. human industry's influence on global warming, I must say, you more than anyone have gotten me to reconsider my position...a testament to how much I respect your intelligence. But it doesn't mean we should go ahead and piss on the environment.
If the counter argument is truly about NOT shackling growth and being mindful that our environmental regulations should NOT BE at the expense of diminishing our American industries' ability to compete globally, then SAY SO. There is where you will find compromise among fair minded politicians and their intelligent constituents.
There are billions if not trillions to be made globally by going green...but our industries and policies are positioned poorly to take advantage. I know that emerging and/or oppressed nations out-compete the US partly due to their lax attitudes re. environmental issues. But they out-compete us for many other reasons apart from environmental regulations. We have them all beat to shit if we were to offer a "green" (I know you hate that term) option in the global marketplace...and our economy CAN DO IT if we were better positioned. We already know that Chinese products not only SUCK but are dangerous relative to American products. We CAN be mindful of our environment AND be economically successful...they are not mutually exclusive.
How's that for centrist...hehe
BTW, you HAVE to remove this irritating word verification crap on your comment box.
See you tomorrow.
Post a Comment