|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shouting into the Storm
Rantings, ramblings, observations and musings from the insipid to the sublime
|
|
|
|
|
|
More of Us vs. Them
Sunday, November 09, 2003 :::
Partisan Gap Is at A High, Poll Finds (washingtonpost.com)
This article got me to thinking, why exactly is this the case. I mean, our country is one with a rich history of dissenting and disagreement. Why is it now, in 2003, is there such a tremendous gap in opinion, with a lack of common ground, or even an effort to find common ground.
Well, I for one agree with the Republicans. It isn't Bush's fault. It is all Bill Clinton fault.
Bill Clinton is, and will forever be, the master of the game of politics. And because of that, combined with him being the living embodiment of the liberal 60s generation, the Republican party lost it's mind. Out of this insanity, Newt Gingrinch came to power. And he brought with him the notion that it is not just enough to disagree with your enemy. You must vilify them, crush not only their ideas and beliefs, but the person themselves. Mix in the rise of tabloid cable news shows like O'Reilly, Matthews, Hannity, and their circus freaks of guests like...Oh, I dunno....Maybe this person...And you there you have it.
From my view point, the only way the 43rd person to work in the Oval Office could have won is if they were a grand master and politics as well. Someone with a deft touch, yet a strong central power. Someone who could have brought their own party in line with the idea of non-partisan agendas, or at least mildly partisan. And someone the other side of the isle could trust to not make them look like fools, or force them into ideological votes to screw them during re-election. Neither Dubya nor Gore was that person. Dubya, while I'm sure a nice man who really means well, has all the tact and subtly of a sledge-hammer. And Gore, well, Trent Lott had already said that if Gore won he would do everything he could to keep the toxic tone in Washington the same. Who of the 2000 election year candidates could have forged that middle ground? Maybe McCain, although as an extreme hawk he would have been divisive on the Iraq issue.
So the next question is - who can mend the fences of the current batch? Wes Clark? Please. This guy is a carpetbagger to the Democratic Party. John Edwards? Hasn't been around enough. Dean? I like what he's trying to do, but I think him and Dubya are on the same page when it comes to gentle, subtle messages. Lieberman might, but hey, why not just elect a Republican to the job. I'd say Kerry has a chance. I say this as a supporter of his, but reluctantly. His campaign has veered all over the place, and he doesn't has the pop that Clinton did to really sell his idea of bringing back imagination and a sense of possibility in this county. With the exception of his views on the environment, he is pro-military but pro-diplomacy. The only knock is that people can claim him as a Boston Liberal, which isn't really true is you look at his voting record. Yes, he's a bit of a blue blood, but when the hell did being a part of the "elite" become the kiss of death in this country?
To wrap up, I'm curious to see where we are in 10 years. Will we still being fighting the culture wars of the 60s like we are now? Will look back at this time and consider it an awkward time when we were trying to adjust from the Cold War to whatever is next? I don't know, but something has to give eventually. This isn't a country that I feel particularly proud of these days. And that's a topic for another post, another day.
::: posted by Chris at 1:40 PM
|
|
|
|
