Party of two, your table is broken
We can look at numerous examples of this gross neglect and failure on both sides of the aisle. As a Republican, I tend to focus inward on my own party's shortcomings. Several items come to mind, such as the excessive (and growing) budget and trade deficits. Didn't the liberals used to be the 'tax-and-spend' party? I'm not sure that 'cut-taxes-and-spend' is much better. Perhaps those in the federal branch should look to the example set by Gov. Romney of
It has also recently become fashionable for politicians or those in the political arena to state that they were against post-invasion occupation of
Our friends across the aisle are of course no better and in fact worse, since at least the Republicans have a concrete platform of ideas, beyond the simplistic "We're not republicans" mantra of the Dems. The minute someone speaks from a position of principle and breaks with the party, they suffer an enormous, unjustified backlash. Just ask Joe Lieberman and the price he is paying for supporting the
Ultimately, the country would be best served if politicians simply voted based on the principles which caused them to form parties (and get elected) in the first place, rather than simply being beholden to the party itself. Unfortunately, this is not human nature, and is the dark other side of the two-party system.
AddThis
Always sniffing for the truth
Contributors
Links
- Love and Lunchmeat
- Long Island Prepper
- Fredo's Mets Blog
- Continental Sausage
- Human Events
- Maker's Mark
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Newt Gingrich
- NRO
- Pro Ecclesia
- Ralfy's Whisky Reviews
- Red Albany
- Res Publica et Cetera
- Sour Mash Manifesto
- Straight Bourbon
- Taki Mag
- The American Conservative
- The American Spectator
- The Anchoress Online
- The Politico
- The Weekly Standard
- Wild Turkey Bourbon
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(167)
-
▼
August
(18)
- AMSOL "Controversy" Revisited
- Bright and Uncommenty
- 2008 GOP update
- Consumption Tax
- Warms the curmudgeonly heart
- Be Like Mike Pat
- Sir Winston
- Stunning
- Sen. Allen steps in it
- Conceived in the USA, Made in China
- Code Red
- Islamist treason on the home front?
- Kristol a conservative?
- Joe Lieberman (I, CT)
- Rudy Watch: Rudy Giuliani - RINO and CINO?
- In which I choke on my own disbelief
- These are not the Egyptians you're looking for...
- Party of two, your table is broken
-
▼
August
(18)
13 comments:
True. True. This exemplifies what is happening to this country in general. There is no moral fortitude left. The will of this country has faded. Unfortunately our political system has degenerated. Once, those who were well educated and qualified for the job became Senators and Presidents. Now, the only skill required is getting elected. Those that speak their minds (gasp) might offend some people. So instead of taking an unpopular, but logical and just position, politicians take the position that will offend the fewest number of loudmouths. I'm disgusted with it all, but I'm hopeful this once great country that I love will find its way again.
Here's a good example of what I'm talking about. My man Tony Snow gave an unneccessary apology for comment about abortion - http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=16309. The only thing that would hold me back from wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade is that it will probably result in the birth of more liberals.
That's a good point about politics once being a noble field of choice for well educated and qualified individuals, now it is usually only those seeking power or wanting to hear themselves speak. The 24 hour news cycle and incessant demand for "breaking news" does not help the situation you mention about politicians simply taking the most benign, least 'offensive' position, irrespective of whether it is good policy for the country.
I'd like to see politicians take positions and vote as patriots first, small 'c' conservatives second, and big 'R' Republicans third. That's why it was so refreshing to hear Newt recently on Meet the Press.
ManBeast--
Liberals are only mostly dead. Which means they can be reformed.
Aborted children? Thery're all dead. There's not much you can do with all dead.
One of my favorite points in debates with liberals is related to abortion and capital punishment. When I indicate my support for banning abortion and for having the death penalty I state, "at least I'm willing to give a person a chance to live a good life before killing them." It usually leaves them speechless.
I'm not clear that the recent Iraq criticism is a result of our two-party system, or rather of the fickle nature of our elected leadership. If you want to know why the debate wasn't more complete (at least in the public arena) before the Dems voted with the GOP to authorize the use of force in Iraq, just look at the President's approval ratings at the time. No matter how the debate played out, most
Democrats understood that the Executive was going to set the terms of the engagement. They didn't want to be reading their own predictions of failure while American troops were marching into Baghdad.
Why the criticsm now? Same reason. With W's approval ratings at or below 40%, there's no perceived risk of criticizing the President. So rather than a constructive policy and planning discussion up front, there was false consensus in 2002 and useless opposition in 2006.
Would the situation be any better if we had a multi-party parliamentary system? An interesting question.
In a multiparty parlimentary system there is danger of compromising your principles in order to curry an alliance with another party. Just look at the recent elections in Germany and Israel.
Unfortunately there is no easy solution. While multi-party might help on certain items (e.g., presence of strong libertarian group would keep Republicans in check on spending), there is still the risk of "selling out" as noted by manbeast. Multi-party might also lead to decision paralysis, wherein nothing gets accomplished due to legislators mired in 10-way debates, as opposed to just having two options on the table which makes it easier to reach consensus.
In theory the judicial branch, with extended terms supposedly free of political influence, ought to be the closest example of principled decision making. I'd say this is probably historically true, although it's not clear what would be the best model to apply this to executive and legislative branches.
the judicial branch, with extended terms supposedly free of political influence, ought to be the closest example of principled decision making. I'd say this is probably historically true
That's a good one!
Note the use of the relative word "closest", not the absolute "close", for that reason!
I'd be surprised if the evidence suggested that executive and legislative branches have historically been more principled in decision making than judicial. There's a lot more benefit to making politically- or financially-motivated decisions as a legislator than judge. See the recent Congressional debate on "internet neutrality", a farce rightly pointed out by Forbes that will be propagated by Congress as long as they can continue to collect PAC donations from both sides. Just another example...
Net neutrality may well be a farce, but it is a proposal that will do far less harm to our national fabric than the undemocratically determined social policies foisted on us by an imperial judiciary: forced busing, affirmative action, abortion on demand, destruction of free association, civil unions and gay marriage, undermining of property rights (Kelo), banning of prayer in schools, etc.
These examples of court-imposed policy, implemented without majority support, show how powerless we are against a judiciary run amok. And yet the citizens of this nation, with a government nominally created to be run for the people and by the people, have no recourse whatsoever. Whether you call it "principle" or "self-preservation", our elected officials track record isn't nearly as bad.
Part of the problem, of course, is the narrow, secular aims of the legal community. With the top law schools acting as ideological gate-keepers, and cultivating a secular legal culture that lionizes judicial activism, it's simply not a group that I trust with the oligarchic power they have been granted.
Which is why I link to Ave Maria School of Law on the front of this blog. It's one of a few institutions out there that are seeking to change our legal culture from the bottom up.
And yes, I recognize that I've included examples of judicial overreach from both the state and federal level. But the message should be clear.
But this one goes to 11.
I draw a fine distinction in response: while we view those judges who attempt to legislate from the bench as not doing their job properly, or we disagree with their position on the issues, my point is that for the most part I don't think they made those decisions on the basis of some personal political or financial gain. So to fix the problem with the courts, either install judges who share your views, or try your best to weed out those judges who will let their personal views get in the way of doing their job, which is simply to interpret and uphold the law.
The judicial branch is clearly not perfect, but at least it's "pure" in the sense that judges are interpreting the law on the basis of some principle, not just for the sake of the party. I'd like to see all elected officials be as open about where they stand on the issues (like Newt and others), and make decisions solely on what they believed to be best for the country (and not what's best for their political 'career').
Abortion is a great example. How many politicians tip-toe around the abortion issue, in the hopes of not alienating voters, instead of simply coming out and stating their true beliefs. I say state your position, stick to your principles, and then it's up to the people to decide whether or not you represent their views. But at least then you have a much more transparent government, which is what it should be. Today you mostly have elected officials who try their best to avoid taking a position, so they can proliferate debates and keep taking money from both sides, without ever actually enacting useful legislation that helps the country.