You make some interesting points. Personally, I think we can trace the destructive partisanship, at least in our era, to the orchestrated campaign that drove Richard Nixon from office. It showed the media, which was overwhelmingly liberal, that they had enormous power, the power to toss a president who had achieved an overwhelming electoral mandate out of office. The next nail in the coffin was the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had become highly politicized in the '60's under Chief Justice Earl Warren, ironically a republican pol. Reagan nominated Bork, a highly influential constitutional scholar but also a conservative and the fight was on. This was the final frontier of partisanship, because judicial appointments, particularly to the Supreme Court, had always been regarded as beyond politics. The campaign against Bork was highly personal and intellectually dishonest, but he was rejected. Another unfortunate bridge was crossed in the contested 2000 election. Close presidential elections were not a new thing. Many thought Nixon had defeated JFK in 1960 and that the democrats had stolen the election through fraud. Nixon refused to contest the matter and graciously conceded. Al Gore was by no means so gracious. He tried to turn a few isolated voting malfunctions into a banana republic coup imposed by a partisan and corrupt florida Supreme Court. No doubt we can expect more of the same this time, no doubt accompanied by large scale street riots if you know who is not elected. Frankly, I have no idea what the solution is. I thought the forum Rick Warrren hosted was a very positive exercise, but I fear it is the exception. I can;t agree the solution is to say nice things about your opponent. If anything, that is getting harder and harder to do as the parties become more ideological. The beauty of our system for a long time was that, except to the pols, it was not terribly important who won. The parties shared broadly agreed upon visions for the country, and the differences were on the margins. Sadly, that no longer obtains. One party is pushing an aggressively socialist redistributionist agenda. The other seems to want to restart the Cold War. Compromise is difficult when there is so little in the way of shared goals.
1)Why no mention of the democrats? You seem to me to be extremely biased in assuming that the right/republicans/conservatives are responsible for literally everything that is wrong with this country. That mentality is much of our problem, not the solution. 2)Unlike you, I feel no obligation to agree with one side, no matter how ridiculous, just because they're on the "team" I voted for. I was referring to much more than the economy. The value of our currency, the open borders and the Mexican invasion, the national debt, the budget deficit, runaway entitlements, decaying infrastructure, the lack of an energy policy and the wealth we're sending to hostile countries, a federal government that has it's nose in every aspect of our lives, a ridiculously complicated unfair tax structure, the complete and utter lack of leadership from either party in Washington.... I could go on but hopefully you get the point. 3) One person or party? Once again that mentality IS the problem. I'm sure you're hoping I'll say Bush and or the republicans so you can creme your panties. Or maybe you're hoping I'll say the liberals so you can obediently jump to their defense. But personally I think most of our problems can be traced directly or indirectly back to our two party system and the lack of congressional term limits. Along with the tax payer/voter. 4)AAA is right, we don't need a civil war. I suppose we could all miraculously come to our senses. I'm just not very optimistic. I don't necessarily hope for such a war. My point was simply that I think in the long run this country would be better off if the majority of us were on the same page. Something that is never going to happen as things are now. Nukes? Let me ask you this, will Russia nuke Georgia? I don't happen to think so, simply because even though they would win the war. Their victory would yield nothing but an uninhabitable waist land. I think a conventional civil war would be serve the purpose.
I believe another valid angle here is to look at stakeholders and how that list changes and evolves. I mean, many years ago, we had the British and the Americans (overlapping populations but two distinct ideologies) and it was easy to tell who is who. The Revoution ended and we became a nation. As the parties worked to define themselves, we had North vs South, the civil war, another set of distinct, but somewhat overlapping, ideologies. Then the parties had the playing field to themselves - Democrat vs Republican for many years, and one could still see two ideologies but it was getting confused: which party was for education? defense? industry? civil rights? To a great extent, they both were. Now, the country is a lot more mature and even more wealthy. Concerns that focused on "can I live with what I can get?" are giving way to interests like "is this the biggest piece of the pie I can get my hands on?" Wealth distribution vs wealth creation. Instead of giving power to the party that makes the pie bigger, give it to the party that will give me a bigger piece of the pie, because, after all, the pie is big enough. It happened to all great Empires over the course of history: Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Spanish, English, etc. It's happening to us as we speak. I lived through, first hand, something similar as it happened to the biggest corporation of its time, the Bell System, AT&T: over the last few years before it almost went bankrupt and was bought out by its old subsidiary, SouthWestern Bell, most executives were much more concerned with who gets the bigger office, than with taking care of the customer and combatting the competition. Then we failed for good. Looking at the top of the country for leadership, where we had Congress/White House before? Now the Judiciary is claiming a lot more power by legislating from the bench and presiding over sessions that allocate power to the supposed leaders of this nation (eg, the legal fight over the Florida mess in 2000.) Who cares "what is "right?" They tell you what is right. Abortion? Gay marriages? Guantanamo? The judges have the answer, screw the elected representatives of the people, and, by extension, screw the people. Over the past few years another player entered the fray: the media, greatly empowered by the Internet and related technologies. You are looking for the next leader of this country? THEY want to decide who it will be, and they will tell you. If you don't agree, then you must be a racist, backward-looking SOB who does not deserve to be taken seriously. Of course, the difference at this stage is that "truth" doesn't matter any more because nothing new needs to be created, just say what you need to say to grab a bigger piece of power. There's yet another powerful player gradually emerging who, I believe, will eventually win for the long run: the multinational corporations. Why are we such good friends with Europe and the Far East? Because these days IBM makes a lot more money there than here. Multiply that by 1,000 and you get the picture. The good news, of course, is that very few of these guys like wars, they'd rather rip you off than rip you up. And that's a good thing, imo. BUT, it's not their time yet, not before the China/India growth has manifested a little more clearly (how big/wealthy are they going to be?) and the energy situation is resolved, probably through the use of renewable energy sources available to everyone. For the moment, imo again, we're fighting the media wars: truth is for sale, they want to dictate who and when and how will run the counrty, and, we, the people, cannot agree on anything because we read/hear/see different versions of the "truth" 24/7.
When I look at a resume, I try to read behind the lines. Reading these resumes, Obama doesn't have government experience, but, he has been a senator. He's a community leader, an established intellectual. His academic creditentials are better than McCain's and I immediately see someone who has worked hard for everything he has have acheived thus far. With McCain I see someone with tremedous experience. However, I see nothing that distinguishes that experience in any extraordinary way - other than his war record, but, we are talking 40 years ago, what has he done lately? Personality wise, Obama is cleary a more powerful presence, which, in my opinion translates into a more powerful leader. You ask if either will be a good president and I say it is a toss up. Based purely on their respective work history.... well, frankly, I don't know who will become a better president because I can't see the future. I know what issues I believe in and McCain is defintely out of touch. I'm not a woman so I can let the abortion thing go. I pay way too much in f--king taxes, but, that's always going to be the case whether I vote republican or democrat. I don't buy this republicans = lower taxes and democrats = higher taxes BS, when you make above a certain threshold it really doesn't matter what party is in charge, you still pay a lot. Taxes and abortion aside, McCain supports a war and further oil drilling. I disagree with both. I want all money spent on education, science and technology. Period. This country is uneducated as a whole - this needs to change immediately. Neither of these candidates have a scientific background, but, of the two, Obama has at least addressed this issue and made some hard "promises" regarding spending my taxes toward scientific advances. In terms of education and science, McCain is out of touch - given he likely when to high school/college in the 50's, he was likely schooled in primarily in home econ and auto shop (kidding) but, I do want someone who has at least an education from the 80's. Too much has changed since the 50's. Overall, if I were running a company, I wouldn't hire a 71 year old. He doesn't represent new knowledge or new thinking. The current way of doing things just doesn't seem to be working, hence, I'm willing to try something new for a few years. Mike
The United States could defeat China, Russia or any of the alleged 'new' powers in about 24 hours. There won't be anyone to challenge us militarily or technologically as a nation for many, many decades to come, if even then. Anyone who claims anything else is just another the 'sky is falling' doomsayer. Some 'pundit' comes along and gains prominence and a following by proclaiming the end of American dominance once every 5 or ten years or so. It's very predictable. I remember all this crap in the 80s about how the Soviet Union could 'steamroll' Western Europe whether we liked it or not, and that they had weapon systems that were so far ahead of our military that we wouldn't have a chance in a direct exchange. At the time, the truth was the USSR would be lucky to direct a warhead within 25 miles of its intended target, while we could get within 15 meters with even our biggest ICBMs. Their tanks, planes and naval ships (you couldn't even hear our nuclear subs, while the propulsion systems on theirs made them sitting ducks) were outdated and outclassed compared to ours, and even their 'elite' infantry was a paper tiger. The truth is that we have weapons systems that are so brutal in their sophistication, we're afraid to even disclose what they can do. What we really need is to focus on rebuilding our schools, labs, fabrication facilities and technological infrastructure so that continuing innovation can occur. Intellectual capital comes from the bottom up, but government has a huge role to play because of market failure in supplying the right infrastructure, which is massively expensive, and that no one entity will supply unless it can reap monopoly profits (why supply the infrastructure so others can 'free ride?').
Re: Obama's Qualifications From Fred Thompson's speech last night at the Republican Convention "...Mr. Thompson ...alluded to [Obama] in saying that John McCain "s respect "around the world is not because of a teleprompter speech designed to appeal to American critics abroad..." And he said the Democrats had picked "a history making nominee," adding that [Obama] is, "History making in that he is the most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President.""
I've stayed out of this Palin discussion primarily because of the complete absurdity of it. I can suppose that she's fine, and loves God, probably the evangelical ilk, and loves kids, has a few, is anti-abortion, as I am. But, come on, don't you think she is simply put in this position because she can easily be thrown under the bus without casualties to any significant, legitimate Republican contenders. I hope that as a Nation we can get past all this extreme evangelical involvement, just for the sake of recapturing a base that has pretty much been decimated over the last few years. Pandering to this group is being done somewhat by both parties, as is the rock throwing about whose preacher is worse than the other. I was sent this little tidbit today. A bit disconcerting. "Also, for this country, that our leaders - our national leaders - are sending [US soldiers] out on a task that is from God. "That's what we have to make sure," added Palin, an evangelical Christian. "That's [what] we're praying for - that there is a plan and that plan is God's plan." Palin, 44, delivered the speech at the church where she has attended services for most of her life. During the speech, she asked those in the audience to pray over another controversial issue - a $30 billion national gas pipeline project she wanted built in Alaska. "I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that," she said. So, we're to pray for God's work in Iraq, and pray for PIPELINES? And then yet another preacher in touch with someone's God. And seems to now which party allows salvation, come on, this is bit whacky don't you think? Ed Kalnins - the church's senior pastor since 1999 - has preached that critics of President Bush will go directly to hell. Although the church took its Web site down yesterday, Kalnins' sermons are widely available on Google video. But, as is always seems here on ET, most have to go with the party line or koolaid or whatever euphenism is called for. I may still be crazy, but I would rather see Americans discuss all this rather than making a decision first, based on the hype from the major parties bullshit. Not much chance of that happening. The same arguments that R used vs. D, now being used by D vs. R. Man, come on. Experience? Qualifications? Dems bring on Biden to offset perceived lack of experience. Reps bring on a complete unknown evangelical to reach a base of some sort. Hammering each other with the same tired old crap. I guess the bad guys really did win, not just with 9/11 but with the whole damn world view. We lanquish in hatred and contempt Red vs. Blue. Man, sure not the America that I grew up with. c
Your post certainly effectively highlights the absurd role religion plays in modern U.S. elections. Thank you.
As opposed to someone who was put in this position for the color of his skin? And then threw his own grandmother under the (racist stigma) bus?
I think perhaps a better discusson point might be to compare VP candidates. The candidates themselves have already been picked. Choosing a Biden, long time Senator with tons of global experience vs. an unknown from Alaska? Whether you agree with the politics of either Obama, Biden, McCain or Palin, the parallels are just simply not there VP wise. The Dems are saying that she was picked primarily in an attempt to energize the evangelicals again, and if it doesn't work, then no real harm done to any viable future Republican candidates. The Reps seem to be saying that somehow she magically appeared on the scene just in time to save the U.S. from liberals. Well, the whole thing is just a bit weird in my mind. Being in the middle, I simply have to say that there are dozens of good solid Republicans that I would rather see as a heartbeat away than this Alaskan governor. She may very well have had her time in the future, but probably not after this fiasco. c