I'm going to make some disclaimers before formally starting this post that are aimed at mitigating any sort of anti-Republicanism that my respected colleagues might garner from reading what is below. I'm a registered Democrat. My values and politics are aligned most strongly with that party more so than with the Republicans.
This is so even in the face of the fact that I grew up in Ohio, had friends that owned guns, and have voted Republican in the past. Yes, you heard that right. On top of that, I voted for George W. against John Kerry. What makes me Democrat is that I don't cling to religion very strongly and I'm a minority (which some may argue shouldn't matter, but it does realistically).
So, in essence, I'm not some bleeding heart liberal who detests George W. Bush because it is the popular thing to do. Think of me more as a pragmatic center leftist who believes in social equality and the power of the free market. I am, despite my self loathing(but accepting my fate as time progresses), more Bill Clinton than Ted Kennedy. What I am not is some self indulgent populist who thinks the Republicans are evil and should be vanquished across the River Styx.
All that being said, the GOP, for all its tradition and successful leadership of the past (during the Cold War, not the past 8 years) has become a hub of hypocrisy in American politics.
They are the party that has convinced the American people that the Democrats are big government socialists who are willing to take away your rights, mainly Second Amendment ones, at the drop of hat. However, they are the same party that has increased government spending, bloated the deficit, and has overseen the biggest truncation of civil liberties in the history of the United States with the Patriot Act. They allow possession of firearms but allow the authorities to arrest you under charges of terrorism and tap your phone conversations with no evidence.
What choice to the Democrats want to take away from the American people? What rights are they curtailing? If the possession of firearms are on the same fundamental plane as the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, then the people of this nation have a lot more introspection to do. If conservatives want to control the media, then its all right as long as people in rural American can keep their guns? Is it also alright, then, to limit the choice a woman has during an unwanted pregnancy? Is it in the spirit of Democracy to say that a victim of rape or failure of contraception MUST have the child?
And isn't it impressive that the party that always seeks to maintain its images as the one that protects America is the party that has lead to a policy that makes us seem weak and feeble? Sure September 11th was a national tragedy on an unprecedented scale. And sure the war in Afghanistan was completely warranted. But what about the rest of our foreign policy decisions during the Bush years? We've acted more like a cowering bully who was finally confronted by the kid he was oppressing. We took our bloody nose back to our house, cried to our mommy, and came back with a blinding fury.
Hardly appropriate for the nation which claims to be the great savior of a superpower in a troubled world. The "beacon of light" against an "axis of evil", if you will. All this has led to continuous unilateral action that has alienated our nation on the international scene and diminished our relevance in international affairs. Bush's policies have completely ignored history and turned our nation into a tyrant in the eyes of the world instead of the gentle giant that Kennedy, Kissinger, and Reagan had built.
The Republican hypocrisy goes further than policy making. It goes into election battles as well. Why is it alright for Republicans to question the service of a Democratic candidate when their own candidate dodged a draft? And why is it that only Republican presidents would be strong enough to lead in the face of adversity. Both World Wars were presided over by Democratic presidents and during the hottest flash point of the Cold War, a Democrat went toe to toe with the Chairman and bought the world from the brink of nuclear war. Hell, the only nuclear weapons ever detonated in battle were ordered by a Democrat.
They shouldn't have a monopoly on national security because they didn't do anything to earn that reputation. Reagan was a great speaker but his policies were hardly responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. The United States knew, in the 60s with the Long Telegram, that the Soviet model for economic development was unsustainable. Therefore, all that needed be done was contain the empire. But somehow the Republicans ride this false legacy, and the Second Amendment, into making the American people believe in their supposed machismo.
John McCain is running for president on the fact that he was a soldier in the Vietnam war and was held in captivity for five years. The Democrats are too soft to attack this platform (with the exception of General Clark) and the Republicans have become masters at pulling the strings for this type of candidate. Let me ask you conservatives this: what does being a POW bring to the table in terms of being the president of the United States? I'll answer that for you: very little. Sure we should honor his service and sympathize with his imprisonment, but does that mean we should give him the most powerful executive position in human history?
Simply put, getting shot down in battle is not a ticket to the White House. It doesn't give him any of the executive experience he claims to have. Senator Obama doesn't have much executive experience either, but I'd say he has as much as McCain does. But the Republicans always try to bolster these macho attributes in their candidates because they lack any other back story. McCain can't even use the Internet. He has admitted to not knowing anything about the economy. Would it be appropriate, then, to elect him the leader of the free and globalized world? Yes, the Republicans would say, because he spent 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton about 40 years ago learning how to govern his cellmates.
So, America, if you want to be duped again in to voting for the "most qualified candidate," vote McCain. He knows nothing about economics, doesn't know how to use 21st century technology, and still thinks the Cold War is active. But, he'll let you keep your guns, was a POW for 5 years, cut taxes for everyone making over $200,000 a year, and recreate the Cold War for nostalgia's sake with his League of Democracies.
I mean, who wants a top tier Ivy League graduate with a degree in law and international relations who turned down potentially millions of dollars from Wall Street to dedicate his life to service as their president anyway?
This is so even in the face of the fact that I grew up in Ohio, had friends that owned guns, and have voted Republican in the past. Yes, you heard that right. On top of that, I voted for George W. against John Kerry. What makes me Democrat is that I don't cling to religion very strongly and I'm a minority (which some may argue shouldn't matter, but it does realistically).
So, in essence, I'm not some bleeding heart liberal who detests George W. Bush because it is the popular thing to do. Think of me more as a pragmatic center leftist who believes in social equality and the power of the free market. I am, despite my self loathing(but accepting my fate as time progresses), more Bill Clinton than Ted Kennedy. What I am not is some self indulgent populist who thinks the Republicans are evil and should be vanquished across the River Styx.
All that being said, the GOP, for all its tradition and successful leadership of the past (during the Cold War, not the past 8 years) has become a hub of hypocrisy in American politics.
They are the party that has convinced the American people that the Democrats are big government socialists who are willing to take away your rights, mainly Second Amendment ones, at the drop of hat. However, they are the same party that has increased government spending, bloated the deficit, and has overseen the biggest truncation of civil liberties in the history of the United States with the Patriot Act. They allow possession of firearms but allow the authorities to arrest you under charges of terrorism and tap your phone conversations with no evidence.
What choice to the Democrats want to take away from the American people? What rights are they curtailing? If the possession of firearms are on the same fundamental plane as the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment, then the people of this nation have a lot more introspection to do. If conservatives want to control the media, then its all right as long as people in rural American can keep their guns? Is it also alright, then, to limit the choice a woman has during an unwanted pregnancy? Is it in the spirit of Democracy to say that a victim of rape or failure of contraception MUST have the child?
And isn't it impressive that the party that always seeks to maintain its images as the one that protects America is the party that has lead to a policy that makes us seem weak and feeble? Sure September 11th was a national tragedy on an unprecedented scale. And sure the war in Afghanistan was completely warranted. But what about the rest of our foreign policy decisions during the Bush years? We've acted more like a cowering bully who was finally confronted by the kid he was oppressing. We took our bloody nose back to our house, cried to our mommy, and came back with a blinding fury.
Hardly appropriate for the nation which claims to be the great savior of a superpower in a troubled world. The "beacon of light" against an "axis of evil", if you will. All this has led to continuous unilateral action that has alienated our nation on the international scene and diminished our relevance in international affairs. Bush's policies have completely ignored history and turned our nation into a tyrant in the eyes of the world instead of the gentle giant that Kennedy, Kissinger, and Reagan had built.
The Republican hypocrisy goes further than policy making. It goes into election battles as well. Why is it alright for Republicans to question the service of a Democratic candidate when their own candidate dodged a draft? And why is it that only Republican presidents would be strong enough to lead in the face of adversity. Both World Wars were presided over by Democratic presidents and during the hottest flash point of the Cold War, a Democrat went toe to toe with the Chairman and bought the world from the brink of nuclear war. Hell, the only nuclear weapons ever detonated in battle were ordered by a Democrat.
They shouldn't have a monopoly on national security because they didn't do anything to earn that reputation. Reagan was a great speaker but his policies were hardly responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. The United States knew, in the 60s with the Long Telegram, that the Soviet model for economic development was unsustainable. Therefore, all that needed be done was contain the empire. But somehow the Republicans ride this false legacy, and the Second Amendment, into making the American people believe in their supposed machismo.
John McCain is running for president on the fact that he was a soldier in the Vietnam war and was held in captivity for five years. The Democrats are too soft to attack this platform (with the exception of General Clark) and the Republicans have become masters at pulling the strings for this type of candidate. Let me ask you conservatives this: what does being a POW bring to the table in terms of being the president of the United States? I'll answer that for you: very little. Sure we should honor his service and sympathize with his imprisonment, but does that mean we should give him the most powerful executive position in human history?
Simply put, getting shot down in battle is not a ticket to the White House. It doesn't give him any of the executive experience he claims to have. Senator Obama doesn't have much executive experience either, but I'd say he has as much as McCain does. But the Republicans always try to bolster these macho attributes in their candidates because they lack any other back story. McCain can't even use the Internet. He has admitted to not knowing anything about the economy. Would it be appropriate, then, to elect him the leader of the free and globalized world? Yes, the Republicans would say, because he spent 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton about 40 years ago learning how to govern his cellmates.
So, America, if you want to be duped again in to voting for the "most qualified candidate," vote McCain. He knows nothing about economics, doesn't know how to use 21st century technology, and still thinks the Cold War is active. But, he'll let you keep your guns, was a POW for 5 years, cut taxes for everyone making over $200,000 a year, and recreate the Cold War for nostalgia's sake with his League of Democracies.
I mean, who wants a top tier Ivy League graduate with a degree in law and international relations who turned down potentially millions of dollars from Wall Street to dedicate his life to service as their president anyway?
No comments:
Post a Comment