Sad day, really. The political world was getting all geared up for a regular rhetoric hoedown. The talking points were ready, and history and fact were all limbered up to be distorted past recognition...and then those pesky terrorists had to go and validate everything!
The only question I have is this...how can a political party survive when this is how they behave when a moderate leader of their party (a man who was actually a VP candidate only 6 years ago!) cannot keep the support of his home base, but instead loses to a proclaimed supporter of appeasement and inaction? Its almost as maddening as Mike Wallace's revealed lack of moral conscience...apparently, if a madman is interesting enough, the situation changes.
Here's my real problem; we need a second voice. We need a debate. We need a left to my right. But the people leading today's Democratic party are insane. They have no depth perception...they are shallow and simple-minded fools that attribute everything to greed and believe everything can be solved if only we redistribute enough wealth. They cannot grasp the concept of people willing to destroy the world over an idea! There are strands of the old debate in that thinking, but the problem is the old Left did understand that social reform was only part of the answer: sometimes force is required. FDR got it. Truman got it. Kennedy even got it (to some extent--the Cuban Missle Crisis was his moment in the sun). Carter, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, et al; they don't get it. Some on the right seem to want to embrace Lieberman as if he was the long lost son of the Republican party--he's NOT, but at least he's a balanced Democrat who has a healthy perspective of the way the world is presently. Cutting him out is a message to the rest of the Democratic party--and to the nation: the Liberal Left no longer has a handle on the reality of the situation, and they cannot be trusted with the leadership of this nation. They will allow desperate men enough room to grow until we can no longer challenge them without cataclysmic results.
Beware America. I know I sound dramatic...but this is one of those delicate, dramtic moments in history where the wrong choice in something as trivial as a national debate can cost the world a price too high to pay.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
similar comments are frequently made about the republican party. the US certainly does not have a track record that i'm entirely proud of when it comes to how it deals with countries who piss it off in some way.
what countries would those be? Seriously...what track record demonizes our history? The establishing of Japan and Germany after WWII? The sheltering and rebuilding of the Philippines? What nation "pissed us off" and earned a one way ticket to a black hole?
As for the Republican party...oh, we're diverse my friend. We have extremists--there are always extremes; the difference is, we're not being run by the extremes.
The Left is, and the national debate is suffering for it.
the two biggest ones that come to mind are:
guatemala:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/daily/march99/clinton11.htm
iran: (there's a reason why they call us the "great satan")
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran
and of course, i'm not entirely pleased with how these wars got started:
american revolution (when is rebellion ever "right"?)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War
"send me the pictures and i'll provide the war"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican-American_War
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Incident
and i'm highly skeptical about how the current iraq conflict got started. WMDs indeed... and how did saddam get his power in the first place?
and miscellaneous reasons:
and although my feelings about israel are very mixed, i'm not as supportive of american policy there anymore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_of_the_Americas
although i don't know much on the topic, but the way the US dealt with the american indians was wrong.
now let me just clarify some things. clearly, the US has it's own best interests in mind, economical, political, etc. and i further understand that good things come out of bad things, but it just seems that the US has been super cavalier with regard to it's own power. i mean even in the philippines, i don't remember much -- but the US got the help of aguinaldo et al to help with the spanish american war, and then afterwards promptly grabbed control of the country -- starting a (minor) war when the US refused to recognize philippine independence. but in the long run, the relationship between the philippines and the US has been nothing but positive. but for me, the end doesn't justify the means, even if i happily accept the end given the means.
also, it's worth mentioning that it's a bit unfair to compare the US with ideality, since probably no country ever with significant power has behaved with complete honor. i think the best example today of this is israel compared with its neighbors, who are significantly weaker.
sorry for the rant... i've really been struggling with these realizations recently.
Post a Comment