Sometimes it seems like a bunch of jackasses braying at each other. I don't mind it too much - I'm able to ignore a lot of what I consder to be excesses - I've got no problem with honest disagreement or attempts to persuade. You've got info? I'll listen to it, and judge what you've got to say.
What I've got a problem with are those on the other side who are simply either going "Shut up, I'm smarter than you are and once we're in charge all you lot are going up against the wall!" or those who won't recognize that my point of view is derived from years of observation and thought - not 'kool-aid gulping mantras'- and that if I respect THEM enought to listen and not be insulting to THEIR points of view, they'd better return the favor. They seem to think if they shout loud enough and long enough in my direction, I'll eventually see just how wonderful their position is and vote for their candidate.
Decibel levels don't do it for me. Reasons do. Facts do. Try to yank my chain with emotion, and I'm likely to toss your opinions out the window.
I'm aligned with no party. I vote for who I think will be best for the POSITION - regardless of whether there's a (R) or a (D) behind their names. And negative campaigning DOES have an impact on my thinking - it makes me think the one stooping to it is LESS qualified than the one he's blasting, not more.
In the case of the Presidency - I don't give a damn if McCain's a 'maverick', Hillary's 'progressive', or Obama promises 'Change'. I'm looking at what they're promising, and what plans they've got for delivering. And I'm not positively impressed by a lot of what I see, and negatively impressed by some of it. Address my concerns with reasonable, rational, VIABLE solutions, and you'll get my vote. Promise me all sorts of goodies without any rational way to acheive them, and I'll pass over your name without hesitation.
I've got certain issues I'm concerned with. Winning the war in Iraq. Oil drilling. Tax reform. Social Security reform. I'm not looking for perfection - I'm looking for ideas that can WORK, and I'm not looking for any quick fixes. We took decades to get into this state, we're going to need decades to fix it. Anyone promising a band-aid will cure it all is automatically suspect in my book - and both Hil and Obie are waving the band-aids very hard.
So I'm aready skeptical, because I'm not seeing a hell of a lot of stuff from the left on any of the issues I worry about ... at least, not what I consider reasonable and rational.
This is getting long, so I'll just use the most painful thing right now.. Re oil - how is raising taxes on the oil companies supposed to bring down the price of a barrel of oil on the world market, with China and India drinking more and more? Is THAT the best idea for solving the gas crisis? Is it the cornerstone of a reasonable, rational, domestic energy policy? (BTW, whatever happened to Pelosi's reasonable, rational energy plan?)
No attempt is being made to get more domestic drilling going. No attempt to increase domestic production. No push in Congress to build refineries. (Or anything else, for that matter, regarding energy.) Just... tax the oil companies. So... can any of the marvelously wise 'progressives' out there explain to me how THAT is supposed to INCREASE the supply of oil on the world market, when THAT problem is driving the cost of oil to insane heights?
(Cue crickets.)
As I said - reasonable and rational and VIABLE solutions will get my vote - but they seem to be scarce this political season. Should I instead vote for someone I KNOW won't be able to deliver, because the promises are so nice that I'll be able to forget for a while that the politician has no intention in hell of delivering?
J.
Comments (6)
What do you know about Saul Alinsky? ("Rules for Radicals")
The point is not to find solutions, the point is to find problems. I never heard of him before this election, but both Clinton and Obama were Alinsky disciples. Clinton actually worked with him in her college years, Obama just followed in his footsteps. They are both still following his playbook - so we need to become more familiar with it.
Since it's classic Marxism - oppressor/oppressed - stuff, there's no solution other than complete and total equality. Until that end is achieved, there has to be constant struggle.
There's a very good comment - very lengthy - by Ymarsakar on http://www.bookwormroom.com/
yesterday, I think, that points up many of the "rules" that are clearly recognizable as politics as usual. Obama talks about "change" - what he means is revolution...quiet revolution, but revolution nevertheless.
Ymar's reply is on this article - and the article has a link as well. World Net Daily also has a _lengthy_ article on Alinsky
http://www.bookwormroom.com/2008/05/04/i-bet-theyll-vote-for-hillbama-too/#comments
Posted by suek | May 6, 2008 12:00 PM
Posted on May 6, 2008 12:00
"The point is not to find solutions, the point is to find problems."
And that's what's been wrong for a long time...
J.
Posted by JLawson | May 6, 2008 11:38 PM
Posted on May 6, 2008 23:38
Don't forget about each party's duty to resist the implementation of any solution to a problem proposed by the other party.
otpu
Posted by otpu | May 7, 2008 4:29 PM
Posted on May 7, 2008 16:29
The problem I see, John, is that the Democrats seriously don't WANT to fix problems. Republicans do. So when they propose a workable solution, the Dems shoot it down. The Dems toss up something that doesn't have a chance in hell of actually working, and the Repubs are 'mean-spirited' when they point out that, indeed, taxing certain things more actually brings in less revenue in the long run. (IE - the Luxury tax of the '90s - very 'revenue-negative', and damaged small businesses to boot.)
J.
Posted by JLawson | May 7, 2008 11:13 PM
Posted on May 7, 2008 23:13
Ann Coulter has pointed out the little recognized fact that Republicans tend to fix problems, and then have no problems to run on. Democrats don't fix problems - they just propost solutions that if passed create more problems to fix. I hadn't thought about this - but she's right. It's also part of the Alinsky model...looking for problems. And of course, as long as there are humans, there _will_ be problems.
Posted by suek | May 8, 2008 1:24 PM
Posted on May 8, 2008 13:24
The idea of government is to ensure equal protection under the law for everyone... not 'fix problems'. The federalist formation of government gives the National side its restricted domain to work in and counter-balances that by the States and the People. The People hold the bag on everything, not government, and it is up to the People to find solutions that are agreeable amongst themselves and then make those politically viable. This is done via a process of representative democracy in which the lowest level, being the People, decide which level is best to try and implement social needs.
The basic conception is that problems should be handled at the lowest level possible so as to give the greatest exercise of liberty to all of the People. We forget that it is as this writer put it:
"Some writers have so confounded society with government,
as to leave little or no distinction between them;
whereas they are not only different, but have different origins.
Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness;
the former promotes our POSITIVELY by uniting our affections,
the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one
encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions.
The first a patron, the last a punisher."
That from a little book called Common Sense by Thomas Paine in 1776 a few months before the Declaration was written.
When we start shifting the focus *to* government to *solve problems* we ignore our responsibility to properly sort out and decide which level is actually best suited to handle that. Some is passed off via procedure and law to the various levels, but it is the People that decide upon the representatives who make those laws to perform our will. For this process to come to good ends it must have restriction upon each level of government as government is a *restricter* of liberty and rights, and only a guarantor as a last resort as the People must be the ultimate guarantor and first line of defense to say when government over-steps itself. This Nation was born of a Revolution over *just* those concerns and problems.
I do place process that sticks to the bare minimum of capacity as necessary and good and then seek within that procedural manner to find if there are good solutions. Often there are NONE that government can or should do things about... like education, health care, retirement... and yet we blithely give up liberty and societal capability to government to take over the roles of things we should be doing ourselves via personal responsibility and charity. When we depend on the government to do *good* we are giving the taskmaster an extra lash to use against us. When *good* comes via outright coercion, it is no good at all as it is the capability to do good or evil that makes doing the good worthwhile... while enforcing good is an evil unto itself.
But then I see 'strict constructionism' neither beginning nor ending with the court system, but with the entire outlay of responsibilities dileneated in 1787. And Amendments IX and X ensured that those things we did not specifically give government to do were reserved for the States and the People. Yet I never hear either party talking about *that* these days... instead they want to make government the decider and creator of society. Which will be the end of this Nation as it is founded upon that outlook from Common Sense not from Karl Marx or Saul Alinsky.
Posted by ajacksonian | May 9, 2008 10:02 PM
Posted on May 9, 2008 22:02