Forgive me for specifically referring to somewhat current events—hopefully someone will be able to straighten me out—but I actually question the premise that change is likely to come from within one of the two major parties. Not that I'm counting on Ralph Nader either, I've just been disillusioned by the entire political process.
I still consider myself a republican—but I've recently come to believe that party leaders, both “Democrats” and “Republicans”, don't actually believe in a democratic republic. That is, I question the amount that the public has an impact on government . Are the people really considered at all except to what point our votes can be manipulated to achieve the voting outcomes that favor our establishment? Why are Iowa and New Hampshire first in the primaries—why not a state with a large population like Florida, New York, or California? Are they more tractable? I am in awe of how much the Republican and Democratic primaries appear to have fallen in line the way that establishment would like. The Guilliani-Romney-Huckabee-McCain media courting timeline, the superdelegates, etc.
In fact, I've begun to question how different the two parties really are—a friend of mine pointed out to me that from a global perspective (compared to other nations' parties), the two parties are very similar. “Compasionate conservativism” and “fiscal conservativism” are the new bywords of the GOP rather than just plain conservative and “social progressivism” seems to be used by the “liberal media” to describe the democratic party. I don't see as much difference in the two parties as I used to think I saw: 2 sides of same coin, keeping things going the way they are.
I do agree with Jesse in that people affiliate themselves with a party and accept the policies canned, which is why I agree that it would only make sense to me to discuss politics point by point rather than by parties.
Our NV GOP caucus was a farce, by the way:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/apr/27/ron-paul-campaign-dominates-convention/ links to this (poorly written, but amusing): http://www.dailypaul.com/node/47172
Incidentally, I did follow the Ron Paul campaign—I think that while it may result in little presently, it brings to light the growing discontent with our politics.
I am interested in the Judicial department. Roberts and Alito have both been interesting to me—I'd be curious to see what you Legal types would have to say.
2 comments:
Hi Paul! You're a smart guy. I liked hearing what you wrote. I thought about it today and my reply is that Presidents can change a lot of things while in office, don't they? Bush has changed our country in some pretty significant ways, mostly notably the Iraq war, which I kind of doubt we'd be in if he wasn't the President. Doesn't the run-up to the war seem like a classic example of manipulating public opinion and governing in campaign mode? Or is that liberal blabber that I've been brainwashed with?
Ryan:
The following is maybe too concise for clarity, but I can't give it any more time.
I didn't intend to imply that the government doesn't do/change something. In fact, they do a lot and change a lot more than I wish. I do think the US president is one of the most powerful people in the world. I think that Cheney/Bush/Haliburton have done a lot to change the world.
And while I'm not entirely sold on the pre-war misinformation/public opinion manipulation, I do believe in media, poll, and public manipulation. (Read Bias by Bernard Goldberg for the tip of the iceburg).
Post a Comment