Text 17638, 101 rader
Skriven 2006-01-30 08:56:42 av BOB SAKOWSKI (1:123/140)
Ärende: Interesting comment
===========================

I should apologize – I feel like excessive bitterness and Machiavellianism
have been creeping into my writing lately. Perhaps it's just in the air –
even mild-mannered Kevin Drum seems a bit more snippy of late. I started
thinking about this after reading a comment over at SA by Paul
(co-proprietor of Political Spectrum) observing that I had become
Machiavellian lately. I think he’s right – and so the least I can do is
explain what's causing it (and I think it's a widely-shared sentiment
across Left Blogistan).

I have never of course been a big fan of the White House or the GOP
leadership. But for some reason, things are annoying me a lot more these
days. It's more than just disapproval of this or that policy. It's a more
general exasperation and dejection that’s been eating away at me. I look
around and I honestly disagree with almost every aspect of the way our
country is being run.

But it's more than that – I'm also having a harder time these days
(probably unfairly) having patience for those who continue to support the
White House and the GOP leadership (i.e., a majority of the country – at
least measured by the only poll that counts, the ballot box). I've always
hated this quality in liberals, but now I'm starting to catch the fever
too. And I don't like it, but there it is.

So help me out here. I'd really like my conservative readers to answer this
simple question – what is the argument in favor of the GOP these days?
What’s the affirmative case? Is there any reason other than that Democrats
would be worse? Help me – because I just don't see it. When I look at the
GOP leadership and the White House, I don't see one thing that I approve of
– especially on "big picture" issues. I mean, seriously, what are they
doing well?

Small government? Please. Limited government? The unitary executive is
really consistent with that part of conservative philosophy. Lower taxes?
The GOP isn't cutting taxes – it's shifting taxes to future generations.
Anytime tax cuts cause the sort of structural deficits we have, they’re not
really tax cuts. Good domestic policy? Rx drug bill. Katrina. National
security? I just can't see how anyone makes this argument with a straight
face after seeing how the Iraq war and occupation were planned and
executed. And that's not even counting the authorization of torture, which
is the most morally disgusting action by our government in the post-WW2
era. And then you add in corruption, the K Street alliance, the payment of
journalists, the appointment of cronies to important administrative
positions, and the more general disregard for policy – and you get a
government that is an utter and absolute failure (miserable even).

To borrow from Mr. Rove, it's a government that seems deeply and profoundly
and consistently wrong.

This NASA thing was sort of the last straw for me. I mean, here we have an
overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is serious and that
it may soon be irreversible. If we do nothing, well, you’ve heard about the
parade of horribles that could happen. This isn't some hippy vegan thing.
This is life-and-death stuff (for our kids anyway) and mankind needs to get
serious about it (see, e.g., Collapse). But of course, pitted against the
ecology and well-being of the planet earth are the needs of GOP corporate
donors. The result – a NASA scientist is muzzled from talking about the
need for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. And this was the kicker
that sent me to the kitchen to find the appropriately-sized frying pan for
my head:

More recently, NASA officials tried to discourage a reporter from
interviewing Hansen for this article and later insisted he could speak on
the record only if an agency spokeswoman listened in on the conversation. .
. . But Mary L. Cleave, deputy associate administrator for NASA's Office of
Earth Science, said the agency insists on monitoring interviews with
scientists to ensure they are not misquoted. "People could see it as a
constraint," Cleave said. "As a manager, I might see it as protection."


I really don't like being this shrill, but why shouldn't I be shrill?
There's no even remotely plausible justification for this (or the
administration's global warming position more generally).

So again, because I need help, I'll ask the question: For those who
continue to support this administration and leadership, why do you do it?
What is it that earns your continued support? You gotta throw me a bone
here, because I don't see it. I want to, but I can't. Are the Democrats
really so bad that their badness justifies supporting what we’ve seen? I
just don’t see it.

And so that brings me back to my Machiavellianism. I don't particularly
like being associated with a party, and I’ve never really wanted to be
blindly loyal to a party in the way that, say, Kos is. But at this point –
I guess I'm ready to try. I so thoroughly reject practically everything the
government is doing right now that I just want them out. Any branch will
do, but some other party has to get veto power somewhere. And so, for 2006
anyway, I just want someone else to win. And whatever the Democrats need to
do to win one branch, then that’s what they should do. They can't be worse.

I also think that if the GOP lost a branch of government it would be good
for everyone – Democrat and Republican alike. Maybe it would make the
Republican leadership take policy (or their own philosophy) seriously
again.

But until then, I remain

Bitterly Yours,
Publiu
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)