Today there was a vote on the floor of the Senate to basically cap interest rates on credit cards, the details of which can be found here. Well, in the end the amendment to the wide ranging credit card reform bill, was defeated by a sizable margin, 33-60. This is very disheartening, on several grounds. One, it shows clearly that banks seem to have a strangle hold on Congress, if not on our government at large. Why would all of these Senators, Democrats and Republicans both (although the Democrats voted 33-22 in favor to the Republicans 0-38), vote against against this amendment, when it would seemingly give the American people a direct benefit, and safeguard against the whims of the banking industry?
Whatever reason one could find to justify voting against this legislation, particularly if you're a Democrat, who are supposedly fighting against big business and corporations, there is no justification for doing so, either politically or practically. This legislation, would have benefited the American people and that is it, and would have shown the country that Congress truly is on the side of the average citizen and not the big banks or big business in any way. This would have appealed to populists on both side of the isle, and of course with liberal Democrats who always favor sticking it to the man. But for some reason there are those who still fear those in power of large sums of money, and these people simply are missing the point, they are in Congress to fight for the American people, particularly those hard hit by this recession, not corporate fat cats.
Lastly, there are some who say that they are doing this in order to give the big bill a better shot at passing the Senate when it comes to a vote. While it is important to get legislation passed and not be hyper partisan to the point where it halts progress; however, Democrats can not compromise to the point where they make good bills bad, where the make what could be really effective bills into paper tigers. It is apparent given the Republican party's current state of mind, that it will be difficult to get a good deal of their support on almost any legislation backed by Democrats. Given this, it makes no sense to compromise the party's morals for the sake of bipartisanship, when in fact in the end there is little chance that it will receive Republican support.
In the end these Senators, the 22 Democrats and 38 Republicans, must realize what they were elected for, and stand up for the American people, especially those who can't stand up for themselves, those who are most affected by the seemingly ever increasing credit card rates. Those who have little wealth, are forced to borrow, and buy on credit, whether its for food, payments on their homes, or apartments, or to pay for the never ending amount of bills that need to payed. This is who this legislation affects, and due to the selfish acts of these 60 politicians, Democrats, who I fully support on many other issues, they will suffer and be victims of the system again and again.
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Pennsylvania Senate Race
The Pennsylvania Senate Race in 2010 has generated much interest since Arlen Specter recently switched from the Republican to the Democratic Party. I recently began doing my poll analysis, the method can be seen below, and it seems that Arlen Specter, the blue line, has a large lead over the Republican favorite, and far right candidate, Pat Toomey. Now this data was compiled from polls dating from April 29 to May 6 from the firms, in order, Quinnipiac, Susquehanna, POS, and DailyKos/Research2000. The data shows a firm lead for the Democrat in a state that has been becoming increasingly Democratic over the past decade. Now all of this poll data is based on Arlen Specter successfully securing the Democratic nomination, which is anything but certain. The most discussed contender is Joe Sestak, a Congressman from the state, who had made his interest in the seat known. As of now, Specter is the favorite, and Sestak has not said whether he will enter the race, yet I'm sure many Democrats are hoping he does, for Specter's support among the Democratic base is not particularly strong given his history, which includes 40 years as a Republican. The Research 2000 poll shows this bearing out, where Specters solid support is quite small, particularly compared to his soft support, which may move to Sestak. Either way, Specter leads Sestak 56% to 11%, but given this other information we can see an easy scenario where Sestak could seep up Specter's soft support to a point where he wins the Democratic primary, which is about one year away. So as of the now, the seat seems safe Democratic, the question will be just how Democratic it will be, whether the nominee is Specter or Sestak.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Cultural and Real Politics: Pragmatic Politics and History As We Know It
I just recently finished a class on American Thought Since 1850, and much of what I learned revolves around history and politics and how it is shaped and formed through the stories we as citizens tell about our own collective past. By understanding that history and truth is found in what we say about it, not some transcendental notion, which we will never be able to reach or truly understand, we can get a sense of what we need to do to solve problems and reach common solutions to progress society. I just wanted to throw this out there so its there, and whatever happens, happens.
The United States has been through several periods in history where various types of thought have been dominant and seemed to be most prominent throughout with the intellectual elite and even among those who formulate and shape public policy and the larger, overarching belief of what is right, what is wrong, and what is normative in society at large. Throughout the history of the United States the tenets and ideals found in pragmatism have been some of the central themes in American thought and what many have called a uniquely American way of thinking and approaching problems. However, as with any notion of what is normal and seen as the popular manner of thinking, these beliefs and this style of thought with regard to solving problems have had their low points in the country’s intellectual mores and norms. The question one must ask is whether are not we are still in the point in our collective history where the pragmatic approach to problem solving and political thought is still at a low point or if it has regained promise and significance in our system and within and among the population at large. Richard Rorty in Achieving Our Country discusses this issue and several of the current problems which are a threat to pragmatism and the practical approach to thinking about history and moving forward with regard to engaging and the manner in which persons will face the problems facing America or remain spectators in the political system and opt out of becoming active and involved in influencing policy and politics. In line with this one must come to understand what it entails to be involved and active in politics and how we as a people view politics and history in the United States with regard to what we know and see as true along with how this effects how we act and choose to view and participate government and being an agent of change or choosing not to. By using pragmatism as the lens through which one views American history and practical politics, one begins to see that all which is known and accepted to be true is only so, because there is a collective consensus around these notions that they are the traditions and beliefs around which we have formed our understanding of what it means to be an American and an individual in society.
In order to truly understand the manner in which politics is in America today we must look at the history of the political system and the culture that resides within and outside this system. While looking at this system can provide us with great inside it critical to understand that there are different ways in which one can view this collective United States history that both keeps us together as a people, whether one admits it or not, and defines us as a nation and society both to the individual and the culture as a whole. Rorty’s view of the history of politics in America and how we view this history is described along the lines of objectivity and subjectivity among the American people as we as a whole look back on events and cultural norms in politics. His view is that objectivity in history is basically irrelevant because what history means to us is what it means to each individual. That is while our history is collective, it is formed on a consensus of what society deems to be right or wrong, not necessarily what is objectively, morally right. It may be nice to discuss what is right or wrong, however; what is important and significant is what we believe to be the truth because in most cases it is difficult, if not impossible, to find what the overarching, transcendental truth is with regard to the critical issues facing the nation and society at this time or at anytime in the past or future of the country. In fact, much of the time, all that we know about history is what we say about it, the narrative truths which have been passed from generation to generation, and given their almost eternal and seemingly everlasting nature, they have a great amount of weight in how we view our history as Americans, and how we practice politics in today’s society. Andrew Bacevich reiterated the importance of this notion when discussing the importance of the myth of isolationism in American foreign policy in contemporary American politics, that while the understanding of America’s isolationist past may not actually be true, we continue to perpetuate it because it is what is believed to be true among the vast majority of persons whether educated or not because this story is indoctrinated in our collective past, and it holds great significance. Whether this is true or not, we as a collective have come to a consensus to treat it as true and see it that way, this is what holds significance in our political culture. This way to view and discuss our history and its effects on the manner in which we practice politics today, is a very pragmatic one because we are looking at what is in front of us as a nation and as a people, not some idealized notion of a transcendental truth. In turn, we see this notion actually put into practice in Rorty’s discussion on politics and the current left right divide, and the effects of each ideology’s principles on the American political and cultural system.
In politics today often we are faced with the prospect of either being left or right and having to choose between these two ideologies which are, according to the popular trend, diametrically opposed, particularly, Rorty claims with regard to national pride and patriotism. We in America are lead to believe that only the American political right has the tradition of pride in our nation as it is, and patriotism in the country, and this is in part to the stigma which has encompassed some of the political left, which has been perpetrated since the protest movements which made up the 1960s and the New Left. During this period, as both Rorty and Livingston note, there was a great shift in the way in which people on the left side of the political spectrum began to think about history, culture, politics, government, and society at large. This paradigm shift would change everything for how we as people act as part of a group among other groups and as an individual among other individuals both inside and outside of our self and other identified political group. This has lead many who felt that during this time their efforts and energies went to waste, to feel disgust and a form of self hatred or mockery toward the country and American pride and patriotism in general. Rorty, through analysis of Dewey and Whitman, says that this is manifested in our current public system, where certain portions of the American electorate on the left feel left out and believe that they can not affect the system in any meaningful way. This has caused them to become solely protestors and spectators as opposed to active agents in the process toward progress in achieving an America in which one can have pride. In having this happen, we are left in a form of political stasis for at least a portion of the population where Americans cease to be a changing, progressive society, as society no longer aimed at being the country of the future which it was set out to be according to Hegel. By reaching this point of stasis, which Dewey believes is the worst nightmare for America and its future, the American left is not fulfilling the promise of a pragmatic politics because instead of focusing on achieving results and promoting and advocating progressive policy, this faction of the left is centered on ideals and very strict principles. They have become so radicalized that they can no longer exist within the political structure and believe there is no way to enact progressive policies or practice politics whatsoever.
This departure from a pragmatic view of history and political activity makes itself exceedingly apparent when we view the intellectual urge to solely focus on theory and move away from actual practice. Both Rorty and Livingston discuss this distinction in terms of separating philosophy from practical usage, and the effects on the American population since the 1960s, particularly 1964, with regard to politics, both cultural and real. Now given the fact, that for pragmatic politics to hold true, there has to be real applications and real results, it is of great importance to look at the practical side of this problem, however; by dismissing philosophy we are also choosing between two options which we simply do not have to. That is, it is important for these people on the left to keep the mind set of progress and the spirit of change inherent in their protest, culture oriented politics, yet they must also be aware of the realities presented to them. Livingston’s discussion of the urge to theorize is a way for these people to detach themselves from everyday problems, and from actually having to find solutions. By simply theorizing, discussing, and coming to conclusions, they are able to return to the tradition of the 1960s and focus on cultural politics, removing themselves from the inherent difficulties found in real politics. The key is to not become too radicalized in either tradition, philosophical or practical, and instead use the tenets of pragmatism to delay the choice between revolution and reform. This seems to be the breaking point between Rorty and Livingston, in that, Rorty somewhat dismisses the cultural aspect of our politics today, and in doing so misses a large part of what makes our system tick and forcing us to choose falsely between these two notions of politics today.
While Rorty is correct in saying that in today’s political system, too often people on the political left seem to be ineffective in their use of politics because they remove themselves from the system, he seems to miss the impact that cultural politics can have on real politics both in application and in achieving real policy and legislation in America today. Livingston discusses Rorty’s mistake in Chapter 4 of Pragmatism, Feminism, and Democracy, when he reiterates Lincoln’s quote that, "he who molds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces declarations," noting that to forget this would be to forget much of the history of the American left. Rorty calls the left, the party of hope, and by doing so inherently makes it a party of feelings and a personal sense and commitment to improve relations among people. These feelings run deep in the tradition and in the mindset of leftist politics, and in many instances were born in cultural politics, where individuals begin to identify among themselves and form groups based on race, gender, and economic status, which according to Rorty maybe the only effective use of these politics. However, by forming these groups and interacting among the rest of the polity, there is sympathy and empathy which grows for the fellow citizen and it is due in a good part to the cultural politics practiced today. This is they significance of what is termed cultural or identity politics, that it is a part of our system, and we must find how it can be beneficial to progressing America, and not alienating a large portion of the electorate to a point where they feel nothing can be done and they cease to exist as active political persons, and no longer have agency in the system. I believe that this is the instance in politics and history which we are seeing currently, where there is a meeting of cultural and real politics, and that because of this we are reentering a more pragmatic way of thought which we lost in the 1950s and which was held dormant for many ever since.
By examining both the history and the politics surrounding group identification, we can clearly see that there is and has been a focus of these groups as being the centers of the political world, and the subject to which politicians and cultural leaders focus their attention. This is noted by Cruse in his text The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual and reiterated by Livingston, when he says that America was built on the notion of groups and without this manner of thought we would not have had the great racial strife and competition that has tormented us in many different ways throughout our history. What is essential to realize here which is pointed out in Livingston’s text, is that for these individuals who fight for such cultural causes, the goal of the politics is to change culture and shape society in a way so they are seen and treated as equals within all of society and among all of its people. The real politics that Rorty discusses is form them fleeting if they are not able to change the societal norms and relations in America, and this of course leads to the disgust which Rorty consistently mentions, which in turns forces them to be spectators. Therefore, what becomes needed is for these radicalized groups to maintain there sense of cause, and use it to work to change the American way in a beneficial manner. We need to change the story from one that is exclusive to these groups to one that includes and incorporates them into the solution to solve the problems, political and social, that face America today.
Politics in America today, and particularly on the left, have changed a great deal in the past few years, and with the recent victory of the Democratic Party and Barack Obama and their ability to capture the imaginations, to a degree, of the nation, tells us a lot about the manner in which we view politics. In today’s political tradition, we are looking at both the significance of cultural and real politics to get things done, that is we are rejecting the false choice of deciding between revolution and reform in America. Instead, it seems that there is a reemerging notion we can integrate our cultural politics into an effective real politics, somewhat like the coalition of labor and the intellectual elite in the early part of the twentieth century, which Livingston and others have noted, that formed the pragmatic, real politics centered American left. This coalition was in the tradition of pragmatism, and today we can and are re-imagining this alliance by fusing cultural and real politics to a point where a candidate like Obama can pool the masses of the Democratic Party, particularly the youth, intellectuals, and black populations, all of those former centers of dissent which have made up much of the New Left over the past forty years. By allowing these camps to maintain their political awareness and deeply held convictions with regard to their own identity group along with their idealism to a degree but inviting them into the system, we can practice politics in a manner that truly affects and create real change, in what can be seen as a new pragmatic tradition.
Gender, Racial, and social groups are almost inescapable in the corporate capitalist and socially democratic America we live in today, therefore, it seems near impossible to detach these groups from politics in the country and as such we can not simply remove these identities from having an impact on how we govern and form public policy. Through pragmatism we will be able to reconcile these two visions of the country, reform and revolution, Dewey and Marx, and find a solution that allows America to progress and achieve what the left sees as the necessary goal, an America which allows for equal opportunity and equal results for all people. They key is to get these leftists, re-enchanted in the American civil religion which Dewey speaks of, the America that is greater than us all, and holds the promise of a better future for all of its citizens and all those who come to its shores. Only by accepting that there is a need to be a part of the system to affect change within and without it, can this new pragmatic tradition advance, and will America be able to progress.
The United States has been through several periods in history where various types of thought have been dominant and seemed to be most prominent throughout with the intellectual elite and even among those who formulate and shape public policy and the larger, overarching belief of what is right, what is wrong, and what is normative in society at large. Throughout the history of the United States the tenets and ideals found in pragmatism have been some of the central themes in American thought and what many have called a uniquely American way of thinking and approaching problems. However, as with any notion of what is normal and seen as the popular manner of thinking, these beliefs and this style of thought with regard to solving problems have had their low points in the country’s intellectual mores and norms. The question one must ask is whether are not we are still in the point in our collective history where the pragmatic approach to problem solving and political thought is still at a low point or if it has regained promise and significance in our system and within and among the population at large. Richard Rorty in Achieving Our Country discusses this issue and several of the current problems which are a threat to pragmatism and the practical approach to thinking about history and moving forward with regard to engaging and the manner in which persons will face the problems facing America or remain spectators in the political system and opt out of becoming active and involved in influencing policy and politics. In line with this one must come to understand what it entails to be involved and active in politics and how we as a people view politics and history in the United States with regard to what we know and see as true along with how this effects how we act and choose to view and participate government and being an agent of change or choosing not to. By using pragmatism as the lens through which one views American history and practical politics, one begins to see that all which is known and accepted to be true is only so, because there is a collective consensus around these notions that they are the traditions and beliefs around which we have formed our understanding of what it means to be an American and an individual in society.
In order to truly understand the manner in which politics is in America today we must look at the history of the political system and the culture that resides within and outside this system. While looking at this system can provide us with great inside it critical to understand that there are different ways in which one can view this collective United States history that both keeps us together as a people, whether one admits it or not, and defines us as a nation and society both to the individual and the culture as a whole. Rorty’s view of the history of politics in America and how we view this history is described along the lines of objectivity and subjectivity among the American people as we as a whole look back on events and cultural norms in politics. His view is that objectivity in history is basically irrelevant because what history means to us is what it means to each individual. That is while our history is collective, it is formed on a consensus of what society deems to be right or wrong, not necessarily what is objectively, morally right. It may be nice to discuss what is right or wrong, however; what is important and significant is what we believe to be the truth because in most cases it is difficult, if not impossible, to find what the overarching, transcendental truth is with regard to the critical issues facing the nation and society at this time or at anytime in the past or future of the country. In fact, much of the time, all that we know about history is what we say about it, the narrative truths which have been passed from generation to generation, and given their almost eternal and seemingly everlasting nature, they have a great amount of weight in how we view our history as Americans, and how we practice politics in today’s society. Andrew Bacevich reiterated the importance of this notion when discussing the importance of the myth of isolationism in American foreign policy in contemporary American politics, that while the understanding of America’s isolationist past may not actually be true, we continue to perpetuate it because it is what is believed to be true among the vast majority of persons whether educated or not because this story is indoctrinated in our collective past, and it holds great significance. Whether this is true or not, we as a collective have come to a consensus to treat it as true and see it that way, this is what holds significance in our political culture. This way to view and discuss our history and its effects on the manner in which we practice politics today, is a very pragmatic one because we are looking at what is in front of us as a nation and as a people, not some idealized notion of a transcendental truth. In turn, we see this notion actually put into practice in Rorty’s discussion on politics and the current left right divide, and the effects of each ideology’s principles on the American political and cultural system.
In politics today often we are faced with the prospect of either being left or right and having to choose between these two ideologies which are, according to the popular trend, diametrically opposed, particularly, Rorty claims with regard to national pride and patriotism. We in America are lead to believe that only the American political right has the tradition of pride in our nation as it is, and patriotism in the country, and this is in part to the stigma which has encompassed some of the political left, which has been perpetrated since the protest movements which made up the 1960s and the New Left. During this period, as both Rorty and Livingston note, there was a great shift in the way in which people on the left side of the political spectrum began to think about history, culture, politics, government, and society at large. This paradigm shift would change everything for how we as people act as part of a group among other groups and as an individual among other individuals both inside and outside of our self and other identified political group. This has lead many who felt that during this time their efforts and energies went to waste, to feel disgust and a form of self hatred or mockery toward the country and American pride and patriotism in general. Rorty, through analysis of Dewey and Whitman, says that this is manifested in our current public system, where certain portions of the American electorate on the left feel left out and believe that they can not affect the system in any meaningful way. This has caused them to become solely protestors and spectators as opposed to active agents in the process toward progress in achieving an America in which one can have pride. In having this happen, we are left in a form of political stasis for at least a portion of the population where Americans cease to be a changing, progressive society, as society no longer aimed at being the country of the future which it was set out to be according to Hegel. By reaching this point of stasis, which Dewey believes is the worst nightmare for America and its future, the American left is not fulfilling the promise of a pragmatic politics because instead of focusing on achieving results and promoting and advocating progressive policy, this faction of the left is centered on ideals and very strict principles. They have become so radicalized that they can no longer exist within the political structure and believe there is no way to enact progressive policies or practice politics whatsoever.
This departure from a pragmatic view of history and political activity makes itself exceedingly apparent when we view the intellectual urge to solely focus on theory and move away from actual practice. Both Rorty and Livingston discuss this distinction in terms of separating philosophy from practical usage, and the effects on the American population since the 1960s, particularly 1964, with regard to politics, both cultural and real. Now given the fact, that for pragmatic politics to hold true, there has to be real applications and real results, it is of great importance to look at the practical side of this problem, however; by dismissing philosophy we are also choosing between two options which we simply do not have to. That is, it is important for these people on the left to keep the mind set of progress and the spirit of change inherent in their protest, culture oriented politics, yet they must also be aware of the realities presented to them. Livingston’s discussion of the urge to theorize is a way for these people to detach themselves from everyday problems, and from actually having to find solutions. By simply theorizing, discussing, and coming to conclusions, they are able to return to the tradition of the 1960s and focus on cultural politics, removing themselves from the inherent difficulties found in real politics. The key is to not become too radicalized in either tradition, philosophical or practical, and instead use the tenets of pragmatism to delay the choice between revolution and reform. This seems to be the breaking point between Rorty and Livingston, in that, Rorty somewhat dismisses the cultural aspect of our politics today, and in doing so misses a large part of what makes our system tick and forcing us to choose falsely between these two notions of politics today.
While Rorty is correct in saying that in today’s political system, too often people on the political left seem to be ineffective in their use of politics because they remove themselves from the system, he seems to miss the impact that cultural politics can have on real politics both in application and in achieving real policy and legislation in America today. Livingston discusses Rorty’s mistake in Chapter 4 of Pragmatism, Feminism, and Democracy, when he reiterates Lincoln’s quote that, "he who molds public sentiment, goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces declarations," noting that to forget this would be to forget much of the history of the American left. Rorty calls the left, the party of hope, and by doing so inherently makes it a party of feelings and a personal sense and commitment to improve relations among people. These feelings run deep in the tradition and in the mindset of leftist politics, and in many instances were born in cultural politics, where individuals begin to identify among themselves and form groups based on race, gender, and economic status, which according to Rorty maybe the only effective use of these politics. However, by forming these groups and interacting among the rest of the polity, there is sympathy and empathy which grows for the fellow citizen and it is due in a good part to the cultural politics practiced today. This is they significance of what is termed cultural or identity politics, that it is a part of our system, and we must find how it can be beneficial to progressing America, and not alienating a large portion of the electorate to a point where they feel nothing can be done and they cease to exist as active political persons, and no longer have agency in the system. I believe that this is the instance in politics and history which we are seeing currently, where there is a meeting of cultural and real politics, and that because of this we are reentering a more pragmatic way of thought which we lost in the 1950s and which was held dormant for many ever since.
By examining both the history and the politics surrounding group identification, we can clearly see that there is and has been a focus of these groups as being the centers of the political world, and the subject to which politicians and cultural leaders focus their attention. This is noted by Cruse in his text The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual and reiterated by Livingston, when he says that America was built on the notion of groups and without this manner of thought we would not have had the great racial strife and competition that has tormented us in many different ways throughout our history. What is essential to realize here which is pointed out in Livingston’s text, is that for these individuals who fight for such cultural causes, the goal of the politics is to change culture and shape society in a way so they are seen and treated as equals within all of society and among all of its people. The real politics that Rorty discusses is form them fleeting if they are not able to change the societal norms and relations in America, and this of course leads to the disgust which Rorty consistently mentions, which in turns forces them to be spectators. Therefore, what becomes needed is for these radicalized groups to maintain there sense of cause, and use it to work to change the American way in a beneficial manner. We need to change the story from one that is exclusive to these groups to one that includes and incorporates them into the solution to solve the problems, political and social, that face America today.
Politics in America today, and particularly on the left, have changed a great deal in the past few years, and with the recent victory of the Democratic Party and Barack Obama and their ability to capture the imaginations, to a degree, of the nation, tells us a lot about the manner in which we view politics. In today’s political tradition, we are looking at both the significance of cultural and real politics to get things done, that is we are rejecting the false choice of deciding between revolution and reform in America. Instead, it seems that there is a reemerging notion we can integrate our cultural politics into an effective real politics, somewhat like the coalition of labor and the intellectual elite in the early part of the twentieth century, which Livingston and others have noted, that formed the pragmatic, real politics centered American left. This coalition was in the tradition of pragmatism, and today we can and are re-imagining this alliance by fusing cultural and real politics to a point where a candidate like Obama can pool the masses of the Democratic Party, particularly the youth, intellectuals, and black populations, all of those former centers of dissent which have made up much of the New Left over the past forty years. By allowing these camps to maintain their political awareness and deeply held convictions with regard to their own identity group along with their idealism to a degree but inviting them into the system, we can practice politics in a manner that truly affects and create real change, in what can be seen as a new pragmatic tradition.
Gender, Racial, and social groups are almost inescapable in the corporate capitalist and socially democratic America we live in today, therefore, it seems near impossible to detach these groups from politics in the country and as such we can not simply remove these identities from having an impact on how we govern and form public policy. Through pragmatism we will be able to reconcile these two visions of the country, reform and revolution, Dewey and Marx, and find a solution that allows America to progress and achieve what the left sees as the necessary goal, an America which allows for equal opportunity and equal results for all people. They key is to get these leftists, re-enchanted in the American civil religion which Dewey speaks of, the America that is greater than us all, and holds the promise of a better future for all of its citizens and all those who come to its shores. Only by accepting that there is a need to be a part of the system to affect change within and without it, can this new pragmatic tradition advance, and will America be able to progress.
School's Almost Over
Okay, okay. So I said to myself that I would start doing more of these blogs, but of course I haven't, for two reasons really. One because it was the middle of the semester and that's always busy, but also because I've been pretty lazy lately. So now, as the semester draws to a close, I am once again promising that I will blog and speak my mind, if for nothing but posterity. So starting Tuesday (probably) I will be writing my take on the politics of the news, and see if anyone reads it or comments on it. Until then I have a paper due in 16 hours and i'm only 1/4 of the way done so its on to that.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Republicans Moving Right
Currently, the Grand Ole' Party of Reagan and Bush are in quite a leadership crisis and there seems to be no apparent direction in which the majority of the party wishes to go. There are those who would like to keep drifting farther and farther right both politically and socially. There are also those who would prefer to move more toward the "center" which, following the 2008 election is still to the right of where the country would prefer to be, but that's what political parties do right. Anyway, in between these two poles we find a varied number of positions and outlooks on the significant, and not so significant, issues of the day. This is all normal within a political party, and is to be expected, the problem with the Republican party comes in the infighting we see on a daily basis among different players within the party.
We have seen this search for a leader and direction in significant ways over the past several weeks. The first major difficulty came in the aftermath following the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. While most Republican members in Congress decided to oppose the package (all in the House, all but 3 in the Senate), there were Republican governors who believed the package would be useful for their constituents and their states. This has created much turmoil within the Republican party. What the governors, such as Gov. Schwarzenegger (R-CA), Gov. Crist (R-FL), and Gov. Huntsman (R-UT) understand is that without this money, people will literally suffer. The Congressmen and women who chose to be overly, prinicpled ideologues instead of pragmatic legislators, are doing so to simply please the Conservative zealots, and seem to care little about the actual living conditions of the citizens of this country. This final point also applies to those governors of several southern states (Jindal (LA), Barbour (MS), Perry (TX), Sanford (SC), Perdue (GA)) and Alaska (Sarah Palin!!!), who have decided to put national ambition ahead of their constituents and have decided to reject some of the funds for those who need them the most, the unemployed. The Republicans will have to decide what is more important, their tired ideals or their constituents real life needs. Their decision, as of right now seems to be the former, and if it holds to be true, they will be in serious trouble politically, because with the election of Obama, we saw that the polity wass much more interested in real solutions as opposed to hyperpartisan ideals that alienate rather than bring people together.
This brings me to Rush Limbaugh, the darling of the Conservative wing of the Republican party. He is without a doubt the loudest voice on the right, the problem for the party comes when they must decide whether they listen to him, and he becomes the leader of the crowd, or if he is just another voice. It seems they are choosing the former. Time after time the Republicans are allowing Rush to set the agenda. We see this when they give him the keynote at CPAC, or when the newly elected RNC Chairman has to apologize for benignly suggesting he may be the leader of the party that just elected him as their leader. Rush is the driving force behind modern Conservatism and it seems that the old fashion moderate, intellectual conservative is a dying breed and will continue to be so as long as the Republicans keep pushing themselves farther and farther to the right. By examining any of the speeches at the CPAC (check out CSPAN.org, or watch this Daily Show clip), this shift is evident.
By moving even farther to the right the Republican party will become increasingly marginal and serve only to act as an obstructionist party. Instead of viewing the landscape of the world in which we live and creating policy positions accordingly, given their world view, the Republican party is holding fast to the principals of the 1980s and early 2000s which have lead to the economic crisis we are in now and disregard the dire situation in which individuals and groups find themselves. When a political party begins to disregard entire groups of persons, it will become marginal, and will have a very tough time winning in multiple, non traditionally Republican parts of the country. Furthermore, it will allow the Democratic Party to spread into some traditionally Republican regions such as the mid and upper mid-west (MO, ND, MT), southwest (AZ), and the Atlantic south (SC, GA). We shall see where the Republicans decide to go in the future, however it seems that they are increasingly moving to the right and favor the incendiary language of Rush to the more moderate and pragmatic tones that may actually win an election.
We have seen this search for a leader and direction in significant ways over the past several weeks. The first major difficulty came in the aftermath following the passage of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. While most Republican members in Congress decided to oppose the package (all in the House, all but 3 in the Senate), there were Republican governors who believed the package would be useful for their constituents and their states. This has created much turmoil within the Republican party. What the governors, such as Gov. Schwarzenegger (R-CA), Gov. Crist (R-FL), and Gov. Huntsman (R-UT) understand is that without this money, people will literally suffer. The Congressmen and women who chose to be overly, prinicpled ideologues instead of pragmatic legislators, are doing so to simply please the Conservative zealots, and seem to care little about the actual living conditions of the citizens of this country. This final point also applies to those governors of several southern states (Jindal (LA), Barbour (MS), Perry (TX), Sanford (SC), Perdue (GA)) and Alaska (Sarah Palin!!!), who have decided to put national ambition ahead of their constituents and have decided to reject some of the funds for those who need them the most, the unemployed. The Republicans will have to decide what is more important, their tired ideals or their constituents real life needs. Their decision, as of right now seems to be the former, and if it holds to be true, they will be in serious trouble politically, because with the election of Obama, we saw that the polity wass much more interested in real solutions as opposed to hyperpartisan ideals that alienate rather than bring people together.
This brings me to Rush Limbaugh, the darling of the Conservative wing of the Republican party. He is without a doubt the loudest voice on the right, the problem for the party comes when they must decide whether they listen to him, and he becomes the leader of the crowd, or if he is just another voice. It seems they are choosing the former. Time after time the Republicans are allowing Rush to set the agenda. We see this when they give him the keynote at CPAC, or when the newly elected RNC Chairman has to apologize for benignly suggesting he may be the leader of the party that just elected him as their leader. Rush is the driving force behind modern Conservatism and it seems that the old fashion moderate, intellectual conservative is a dying breed and will continue to be so as long as the Republicans keep pushing themselves farther and farther to the right. By examining any of the speeches at the CPAC (check out CSPAN.org, or watch this Daily Show clip), this shift is evident.
By moving even farther to the right the Republican party will become increasingly marginal and serve only to act as an obstructionist party. Instead of viewing the landscape of the world in which we live and creating policy positions accordingly, given their world view, the Republican party is holding fast to the principals of the 1980s and early 2000s which have lead to the economic crisis we are in now and disregard the dire situation in which individuals and groups find themselves. When a political party begins to disregard entire groups of persons, it will become marginal, and will have a very tough time winning in multiple, non traditionally Republican parts of the country. Furthermore, it will allow the Democratic Party to spread into some traditionally Republican regions such as the mid and upper mid-west (MO, ND, MT), southwest (AZ), and the Atlantic south (SC, GA). We shall see where the Republicans decide to go in the future, however it seems that they are increasingly moving to the right and favor the incendiary language of Rush to the more moderate and pragmatic tones that may actually win an election.
New look following election
While this blog while continue to be used for my electoral predictions in 2009 for the NJ and VA gubernatorial races and the 2010 midterm elections, I will primarily be posting my outlook on news stories of the day, including personal analysis along with possible political implications which may emerge due to the day's events. Also, just to clear everything up, I was not able to complete my electoral predictions for the 2008 election, due to a major screw up on my part in not backing up my file with the bulk of information on it. However in days to come I will post my altered electoral predictions just for pure interest driven purposes. More to come tomorrow (or later if I'm in the mood).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)