Attacks Relief Plan?
Dubya 2: It's the sequel only a slim majority of us asked for, but it starts Thursday anyway. Advance word: Mandate!
Politics, yes. So's this, excerpted here:
"President Bush came under fire from some social conservatives [Sunday] for saying he will not aggressively lobby the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage during his second term.
Prominent leaders such as Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, and many rank-and-file Bush supporters inundated the White House with phone calls to protest Bush's comments in an interview published Sunday in The Washington Post. 'Clearly there is concern' among conservatives, Perkins said. "
The article goes on to state that, "The president is sensitive to the concerns of social conservatives and has tried to reassure them [since Monday] that he remains as committed as ever to outlawing same-sex marriage, according to White House officials. Privately, some Bush advisers say the president is uncomfortable picking divisive political fights over abortion and same-sex marriage that cannot be won."
Yet pick them the president did 'til Sunday, because for him the fight over these issues was won in November. Fooled me too, Tony, strange bedfellows though we are.
I find myself almost inexplicably disappointed.
Posts
3 comments:
Seeing as the political use of "mandate" is as meaningful as the athletic use of "110%", I agree that nothing of value is stated when a politician claims to have one. However, I think that President Bush won a significant victory and "slim" fails to consider the vote in its full context. The shift in power from the Democrats to the Republicans has been staggering. This is not at all to say that America has become monolithically conservative, what it shows is that the Republican party is more diverse in its ideas. Abortion is a good example as there are many pro-choice Republicans but few (if any) pro-life Democrats even though the country is split pretty evenly on the issue. But this shift has not been idealogically inevitable, its taken strong leadership. That is why Bush's win is not slim, but very broad and significant, if temporal.
And since I love to hear myself type, allow me to pontificate some more...
On the Bush victory I would say that America is significantly individualistic (which means, Mr. Kerry, we don't need to be accepted by Europeans to feel good about ourselves) and overwhelmingly comfortable with religion ("God bless America" and "under God" only gets under the craw of those well outside of the mainstream). Those views, though at times latent, have been reawakened by a vast array of events over the past 5 or 10 years and they are part of a core of traditional American values responsible for making this country great. That is why Bush's win is historically significant and of a more solid standing than Clinton's or Bush Sr's. History will be very kind to President Bush, barring some type of horrible cannibalism scandal in the next term. Please check back in 40 years prepared to post your "you were right" comments to this very blog.
The problem with "mandate" is "mandate" for what. If you listen to W, the nation gave an up or down vote for his policies, and since he won, then the nation supports all of his policies. No time for examining each policy, and its support, just one all in decision, and off we go. Not only is this thinking flawed, except for one person, everyone I know who voted for Bush did so on the don't change leaders during a war basis, while expressing deep concern over the economy, the environment, and civil liberties. This sample would reveal an entirely different outcome somewhere else, but the point is that this percentage allowed Bush's narrow victory. So to claim that he has 51% support of all of his plans is unfounded. As far as the historical nature of his election, keep in mind that US politics has always swung back and forth between conservatism and liberalism. We are in a conservative period. Getting excited about this period is like getting excited that the sun rose. The sun rises, the sun sets. Just as sure as conservative policies are getting the press and attention (good and bad) you can bet that in the future the same will happen with liberal policies.
Same with the "staggering" fall of the Dems. This shift in power should surprise no one. Like everything else the Dems had the power, became bogged down by the alliances needed to hold that power, became bogged down by the dogma that served to get the power, became inefficient and stagnant, and were prime for takeover. The GOP had to get nimble, efficient, and creative and eventually won. This happens in sports, business, and life. While you cannot predict when this happens, you can be sure that it will. The rise and fall of the Dems all has to do with Dem leadership. The Dems have none. As far as the nation and the Dem ideals, look at it this way. The fall of the Dems included winning in 2000, and a narrow loss in 2004. Not bad for a beaten team. Its even more impressive when you consider that the Dems fielded two of the all-time stiffest, most unlikable candidates. The party is not bereft of variety, the leadership is. This is important, you can change leadership, can't change the party. On Abortion, there are in fact, pro-life Dems (like the mighty Kucinich), and if look at other policies like the environment, taxes, war, economy, etc, the Dem tent is pretty big (some think this is why the Dems keep losing, precisely because the party is so varied).
Finally, religion and the US is very hard to gauge. I agree that the US is individualistic, and I think this also applies to religion. If the US is so overwhelmingly religious, then why all the hand-wringing about the loss of religion, and why does it need so much protection for Spongebob Squarepants? Carter was much, much more religious than Reagan, but that didn't help him. My guess is that Clinton has a very complicated relationship with God, but he was a two termer. Kerry seems very religious by he got no cred for it. Also, keep in mind that the religious community originally fought having "In God we Trust" on money. All in all, I find it hard to figure out how much of an impact religion had on the last election. With the War, Terrorism, economy, environment, and Kerry apparently trying to lose, I don't know how to weigh the power of each one.
Finally, again, I want to make it clear that the above is not to say anything like "Bush got lucky," or that he didn't deserve his win. My belief is that the better man and team usually wins. Bush's team ran a fantastic campaign and won. Bottom line. I also hope that Stalin Malone is right and history deems Bush a great President. Its no fun being right, when being right means the it hurts the country.
Anecdotal though it is, The Blogger's point regarding who voted for Bush and why is well taken, as are his election post-mortems. There's a political ebb and flow that's evolutionary, not revolutionary: Republicans in the '90s--emboldened by the Reagan years but embarrassed by George Bush--swept Congress, mistook this as a moral mandate, rallied back with compassionate conservatism, and lost both the popular vote and the Senate within little more than six months. An electoral-college presidency then suddenly became a wartime presidency around which a narrow majority has rallied. I see no historical significance in this, let alone Malone's "staggering" shift (and if my word's no good, there's his: http://www.newt.org/index.php?src=news&prid=935&category=Articles&PHPSESSID=40a9ef0cda7d64d38614cccbf78b5b54 ).
What I saw was what we all three saw and I did: cast a vote for Kerry as I held my nose and hoped for better from any party in '08.
Post a Comment