Granted, I do write for myself, which is why I get very few comments - if any - that would be a rare form of schitzophrenia, wouldn't it? But I bloviate way too much and most of the time probably cause people's eyes to bleed....
So, copied from Patum Peperium, here is a great quote: "The story as I was told it is that in the early years of her prime ministership, Margaret Thatcher held a meeting with her aides and staff, all of whom were dominated by her, even awed. When it was over she invited her cabinet chiefs to join her at dinner in a nearby restaurant. They went, arrayed themselves around the table, jockeyed for her attention. A young waiter came and asked if they'd like to hear the specials. Mrs. Thatcher said, "I will have beef."Yes, said the waiter. "And the vegetables?""They will have beef too."
While we have that "fawning vegetable" from the press today over "dear leader", I daresay that he doesn't have the wit to actually comment on it! What I wouldn't give for an "Aw Shucks" type approach of Sarah Palin in the office.....
Friday, March 27, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
The problem with Republican Politics
Quick - off the top of your head, name five Republican Leaders......a million different combinations and permutations, but the connotation of "Leader" should be significant. For me, I came up with Reagan, Teddy Rooseveldt, Lincoln, Gingrich and Nixon.....others might include Eisenhower, or there may be a Hoover...but does anyone throw either President Bush in as a Leader? Granted, emotions are high these days and I am sure that 20 years from now, the view of "W" may be different, but there is one stark difference between both Presidents' Bush and the other leaders....and that may be substance.
Before I get skewered, let me explain - I follow all sorts of things across the political spectrum. About half the time John Stewart pisses me off and I have to change channels, but that anger is worth it because when he turns his focus on his own party the results are magical. I have never bought the collected works of Doonesbury, but I can still laugh at his jokes - most of the time. It has taken me a while, but I am starting to come around on his characterization of Bush 41 however....
The empty form characterized by the father in the earlier and the Roman Helmet in the latter speak volumes towards this characterization - empty suits looking for a cause, a meaning, or a voice. I am loathe to slam on either man personally - I voted for both, and hold shaking Bush 41's hand at my graduation from Annapolis as a personal highlight. But the problem may not be too little marketing, but too much.
When challenged, both men relied on collected beliefs and core instincts. We saw the "real" Bush 43 on the pile of rubble, shirt sleeves rolled up, megaphone in hand after 9/11. Honestly, can anyone really see Algore doing anything so convincing, or presidential? How about John Kerry? In either case, the only danger our enemies may have been in would be in trying to escape the extreme lethargy brought on by spending any more than three minutes of listening to them speak. Even with Bush 41 - many thought the "1000 points of light" were a gimmick in an attempt to leave a legacy or find a voice. But that was the real Bush 41 - he was "kindler, gentler" in the best of Dana Carvey homages. He honestly was trying to appeal to the humanistic side of the country. We see this as well in 43's "compassionate conservative" speeches. The problem is the same that every politician who tries to govern from the center finds - One cannot be violently or passionately "moderate". Granted, there are a few idiots out there that prefer to blow $1.99 a minute to call into a pay-per-vote poll only to answer "not sure"....but for those of us in the real world, we think, we believe, we act. And we should have no time, nor quarter for those that do not want to engage the enemy.
We say that the GOP is the party of Lincoln, the party of Reagan. By saying so, the GOP makes a vain attempt at invoking the names of past leaders in a plea for votes. Yes, Reagan and Lincoln are our history - but HOW did they become our history? Lincoln abandoned the Whig party for lacking the spine to denounce slavery. As a fresh face to the new political movement, he took the beliefs in constitutional limitations and the fight against the autocracy consistent with the Whig views of Jefferson and from his own time Daniel Webster and Henry Clay and molded the beliefs that ALL men are created equal - adding the anti slavery plank to the platform, molding from it the core beliefs of the then-newly formed Republican Party.
In his own time, our national consciousness doesn't awaken to Ronald Reagan's legacy until 1980, but there is so much evidence of his passion and his war as a footsoldier in the political trenches well into the early 60's. Yes, the man was a master at communication and acting - but instead of having some spin meister take that as an asset and try to feed him lines that would play in a focus group, Reagan took his core anti-communist beliefs and his God-given abilities to battle. He wasn't a great leader BECAUSE he was a great communicator - quite the contrary. He was a great leader because he LED - communication and acting were tools that he used to bring his beliefs and visions to fruition.
Which brings me full circle to where we are today. Much is made in the past week of John Stewart and Bill Maher using their comedian's "bully pulpit" if you will to slam the opponents of Chairman O. Andrew Breitbart appeared on the latter's show and documented the slings and arrows received in the Washington Times -http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/16/my-real-time-with-bill-maher/. The line in his article that resonated with me the most was "People who have never turned on Fox News or tuned into Rush Limbaugh have strong and defiant negative opinions about those outlets. When one tries to reason with them or call them out when acknowledging they watch and listen to neither, they become emboldened by their admitted ignorance. "Why would I listen to that racist, sexist, homophobic, fill-in-the-blank claim of cultural prejudice?"
He goes on to argue that fighting the good fight and appearing in the face of the absurd is a win regardless of what people say. I tend to agree to that - as a first step - engage the enemy and determine the political landscape. But FAR more importantly is the core of the problem of the GOP. There are many footsoldiers in this battle, looking for a flag to rally around. Thanks to the state of today's focus-group centric view of politics and the echo chamber gauntlet that every candidate must run through flawlessly, spotlessly, without any hidden errors or mistakes from years past is ludicrous. (Keep in mind Ronaldus Maximus was a divorced actor, former Democrat with a B-list repetoire of chimp movies....but he had a vision and beliefs)
Which, roundabout brings me to my title - our failure as a party to attract more voters and win elections has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the legacy of both President Bushes', with failure in Iraq (even though we are succeeding!!!), nor with the state of the american electorate. It has everything to do with a dearth of leadership. Romney has core beliefs and executive experience, but was willing to sacrifice those beliefs to make "progress" as governor of Massachusetts. Huckabee has core beliefs and a weekend show on Fox News to show how "folksy and down to earth" he is - but some of his views and beliefs take the party off of the rhetorical "moral majority" cliff. In either case, I think that they miss the point - our roots lie in limited government and maximized opportunity. Limited government can't be compromised in any way - from a historical perspective the Defense of Marriage Act is just as indefensible as the Anti-Flag burning amendment movement of the late 80's, as is the current movement to restrict gun ownership. Limited government means LIMITED government - we have no right imposing religious views on those persons who act in ways that we don't agree with. We also have no right to assume every gun owner is a bad day away from shooting up his or her neighborhood. Where we must draw the line is simple - in the battle flag that flies from every Naval Ship currently - Don't Tread on Me. When the actions of an individual or group are imposed upon those of someone else is the proper role of government.
Granted in viewing today's society, Lincoln would be shocked and immediately have a stroke, and many of our forefathers would be in tears. But isn't that the role of society to handle? If government is limited and loosens the shackles of regulation, isn't it the role of churches, youth groups, communities and corporations to renew their "personnel resources" and to provide personal service? THIS is Bush 43's "compassionate conservatism" - he just tried to accelerate things by having Government try its hand.....
Leaders lead - we don't need conservative activists. We don't need focus group communicators that are eloquent teleprompter readers. Who cares about looks - I need someone with passion, a fire in their belly that is ready to return us to the party of Jefferson, Lincoln and Reagan. Belief in the amazing abilities of man and the promise of a place in that shining city on a hill. I want someone with a damn backbone to stand up and in the words of the Irish Brigade - the Fighting 69th at Antietam.... "Raise the Colors, boys! Follow Me! Charge Bayonets! Forward March!"
http://www.sixtyninth.net/gpage3.html
Before I get skewered, let me explain - I follow all sorts of things across the political spectrum. About half the time John Stewart pisses me off and I have to change channels, but that anger is worth it because when he turns his focus on his own party the results are magical. I have never bought the collected works of Doonesbury, but I can still laugh at his jokes - most of the time. It has taken me a while, but I am starting to come around on his characterization of Bush 41 however....
The empty form characterized by the father in the earlier and the Roman Helmet in the latter speak volumes towards this characterization - empty suits looking for a cause, a meaning, or a voice. I am loathe to slam on either man personally - I voted for both, and hold shaking Bush 41's hand at my graduation from Annapolis as a personal highlight. But the problem may not be too little marketing, but too much.
When challenged, both men relied on collected beliefs and core instincts. We saw the "real" Bush 43 on the pile of rubble, shirt sleeves rolled up, megaphone in hand after 9/11. Honestly, can anyone really see Algore doing anything so convincing, or presidential? How about John Kerry? In either case, the only danger our enemies may have been in would be in trying to escape the extreme lethargy brought on by spending any more than three minutes of listening to them speak. Even with Bush 41 - many thought the "1000 points of light" were a gimmick in an attempt to leave a legacy or find a voice. But that was the real Bush 41 - he was "kindler, gentler" in the best of Dana Carvey homages. He honestly was trying to appeal to the humanistic side of the country. We see this as well in 43's "compassionate conservative" speeches. The problem is the same that every politician who tries to govern from the center finds - One cannot be violently or passionately "moderate". Granted, there are a few idiots out there that prefer to blow $1.99 a minute to call into a pay-per-vote poll only to answer "not sure"....but for those of us in the real world, we think, we believe, we act. And we should have no time, nor quarter for those that do not want to engage the enemy.
We say that the GOP is the party of Lincoln, the party of Reagan. By saying so, the GOP makes a vain attempt at invoking the names of past leaders in a plea for votes. Yes, Reagan and Lincoln are our history - but HOW did they become our history? Lincoln abandoned the Whig party for lacking the spine to denounce slavery. As a fresh face to the new political movement, he took the beliefs in constitutional limitations and the fight against the autocracy consistent with the Whig views of Jefferson and from his own time Daniel Webster and Henry Clay and molded the beliefs that ALL men are created equal - adding the anti slavery plank to the platform, molding from it the core beliefs of the then-newly formed Republican Party.
In his own time, our national consciousness doesn't awaken to Ronald Reagan's legacy until 1980, but there is so much evidence of his passion and his war as a footsoldier in the political trenches well into the early 60's. Yes, the man was a master at communication and acting - but instead of having some spin meister take that as an asset and try to feed him lines that would play in a focus group, Reagan took his core anti-communist beliefs and his God-given abilities to battle. He wasn't a great leader BECAUSE he was a great communicator - quite the contrary. He was a great leader because he LED - communication and acting were tools that he used to bring his beliefs and visions to fruition.
Which brings me full circle to where we are today. Much is made in the past week of John Stewart and Bill Maher using their comedian's "bully pulpit" if you will to slam the opponents of Chairman O. Andrew Breitbart appeared on the latter's show and documented the slings and arrows received in the Washington Times -http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/16/my-real-time-with-bill-maher/. The line in his article that resonated with me the most was "People who have never turned on Fox News or tuned into Rush Limbaugh have strong and defiant negative opinions about those outlets. When one tries to reason with them or call them out when acknowledging they watch and listen to neither, they become emboldened by their admitted ignorance. "Why would I listen to that racist, sexist, homophobic, fill-in-the-blank claim of cultural prejudice?"
He goes on to argue that fighting the good fight and appearing in the face of the absurd is a win regardless of what people say. I tend to agree to that - as a first step - engage the enemy and determine the political landscape. But FAR more importantly is the core of the problem of the GOP. There are many footsoldiers in this battle, looking for a flag to rally around. Thanks to the state of today's focus-group centric view of politics and the echo chamber gauntlet that every candidate must run through flawlessly, spotlessly, without any hidden errors or mistakes from years past is ludicrous. (Keep in mind Ronaldus Maximus was a divorced actor, former Democrat with a B-list repetoire of chimp movies....but he had a vision and beliefs)
Which, roundabout brings me to my title - our failure as a party to attract more voters and win elections has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the legacy of both President Bushes', with failure in Iraq (even though we are succeeding!!!), nor with the state of the american electorate. It has everything to do with a dearth of leadership. Romney has core beliefs and executive experience, but was willing to sacrifice those beliefs to make "progress" as governor of Massachusetts. Huckabee has core beliefs and a weekend show on Fox News to show how "folksy and down to earth" he is - but some of his views and beliefs take the party off of the rhetorical "moral majority" cliff. In either case, I think that they miss the point - our roots lie in limited government and maximized opportunity. Limited government can't be compromised in any way - from a historical perspective the Defense of Marriage Act is just as indefensible as the Anti-Flag burning amendment movement of the late 80's, as is the current movement to restrict gun ownership. Limited government means LIMITED government - we have no right imposing religious views on those persons who act in ways that we don't agree with. We also have no right to assume every gun owner is a bad day away from shooting up his or her neighborhood. Where we must draw the line is simple - in the battle flag that flies from every Naval Ship currently - Don't Tread on Me. When the actions of an individual or group are imposed upon those of someone else is the proper role of government.
Granted in viewing today's society, Lincoln would be shocked and immediately have a stroke, and many of our forefathers would be in tears. But isn't that the role of society to handle? If government is limited and loosens the shackles of regulation, isn't it the role of churches, youth groups, communities and corporations to renew their "personnel resources" and to provide personal service? THIS is Bush 43's "compassionate conservatism" - he just tried to accelerate things by having Government try its hand.....
Leaders lead - we don't need conservative activists. We don't need focus group communicators that are eloquent teleprompter readers. Who cares about looks - I need someone with passion, a fire in their belly that is ready to return us to the party of Jefferson, Lincoln and Reagan. Belief in the amazing abilities of man and the promise of a place in that shining city on a hill. I want someone with a damn backbone to stand up and in the words of the Irish Brigade - the Fighting 69th at Antietam.... "Raise the Colors, boys! Follow Me! Charge Bayonets! Forward March!"
http://www.sixtyninth.net/gpage3.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
