- Jul 5, 2010
- 15
- 0
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Engaged
- Politics
- US-Republican
Important as they are, our political divisions are the iceberg's tip.
My comment: This does not make sense to me. Our political divisions are important and yet they are leading America to its icebergs tip. That seems like saying, This cancer is killing me, but it is an important part of who I am. Maybe I am reading too much into that first line. It just seemed a bit illogical.
When pollsters ask the American people whether they are likely to vote Republican or Democrat in the next presidential election, Republicans win growing pluralities. But whenever pollsters add the preferences "undecided," "none of the above," or "tea party," these win handily, the Democrats come in second, and the Republicans trail far behind. That is because while most of the voters who call themselves Democrats say that Democratic officials represent them well, only a fourth of the voters who identify themselves as Republicans tell pollsters that Republican officeholders represent them well. Hence officeholders, Democrats and Republicans, gladden the hearts of some one-third of the electorate -- most Democratic voters, plus a few Republicans.
My comment: This is the rock and the hard place of American politics for me. When left with two choices, Republicans or Democrats, Republicans are the better choice. Yet, as this article goes on to point out, when given other choices they often win out in polls with the main two choices finishing neither first nor second. A political climate that fosters viable candidates from multiple parties would be most desirable. I have really become a fan of the Constitution Party the more I read about it. My main problem with them is their seeming weakness when it comes to supporting freedom around the world both for moral reasons and as a means of proactive self-defense. I also know that a vote for a candidate from a party without much notoriety and the backing to get them across the finish line is an unofficial vote for the greater of two sometimes-shabby choices like those that we had in the 2008 presidential campaign. That is not to say that I am ashamed of being a Republican. There are times where I get frustrated with them enough to say that when they abandon their conservative principles in favor of taking abipartisan approach. Nonetheless, the Republican Party is still my party of choice for me right now. As Ronald Reagan said in his 1975 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) speech, Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?(Let them go their way on March 1, 1975) I know that those who have taken that leap and chosen to vote for third party candidates would object and say that the reason why there is not a viable multiple-party system today is precisely this kind of thinking. They do have a point, which is why I still ponder the idea of joining a purer conservative party that does not abandon principle for expediency. However, right now I remain a Republican in hopes that conservatives will win the battle for the soul of the Republican Party and return it to its conservative roots. That is the only way it will achieve long-term electoral success.
This means that Democratic politicians are the ruling class's prime legitimate representatives and that because Republican politicians are supported by only a fourth of their voters while the rest vote for them reluctantly, most are aspirants for a junior role in the ruling class. In short, the ruling class has a party, the Democrats. But some two-thirds of Americans -- a few Democratic voters, most Republican voters, and all independents -- lack a vehicle in electoral politics.
My comment: Amen.
Sooner or later, well or badly, that majority's demand for representation will be filled. Whereas in 1968 Governor George Wallace's taunt "there ain't a dime's worth of difference" between the Republican and Democratic parties resonated with only 13.5 percent of the American people, in 1992 Ross Perot became a serious contender for the presidency (at one point he was favored by 39 percent of Americans vs. 31 percent for G.H.W. Bush and 25 percent for Clinton) simply by speaking ill of the ruling class. Today, few speak well of the ruling class. Not only has it burgeoned in size and pretense, but it also has undertaken wars it has not won, presided over a declining economy and mushrooming debt, made life more expensive, raised taxes, and talked down to the American people. Americans' conviction that the ruling class is as hostile as it is incompetent has solidified. The polls tell us that only about a fifth of Americans trust the government to do the right thing. The rest expect that it will do more harm than good and are no longer afraid to say so.
While Europeans are accustomed to being ruled by presumed betters whom they distrust, the American people's realization of being ruled like Europeans shocked this country into well nigh revolutionary attitudes. But only the realization was new. The ruling class had sunk deep roots in America over decades before 2008. Machiavelli compares serious political diseases to the Aetolian fevers -- easy to treat early on while they are difficult to discern, but virtually untreatable by the time they become obvious.
My comment: This does not make sense to me. Our political divisions are important and yet they are leading America to its icebergs tip. That seems like saying, This cancer is killing me, but it is an important part of who I am. Maybe I am reading too much into that first line. It just seemed a bit illogical.
When pollsters ask the American people whether they are likely to vote Republican or Democrat in the next presidential election, Republicans win growing pluralities. But whenever pollsters add the preferences "undecided," "none of the above," or "tea party," these win handily, the Democrats come in second, and the Republicans trail far behind. That is because while most of the voters who call themselves Democrats say that Democratic officials represent them well, only a fourth of the voters who identify themselves as Republicans tell pollsters that Republican officeholders represent them well. Hence officeholders, Democrats and Republicans, gladden the hearts of some one-third of the electorate -- most Democratic voters, plus a few Republicans.
My comment: This is the rock and the hard place of American politics for me. When left with two choices, Republicans or Democrats, Republicans are the better choice. Yet, as this article goes on to point out, when given other choices they often win out in polls with the main two choices finishing neither first nor second. A political climate that fosters viable candidates from multiple parties would be most desirable. I have really become a fan of the Constitution Party the more I read about it. My main problem with them is their seeming weakness when it comes to supporting freedom around the world both for moral reasons and as a means of proactive self-defense. I also know that a vote for a candidate from a party without much notoriety and the backing to get them across the finish line is an unofficial vote for the greater of two sometimes-shabby choices like those that we had in the 2008 presidential campaign. That is not to say that I am ashamed of being a Republican. There are times where I get frustrated with them enough to say that when they abandon their conservative principles in favor of taking abipartisan approach. Nonetheless, the Republican Party is still my party of choice for me right now. As Ronald Reagan said in his 1975 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) speech, Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?(Let them go their way on March 1, 1975) I know that those who have taken that leap and chosen to vote for third party candidates would object and say that the reason why there is not a viable multiple-party system today is precisely this kind of thinking. They do have a point, which is why I still ponder the idea of joining a purer conservative party that does not abandon principle for expediency. However, right now I remain a Republican in hopes that conservatives will win the battle for the soul of the Republican Party and return it to its conservative roots. That is the only way it will achieve long-term electoral success.
This means that Democratic politicians are the ruling class's prime legitimate representatives and that because Republican politicians are supported by only a fourth of their voters while the rest vote for them reluctantly, most are aspirants for a junior role in the ruling class. In short, the ruling class has a party, the Democrats. But some two-thirds of Americans -- a few Democratic voters, most Republican voters, and all independents -- lack a vehicle in electoral politics.
My comment: Amen.
Sooner or later, well or badly, that majority's demand for representation will be filled. Whereas in 1968 Governor George Wallace's taunt "there ain't a dime's worth of difference" between the Republican and Democratic parties resonated with only 13.5 percent of the American people, in 1992 Ross Perot became a serious contender for the presidency (at one point he was favored by 39 percent of Americans vs. 31 percent for G.H.W. Bush and 25 percent for Clinton) simply by speaking ill of the ruling class. Today, few speak well of the ruling class. Not only has it burgeoned in size and pretense, but it also has undertaken wars it has not won, presided over a declining economy and mushrooming debt, made life more expensive, raised taxes, and talked down to the American people. Americans' conviction that the ruling class is as hostile as it is incompetent has solidified. The polls tell us that only about a fifth of Americans trust the government to do the right thing. The rest expect that it will do more harm than good and are no longer afraid to say so.
While Europeans are accustomed to being ruled by presumed betters whom they distrust, the American people's realization of being ruled like Europeans shocked this country into well nigh revolutionary attitudes. But only the realization was new. The ruling class had sunk deep roots in America over decades before 2008. Machiavelli compares serious political diseases to the Aetolian fevers -- easy to treat early on while they are difficult to discern, but virtually untreatable by the time they become obvious.
