I've been chatting today with a Republican friend on issues that would most likely bore readers to tears. Statistics on the effect of tax rates on equity prices and the rigor involved in the analysis. Nuff said. He said, "I blame the Republicans on spending. They are supposed to be about small government. They haven't been."
This made me wonder what they are about. As many of you know, this is something I've devoted quite a bit of time thinking about. So here's my rant/response:
They're [Republicans] about centralization of power...the so called unitary executive that, in an era of neverending war, can claim constitutional authority to ignore the constitution. Who's the best candidate to return traditional separation of powers? Who's the best candidate to bring some independence to the rubber stamp supreme court (instead of installing huntin' buddies?) Who will prize competence over loyalty? Long-term constitutional erosion and centralization of power certainly is in the best interest of no American whatever your point of view.
I was reading the CIA factbook on Kenya the other day trying to smarten up on the turmoil over there. I noticed that the head of the judiciary is appointed by the president. I immediately thought that this was a tremendous conflict of interest, until I realized that, with the complicity of a congress that has valued party loyalty as the greatest virtue, we have the same system. Add to that the head of our justice department has been a lockstep crony, we're practically a freaking sub-Saharan African government.
This is the stuff that riles me up a lot more than tax policy, we don't have any perfect candidates obviously, and I think Hillary's just as likely to continue Bush's trampling of the constitution. So my choices are McCain and Obama. I think McCain will have to pander to the far right and appoint far-right activist culture-warrior judges that will affect the country for 20 or 30 years. Obama will bring back some balance there, hopefully will be checked by congress on more liberal paternalistic tendencies, quit throwing good money at a recalcitrant Iraqi "government", maybe put more effort into Afghanistan, and, hell, maybe there is something to a hopeful vision (people seemed to like Reagan...)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Nice post. I enjoyed reading it and I understand (I think) where you are coming from in your in-depth thinking. I bet I would like to have a conversation with your friend who said that she/he "blames Republicans on spending - they are suppose to be about small government." Bush has blown that all to hell in a handbasket in the last 8 years. (no offense) I would love to hear a Repub rant about that one. Seriously! I love the comment about "independence to the rubber stamp supreme court." Amen brotha! And..."we're practically a freaking sub-Saharan African government" LOL!! I'm with ya on that one too. As I said, enjoyable reading for a Thursday night. And, oh yhea, the comments about "centralized power" I'm lovin that one!! Cheers! Screw that concept! (Maybe that's just a Bush anomaly (sp?)) Now, explain to me this comment: "I think Hillary's just as likely to continue Bush's trampling of the constitution." What makes you think that Hillary Clinton would trample our Constitution? I'm curious.
Thanks for the comments, Suzette.
I don't know if I have a logical explanation for why I feel Clinton would keep in place many of the "unitary executive" provisions that have been the keystone of Bush's monarchical presidency.
It's more a feel I have than something I've gleaned from her speeches and debates. Or maybe I haven't heard her say enough against it. Or maybe it's the dynasticism inherent the Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton years. Hell, maybe it's just Bill. Power is a tough thing to give up, however ill gotten it may be and I don't see the Clintons giving anything back.
I could be wrong and I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
An interesting analog might be the continual back and forth transfer of power between Gladstone and Disraeli as PM in 19th C. Britain. Sure it's a parliamentary government (which sometime I wish we had, just to make the president more responsive to the people and allow for "no confidence" votes), but once one of them finagled a new dominion of power, I can't imagine the other giving it back once the PMship was transferred.
Sorry for the exceedingly long answer to a short question.
steve, out of curiosity, outline your problems with Dems
I will, but I'm a little hungover now and not thinking so clearly.
But I read something yesterday that stuck with me. Something about dependence eliminating drive. I don't like that about them.
I like what Romney said (I think it was about Dems) "A culture of dependence has lead to a culture of poverty." That one stuck with me....I like it.
Back to the original post: They blame government for their problems (when convenient), then do a shitty job running government.
If you apply that same idea to any other realm, it becomes painfully obvious what a self-fulfilling prophecy it is. As a Starbucks stockholder, you wouldn't want a CEO who hated coffee and thought caffeine was bad for you. Mitt Romney would do a lousy job running Budweiser and Tom Cruise would make a lousy psychiatrist. Why is anyone ever surprised Republicans govern poorly? They essentially tell you they are going to.
And the Dems? Forget Clinton, he had Republican Congress and after '94 he pretty much was right of center. So, looking at how Dems govern, we might go back to Carter and LBJ, how does everyone think they governed?
I think your comment, jim is a bit of a red herring. On one hand I could say throw in Roosevelt, Truman, and Kennedy. On the other hand I could say that Reagan couldn't even get nominated because he didn't have the religious bona fides, and Nixon would be considered a liberal today.
I wasn't paying attention then, all I know is Carter liked peanuts and LBJ was a crook and one either hated or loved him. However, today I think the outside edges of the parties push everyone to the middle battleground where many petty, childish, counterproductive games are played at the expense of us taxpayers. I wished a powerful Independent Party would rise above all the BS!
jiml - I was a little unclear in my post - I was talking less about the effectiveness of one party or another in the Congress passing laws and so forth and more about the federal bureaucracy. Bush has populated government agencies from top to bottom with industry shills, cronies, and Repub true believers and those agencies, consequently, do a much poorer job serving the American public. A few cases in point, Michael Brown - FEMA, Nancy Nord - Consumer Product Safety Commission, Alberto Gonzalez & Monica Goodling - DOJ, George Deutsch - NASA, Richard Stickler - Mine Safety & Health Administration, etc. ad nauseum. So, with that clarification, yes, I do give the Dems significantly higher marks in governing. The Republicans, particularly the George Bush/Karl Rove/Tom Delay variety, do not believe government serves the public in a positive way, so they have attempted to hijack every federal agency to further the Republican agenda rather than carry out the agencies' mission.
miked - nice!!
Mike, Clinton did the same thing,and had plenty of scandals in his organization, like Ron Brown.
Steve, the notion that Ronald Reagan wouldn't get the nom today (and John McCain is about too), is very very laughable, it would be the easiest nom ever.
Back to Mike, I will take the cronyism of Bush administration any day over the runaway inflation, unemployment, stagflation, and Russian aggression of the Carter Administration.
I saw a documentary the other day called Iraq for Sale about how rampant the graft has been between the no-bid contract owners like Halliburton. They provided excellent evidence about the corruption and cronyism involved in the contract, the disgusting overcharging of the taxpayers due to the nature of the cost-plus contract, and the terrible quality of service they've provided to our troops. It was so grotesque it was almost unwatchable.
Bottom line is that the Republicans have been in charge and have fucked up pretty much everything. It's time for a change.
Adding on to my previous post... Even minor companies have ethical guidelines that require competetive bidding. Moreover, any halfway sober contract administrator will require service level agreements (SLA's). Not meeting SLA's can void the contract.
Our government is not using the fundamental ethical guidelines of contract administration. What message does that send to the people? Give all of your business to friends? Require no quality checks? It's another example that were a third world country now. Give contracts to your friends, let them overcharge you at the taxpayers expense. It is fucking disgusting, I can't believe any of our candidates aren't talking about it, and we should be ashamed.
Post a Comment