I am a political dude. I majored in political science and have opinions on anything you can imagine. My exceptionally liberal friend sent me the following link to a chart which demonstrates some of the changes in the political pulse of the country. http://www.surveyusa.com/50State2006/50StatePres060515Net.htm
It basically illustrates that an awful lot of people are pretty unhappy with the Republican party and President Bush. I can certainly understand that. The most glaring thing to me on this chart are the 'red' states that supported Bush have turned on him so dramatically.
What I don't really like is how short-sighted a lot of people are. Its unfair to try and judge the impact an administration has had while its still in office. One can of course disagree with policy decisions, personnel decisions, and the like but to try and classify an administration while its still in office is fruitless. Because our system is incremental (small changes over time instead of the wildly swinging regimes of other countries) its very difficult to measure how an administration has done without significant time passing.
I've heard many Democrats now discuss the Clinton era like its some sort of utopian golden age for America. They point to a budget surplus, no wars where the US has made huge commitments (I would debate this but that's what they say), low gas prices, an economic boom etc. The Clinton era, in my mind was responsible for a lot of good (I am a huge free-trader ergo, NAFTA was mint, and Clinton also reformed welfare). It is my prediction that he changed the Democratic party by separating from several core constituencies and forcing them to move to the center. In 50 years, we will have seen a dramatic shift in Democrats and we will point to the Clinton era as the beginning of that shift.
Which constituencies? Great question reader. He straight up abandoned his factory workers (auto workers and such) with NAFTA. Basically, he gave the green light to outsource cheaper labor to drive down costs. The result? It keeps consumer confidence high and prices down so we keep spending $ which drives our economy. The other result? We have an enormous boom in illegal immigrants as our borders are more open than ever and they are willing to take the cheapest jobs. The point is, there are bi-products that always get passed onto the next administration. Now, Bush is stuck with a mess that Clinton left for him but because it didn't happen under Clinton, Bush gets the blame.
To be clear, I am not a Bush fan. There's a lot I don't like about him. Amidst all the bumblings of his administration, I still think he has gotten a raw deal. Follow me on this. A lot of people are upset about our involvement in Iraq, and justifiably so. Its never pleasant to be at war. But, think about this: would we be there now if Clinton had been more aggressive in the foreign policy department? The answer is no.
The thing that people forget is that for all his ability as a hands on domestic president, drawing people together as a communicator even while taking less than popular stances, Clinton was as soft internationally as any president we have ever had. He had shots at bin Laden, he had chances to take down Saddam, he pulled back on defense spending by almost 1/3; basically, he created the climate that we deal with today. If you doubt me, read Ghost Wars by Washington Post editor Steve Coll. Clinton had his chances but was too much of a wuss to take them.
I guess I got sidetracked. The point is that Democrats need to simmer down when talking about the golden years of Clinton and criticizing Bush for dealing with what was left for him. Clinton enjoyed the boom cycle of our cyclical economy and sacrificed international clout and security for cheaper gas prices. We're paying for that now. Also, when the Democrats sweep into office starting this year, I'm anxious to see where we go. I hope they can get on the same page.
And scene...
Bethesda Hyatt tomorrow night. 8PM. 7400 Wisconsin Ave. Good talk
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Interesting points...agree with most of them, but take exception to one...your point that Clinton cut military spending isn't entirely true...in the beginning of his presidency, he simply didn't care about the military and simply stuck with the outyears of the prior administration's FYDP (Future Years Defense Plan - Defense programs dollars six years at a time). The "author" of this significantly reduced outyear program? None other than out-going Sec. of Defense - Dick Cheney. But his second term was more of the same, and for that he is to blame.
It's refreshing to see an honest, well thought out political opinion. Most are either way to far to the left or right. While not researching this point, I have read that Bush seinior reduced military spending as well. Also, as a Union man, I have an opinion on nafta and immigrants,legal as well as illegal. It has been said by many, (Including Mexican president Vicente Fox) that immigrants will take the jobs Americans will not take. For the most part that is true. However, most people don't realize that over the last 20 years or so, immigrants have DRIVEN DOWN the wages of these jobs. If they refused to work for low wages, no benefits or rights, then the wages would raise along with the cost of living. I have nothing against LEGAL immigrants trying to better themselves, but I am opposed to them lowering our cost of living.-Mike
I don't know if you got a good blow to the noggin somewhere around 2000, but amnesia has set in my friend, and you've lost your entire recollection of the Clinton years, they were a fucking utopia. No war, good economy, drug and gang violence down, and social services working effectively. The last six years have been a fairy tale of mismanagement, denial, and incompetence, and to add to this, stupid flag-waving nationalism and uber-conservative christianity have filled the grey area where results and success were promised. I won't call Clinton's run perfect, but aside from Nafta and the WTO, I only see the perpetuation of an overburdened prison system and a abusive embargo on the people of Iraq as his bigger mistakes. As for the blowjob, look at her lips, they're like two giant silk pillows. And the "wuss" comment, I can't believe no one has any admiration for a leader who is willing to pursue peace, or at least not create a war. Politics should not be described with the same adjectives we learn at frat parties and sport practices. Clinton (and the UN) got scared by Mogadishu, and abandoned the Rwandans, Bush has created a failed-state in Iraq, and by the time all of this is over, will have killed just as many Iraqis as Saddam, as a result of said failed-state. There's no need to pussy foot around the atrocious job Bush has done as president, just because you may be feeling a bit crunchy about voting on the fiscal republican ticket. Bush doesn't have a single success story, not Iraq, not Afghanistan, not Liberia, not Haiti, not Sudan (with all the godtalk and promises), and not the US, where the economy is fledgling, crime and murder are up, as well as domestic abuse, at least standards of living are dropping. Oh and the jobs the mexicans are running to fill, are the jobs Bush continues to brag about creating every year, except the only people that can afford them, live twenty-two to a household. The simple truth Danny, he sucks, he sucks more than any other president has sucked, he's the absolute worst, and although he wasn't left with a bed of roses by Clinton, (I wouldn't have slept in Clinton's nasty cum-stained sheets), he vacationed for 60% of his first year in office, so there goes the "try" in trying to fix that scenario. Supporting Bush, is supporting failure and incompetence, and allowing them to be repeated over and over, with a bitterly proud silence replacing the vocal criticism of our leaders, you should be utilizing before he makes it illegal.
Just so you know, Danny Rouhier is smarter than me, and will beat me in most arguments in person, but for now, Andy wins, he wins a slurpy, and $25 to Whole Foods, cause I'm a wussy vegan.
Andy, in your sweaty liberal rant, I think you may have missed a few points of my blog. I think you confused my criticism of the Clinton era's impact on the future as both pro-Bush and as a denial of the state of the nation during his administration. Neither of these is accurate as I am not a Bush fan (as I mentioned) and am not in the business of denying facts.
My point in this area was to illustrate that the long term affects of some of Clinton's failures (at least in my mind) have led us to deal with a gauntlet of issues. Ex. illegal immigration has been around forever. Why is it an issue now that requires presidential policy action? Ask yourself. If the answer you arrive at isn't the impact of free trade, then continue to ask yourself until it is. I am a free-trader, but this is a necessary speed bump that critics predicted in the 90s.
Further, its fine to criticize W because you disagree with his administration's actions because you predict failure, but you point to works in progress and call them failures. This directly goes to my point about not being able to fairly judge the impact of a policy in our incremental system for years after enaction. I don't disagree with much of your analysis (vacations which I do a joke about, far-right Christian ideals etc.). The point is, we must reserve our evaluations for some time so we can be proven correct.
I am not sure why your fiery liberal vehemence is directed at this blog. It seems that many of my liberal colleagues, if something isn't outwardly anti-Bush, must be taken as pro-Bush.
Can't wait to continue the discussion in person. This guy.
Post a Comment