Saturday, October 07, 2006

A little less than a month

and we will be having some significant elections. So, I'm going to do something I don't do very frequently. Let's talk politics. I follow politics quite closely, but I rarely find people with a desire to discuss them reasonably and unemotionable, and frankly, most political discussions are of little value. That said, I would be curious if my readers had any thoughts on the subject.

I am not sure if one could say America has been doing very well under the current leadership. I say this as one who has voted those in office. But, the party in office seems to resemble little of what I hold to be republican, or conservative. However, even beyond that, our leaders seem to be lacking...leadership. The republican party has been in control of both congress and the presidency for 6 years, and what exactly does it have to show for it? Well, some good things include significant tax cuts (althought most of them will dissappear because they haven't been strong enough to make them permanent), a strong stance on protecting its citizenry, (although the jury is still out about if it has actually not been counterproductive), a couple of good sensible supreme court justices (for the most part from what we have seen so far)...and? Perhaps the No Child Left Behind act...although wether this is just increasing scores or actually teaching more seems still to be in question.

I've heard numerous positions that have sounded promising, but for all of their power, the Republicans haven't been able to actually make things happen. Social security reform is probably one of the best ideas the Bush administration has had, but what happened to it? They promised to send people to mars, but didn't stop to see what would actually be needed for such an action. Something needs to be done about fuel dependency. Great...But, I don't think this "something" is making some speeches at ethanol plants. Has anything else actually useful been done? Even opening up Alaska for drilling would be something, but we can't even seem to be able to do that.
Something must be done about illegal aliens, although I really don't know what, and the best our great leaders can come up with is to build a huge fence, which ends up being more of a political slap to Mexico than anything...Will it keep people from attempting to come across? maybe... Will it likely cause more deaths from crossings? likely...Will it solve the problem of the millions of illegals currently in the country and our very real need for these members of society? Um, no...As long as there is a better life to be had over here than over there, people will attempt to come across, even if it becomes more dangerous and difficult. So what exactly did they solve with this beautification of the Rio Grande river?

Then there are the things that have outright gone badly. A person would like to think that there is a good deal more going on behind the scenes than what we discover from the media. But there never seems to have been, and seems as if there never will be, a good stratagy for Iraq. How could one plan on how to destroy a nation's strength and infrastructure for the purpose of democratizing it, and not have a plan for democtratizing it? And if there ever was such a plan, it was so poorly implimented that there was never much chance of success. Now we have a blood bath of neighbors against neighbors and anti-speech laws that are verbatim from Sadaam's time. What is to be done with Iraq? Does anyone know? Probably not, but our "leaders" don't seem to be even Asking the question.
Our foreign policy is nutty, if it can even be called a policy. We spend half of our time threating rogue states with destruction of life and limb, which everyone knows we are not going to follow through with, and then split the rest of our time between insulting our allies and trying to get them to cooperate with us on following through on our international consensus which also no one seems able to uphold. Iran is playing with the international community, it reminds me of Hitler in the 1930's, but our leaders, what do they do? It doesn't seem that they do anything...
Then there is the issue of fiscal acountability. Cutting taxes is great; but spending more on special interests, projects, and welfare programs than any regime Ever, while cutting taxes, seems less than great. I am not a fan of racking up more debt for future generations to pay off. If we weren't making 400+ billion dollars in interest payments a year, we might be able to start fixing social security, but instead we will keep paying billions for pork barreling.
Our leadership has accomplished some things. They have raised the ire of the world through the appearance of torture and abuse. (Notice I said appearance. Whether some of the various "scandals" are they are worthwhile and good things for our nation to be doing I am not sure. I am sure they haven't created a "good guy" image for the US.) They have managed to raise the ire of our peoples through spying programs. They have managed to taint themselves with a variety of moral scandals.They have managed to step on a myriad of privacy rights. And, they have kept the US from having another terrorist attack...so far. Was, and is, this the best way to continue that prevention?

So, what do I want? Well, I guess I would like a leadership that appears to be thoughtful, who actions follow their words, and who are willing to listen and change when their actions have clearly not had the best outcome. So, from all I can tell, the democrates certainly won't lead us there. They don't even have a coherent platform! Their "new direction" seems to be "anywhere but there", and there are a lot of worse roads we could be lead down than our current mess. Besides, the last democratic "leader" was an alcibiades who followed two things: his lust, and public opinion. Hence, once more I will go and vote for those who are least morally reprehensible.

I do find myself asking though. How can it be, that in a nation of 300 million souls, we have so much trouble finding good leaders? If nothing else, this is a sign of fast encroaching doom. Once our current YouTube-watching culture reaches maturity (if they ever do), may God have mercy on our souls.

11 Comments:

At 3:40 AM, Blogger Eric said...

Thanks for the post, it helped illuminate the different aspects of what's going on that I am under informed on.

Do you see much hope of a third party winner that will hopefully be free of the defects of the other two parties?

On the Iraq issue I do think we need a hard deadline for pulling troops out in order to force the Iraqi leadership to get its act together. Otherwise, they'll just remain dependent on us and continually unable to bring their forces up to standard. Plus, we'll have other issues on our radar soon enough. We can't afford to constantly stay tied up in Iraq.

A subject you didn't touch on is how we are doing in leading the world in innovation. Right now we are majorly missing the boat with IPv6. China and Europe are hard at work making the switch while we Americans are just resting on our laurels. This means that we will no longer run the show when it comes to the internet. While I don't have any data on this, I would guess that a large part of our economic prosperity has to do with our control of the internet.

 
At 3:44 AM, Blogger Eric said...

Oh, and what do you think our chances are of becoming a tyranny? We have been moving that direction in multiple ways. I can see the need for control increasing if things in America continue to go downhill, but I don't see how a tyranny could be created in America. However, I do know that Godel purportedly found a loophole in the constitution that would allow America to become a dictatorship. I haven't been able to find out what this loophole is yet.

 
At 3:49 AM, Blogger Eric said...

One more thing, your readers might find the MIT Open Courseware page on political philosophy useful.

http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Political-Science/index.htm

I know I don't understand the American political system enough to grasp completely all the problems you bring up. It also covers things such as globalisation and the middle east conflict. In short, lots of applicable courses.

 
At 7:50 PM, Blogger Secretwallaby said...

Thanks for the comments Eric.

3rd parties don't have a chance. At least, not in the next few decades. Something like 95% of incumbants win elections, and that is on a terrible year--like this one. Ross Pero, in the early 90's spent millions of dollars to win less than 15% of the vote, and in the end just stole votes from the republicans and was a big factor in Clinton winning. The problem is that 3rd party candidates don't steal votes from both parties, so they just end up making one party more dominant due to a split vote.

A tyranny is always possible, and any republic should stay vigilant against one. Eventually it will come down to weather the citizenry cares enough to protect the constitution. I haven't heard of this loophole, but I would be curious if you could find something more substantial.

Can we win if there is a time line for Iraq? Or will that just tell the insurgancy how long they have to lay low. We certainly need to get out of there, but if we leave with the state as unstable as it is, we have lost the war. Unfortunately, the state seems to already be too corrupt to save. This seems to be the most dire predicament indeed.

As for technolegy, I am least concerned about that. I don't think the government should dictate such things. Eventually, a free market, especially one as resiliant as the USA will take care of itself. If nothing else, Americans are innovative. There are certainly a host of concerns in this area. The trade deficit, the under-education of our students, the outsourcing, etc. but in the end as long as fundamentals are in proper order (ie. the Feds and Bernanke doesn't screw up), business will take care of itself. But perhaps I only hold this view because I have lived during a particularly prosperous period of our history.

 
At 8:03 AM, Blogger Luke said...

Just a thought.. is it so bad for the US to "lose" the war if it means leaving Iraq? If nothing else it'd humble an over-proud nation.

 
At 1:08 PM, Blogger Secretwallaby said...

Losing the war would mean that Iraq is left as a unstable country that devolves into mass killing through civil war and would end up with another cruel regime like Sadaam. That is why we can't leave now, and why we better not leave any time soon. I don't think that the "humbling" of the US is worth such blood shed in Iraq. Do you?

 
At 9:08 PM, Blogger Luke said...

it's a difficult question. I think it is good for our nation to be intervening where there is such wrong happening, but that's to be with a limit. Our own nation should be taken care of first.. which is part of what America was doing, I'm sure. But at this point, we can't well continue the war. We've bitten off a bit too much, and should cough it up before we choke much more. Most places I read and people I hear just scratch their heads when it comes to what a viable "end" to the war would look like. I have no idea how it can even get to an end without it being something like a retreat. So.. yes, I think even with those evils being a forseeable end to a retreat, I think it is the option. The humbling of America is just a small plus contrasted to all the negative results. We've got our hands in too much, particularly with these new threats from North Korea. I guess the reason why the US must be so proactive is because it has so much to lose. We can't afford to lose. Position, wealth, influence.. etc.

 
At 2:37 PM, Blogger Eric said...

I don't know if the 'humbling' of America is exactly a good thing, if by 'humbling' means its power and prestige is reduced. You want the country with the best perspective on human rights to be the most powerful country in the world - many times more powerful than the nearest competitor. As far as I know, this country is America. I say 'peace through strength.'

As for staying in Iraq, I don't buy your argument Dustin. The insurgents can respond the same way even if we say we'll stay in Iraq until the Iraqi forces are ready to stand on their own.

In either case, it's best if we measure the Iraqi force's ability by some standard, such as number of troops, amount and quality of equipment, leadership abilities, and overall readiness; not in terms of whether they have recently quelled the insurgency.

 
At 3:53 PM, Blogger Eric said...

Actually, I go back on my position. I heard on CNN that the Iraqi President says a timeline will undermine confidence in the government, so I think Bush's course is correct.

 
At 8:32 AM, Blogger Possum said...

I don't think North Korea is a reason to pull out of Iraq, Luke. North Korea is a war we cannot and will not fight until it is absolutely necessary because the human cost (South Korean lives) would be too much. Even without a nuclear bomb, it might reach the millions (most likely) because of artillery attacks on Seoul. America has enough power (carrier fleets) to take out the country in a few days without pulling out of Iraq. But when the human cost will be so high - it's hard to see us doing that.

We do need the threat of force with Iran, though. We've got a real pickle, there.

All in all, we've got to finish what we started or we'll probably get another Iran. That's not in the national interest. I'm probably a little more optomistic than Dustin in general, but I don't think we've lost the war in Iraq, yet. I think we can win if we maintain the public will to fight.

 
At 5:09 PM, Blogger Luke said...

well, i've changed my views a bit. I agree with Eric. (c: That's reassuring information about our fleets vs. N.Korea (may it never come to that). I think I under-estimate the power of this nation (ours). I wish we had stronger and more intelligent nationalism.
We've such a cynical, tear-down mentality being bred by the media. Tsk. Gov't controlled media is the answer! Yay.eh? No, yes.. no.. uh.. it's a hard issue.

I miss the days I never knew of american nationalism and pride. WW era, etc.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home