Republics, Democracies and Empires
First off, I love good responses that provoke good thoughts and how_i_lie provided one. Also, these are the danger of not getting enough sleep before writing, you leave stuff out. Like the entire paragraph talking about why it's really hope versus despair and why Americans, given choices, will vote real hope versus real despair and why we'll vote unity over division and why we'll take anything over Bush or that even feels like Bush. Or, more generally, why Americans like both balance of power AND non-destructive competition between the branches and parties in government. For while it is possible to work with what has been called loyal opposition, it is harder to work with fanatical ally. A loyal opposition can be negotiated with, worked with and policy can be reconciled, even if ideals can't. A fanatical ally, on the other hand, can be easily sidelined, and we have a history of that in this country. We were founded by young, inexperienced men and somehow it all worked. They saw the failure of democracies in Greece and hated the empires of Europe (even if they did court France's help) and so looked to the old Roman model of republic. They knew the history and sought to avoid an Augustus, and so set down specific rules for what could not be done and set the branches against each other in opposition not obstruction. They founded no political parties for fear of small mindedness that came with it. And they were often right.
In the recent past, we have seen nothing but "if you don't vote for me, THEY will win and destroy your lives." The politics of fear Democrats decry Republicans for, but Democrats have used as often. Republicans play up fears of terrorism, fears of fanatics waiting to kill us all or fears of the great enemy beyond. Democrats play up the fears of losing jobs, losing homes, and losing family to starvation. For decades it has been a game of who can scare the most people people the most effectively. 50.1% victories, or even less, being enough to declare total and complete victory then ignoring the opposition and declaring them not just opponents, but anti-American. Democrats being called unpatriotic because they dare to oppose the idea that governments should listen in on every phone call and every electron of datum that crosses cables. Republicans called death mongers for questioning getting rid of the right to bear arms. Then each side accusing the other of playing the politics of fear. The last presidential candidate, before current Bush, to have a clear majority of the vote was Reagan. Clinton never won a majority in his elections. Some of that was Perot in 1992, but in 1996? Perot was a joke and Bill had his own record to run on. But still, Bill could not convince a majority of voters to vote for him since he never looked for a majority, he looked for just enough to get totally agree with him.
The problem was not just the Republican congress, but also he had done nothing major. Health care reform didn't fail for Republican opposition but Democratic opposition. Reasonable Democratic senators like Moynihan and had reservations, asked to be met half way on couple of minor issues and Hillary told them flatly no, refused to take their phone calls and they, along with all they could convince, voted against Hillary. It wasn't until 1997 when SCHIP was created with real help from Kennedy and Hillary Clinton working together did her pet crusade get any kind of legislative traction. Was it perfect? No. Was it a step in the direction that Hillary wanted? Yes. Did it pass in Republican congress what Hillary couldn't get in a Democratic congress? Yes. Working together to get more goals is better than fanatically staking out a position then expecting the rest of the world to come to you. Ask about any number of Hamilton's proposals at the Constitutional convention. A staunch Federalist (a "party" that was very for centralized federal power, Adams was also a proponent), he sought a lot of powers denied to the states in favor of the central government. Some of his proposals were outright ignored but the ones that survived were the ones that he had compromise on. Then the Bill of Rights came along and included the 9th and 10th Amendments which strongly affirmed the rights of states and individuals. By being so staunch, he lost a lot of battles. This is a republic, the majority has the right to rule and minority has the right to be heard. And at the end, he was a minority, heard and disagreed with.
Hillary represents that kind of fight and that kind of legislative agenda and American history points to that kind of fighting leads to war. The bitter partisan battles of the 1850s that undid any work on the Missouri Compromise and The Compromise of 1850 that led to Bleeding Kansas. It is not the fervency of ideals that is dangerous, it's when the actions and policies that stem from those ideals are just as fervent and fanatical that America suffers. Slavery was an absolute moral position, and in that mode only blood will settle the arguments. After all, you can't come close to convincing someone to change a moral absolute, and when the only actions they will accept are absolute, someone has to die. Fighting about a budget means it's a game, next year you can try again and maybe get what you want. Scorching earth means any who happen to survive will remember what you were like in power and seek to destroy you by all means, sine you've proven you'll do anything to stop them. The Clintons were willing to do more than George Bush, Sr. and so they won (note, they ran as co-presidents then when some people pointed out our Constitution doesn't allow that, statements were amended, but the moniker stuck). W was willing to do more than Gore, so he won. He was willing to do more than Kerry, so he won again. Americans have had enough of it, and historically, this is when we look for some kind of healing, or at least something better than "Get on board or get fucked".
Reagan won in 1984 with the largest margin ever (49 states) not by promising to defeat the Democrats as harshly as possible, but by talking about how it was Morning in America. Not how the Democrats would raise taxes, not how Mondale was a buffoon and not how Geraldine Ferraro was going to be weak, but how he was going to be better. Scorched earth politics work. They really do, there's a reason people keep using them. But they're not the only thing that works and there are other options out there. Americans, especially after a bad, divisive president, are far more likely to vote for something that will attempt to unify people than a guaranteed division. At the end of the day, Hillary brings no one new to the table. She brings in no new voters, she brings in no new Democrats and she brings no new discussions to the table. But, she has won in New York, even in places that have traditionally hated her, so she does many things right. But that doesn't mean there isn't a better out there. Obama brings in a number of disenfranchised Republicans and ex-Republicans who don't like Bush and remember when Hillary declared all who opposed her as part of a "vast right wing conspiracy". She hasn't been able to bring down her unfavorables of 47% because she never wanted or needed to. She just kept courting her base, but Obama has recently made inroads to that base. So, Clinton is running the kitchen sink campaign now, throwing all she can at him. She gets sarcastic about him, she complains that she's being treated unfairly (conveniently forgetting the months BEFORE all this when she was perceived by the media as an unstoppable juggernaut, as the mistake free candidate and generally pundits claiming many of the primaries were coronations and Obama's too young) and attempts to drive fear into the hearts of Texas voters with the 3am ad. But nothing has stuck.
In a roundabout way, Americans want a good fight for whatever issue is currently in our hot little hands. We want vociferous debate, we want people advocating for what believe. I've said many times Hillary is a fine senator, the debate style of the Senate suits her and she can bring in opinions and make them heard, but that's not necessarily good for running a country. She will always fight for what she believes, but her pride is such she doesn't understand that sometimes you have to leave a little something on the table for others, or your enemies will come back stronger. See the 1994 Republican take over of the Congress. They easily pointed to her "all or nothing style" and Republicans were able to thwart more than what Democrats could have. There are places for it and there are times for it, but as a balanced part of this complete government. We fer empires, and rightfully. The notion of one person dictating terms may look attractive for a small while, but we eventually start fighting it. Bush was practically a lame duck after he was re-elected. Social Security reform failed, immigration reform failed and his FISA updates are failing. The more unwilling to bend a leader appears, the more Americans will, just to feel better, stop them. There probably was room on immigration and social security for real reform, but democrats felt it was wiser to stand as hardline as he had on many issues and he got taste of his own medicine. And someday it has to end.
And this is where we are. Yes, one response prompted me to write all that because this is what is at stake. Whether we as Americans want to be able to look each other in the eye and know we're all Americans who all love our country and want what is best for it, or if we want to be scheming and plotting for the next four years, those against Hillary plotting to take over and her supporters plotting against them. We are in a unique period of American history where we're not as idealistic as we were in the 1960s nor are we as jaded as we were in the 1980s and 90s. A generation of voters who grew up in the shadow of Watergate are coming to be force to be reckoned with and promises of a past that was secure but full of fighting are not as appealing as they once were. Even the Republicans can't use that as appeal, hence the losses by Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee. Better by comparison isn't enough anymore.
We need to demand our politicians be good.
So it is written, so do I see it.
EDIT. I forgot add this in since there was no great place for it, but really, I LOVE that people respond to these and how_i_lie's response made me really think about this for hours. It made me think about the changing and historical nature of American politics and the forces of history compared to the forces of modern media. It's a pretty big crossroads we might be at. And a little more recognition from everyone, including more ardent Obama supporters, that political opponents are on the same side (that is decency, trying to do a little right in the world and America) would behoove us all.
and if you do ever get to New York, lemme know, I know the best cannolis in the city.
In the recent past, we have seen nothing but "if you don't vote for me, THEY will win and destroy your lives." The politics of fear Democrats decry Republicans for, but Democrats have used as often. Republicans play up fears of terrorism, fears of fanatics waiting to kill us all or fears of the great enemy beyond. Democrats play up the fears of losing jobs, losing homes, and losing family to starvation. For decades it has been a game of who can scare the most people people the most effectively. 50.1% victories, or even less, being enough to declare total and complete victory then ignoring the opposition and declaring them not just opponents, but anti-American. Democrats being called unpatriotic because they dare to oppose the idea that governments should listen in on every phone call and every electron of datum that crosses cables. Republicans called death mongers for questioning getting rid of the right to bear arms. Then each side accusing the other of playing the politics of fear. The last presidential candidate, before current Bush, to have a clear majority of the vote was Reagan. Clinton never won a majority in his elections. Some of that was Perot in 1992, but in 1996? Perot was a joke and Bill had his own record to run on. But still, Bill could not convince a majority of voters to vote for him since he never looked for a majority, he looked for just enough to get totally agree with him.
The problem was not just the Republican congress, but also he had done nothing major. Health care reform didn't fail for Republican opposition but Democratic opposition. Reasonable Democratic senators like Moynihan and had reservations, asked to be met half way on couple of minor issues and Hillary told them flatly no, refused to take their phone calls and they, along with all they could convince, voted against Hillary. It wasn't until 1997 when SCHIP was created with real help from Kennedy and Hillary Clinton working together did her pet crusade get any kind of legislative traction. Was it perfect? No. Was it a step in the direction that Hillary wanted? Yes. Did it pass in Republican congress what Hillary couldn't get in a Democratic congress? Yes. Working together to get more goals is better than fanatically staking out a position then expecting the rest of the world to come to you. Ask about any number of Hamilton's proposals at the Constitutional convention. A staunch Federalist (a "party" that was very for centralized federal power, Adams was also a proponent), he sought a lot of powers denied to the states in favor of the central government. Some of his proposals were outright ignored but the ones that survived were the ones that he had compromise on. Then the Bill of Rights came along and included the 9th and 10th Amendments which strongly affirmed the rights of states and individuals. By being so staunch, he lost a lot of battles. This is a republic, the majority has the right to rule and minority has the right to be heard. And at the end, he was a minority, heard and disagreed with.
Hillary represents that kind of fight and that kind of legislative agenda and American history points to that kind of fighting leads to war. The bitter partisan battles of the 1850s that undid any work on the Missouri Compromise and The Compromise of 1850 that led to Bleeding Kansas. It is not the fervency of ideals that is dangerous, it's when the actions and policies that stem from those ideals are just as fervent and fanatical that America suffers. Slavery was an absolute moral position, and in that mode only blood will settle the arguments. After all, you can't come close to convincing someone to change a moral absolute, and when the only actions they will accept are absolute, someone has to die. Fighting about a budget means it's a game, next year you can try again and maybe get what you want. Scorching earth means any who happen to survive will remember what you were like in power and seek to destroy you by all means, sine you've proven you'll do anything to stop them. The Clintons were willing to do more than George Bush, Sr. and so they won (note, they ran as co-presidents then when some people pointed out our Constitution doesn't allow that, statements were amended, but the moniker stuck). W was willing to do more than Gore, so he won. He was willing to do more than Kerry, so he won again. Americans have had enough of it, and historically, this is when we look for some kind of healing, or at least something better than "Get on board or get fucked".
Reagan won in 1984 with the largest margin ever (49 states) not by promising to defeat the Democrats as harshly as possible, but by talking about how it was Morning in America. Not how the Democrats would raise taxes, not how Mondale was a buffoon and not how Geraldine Ferraro was going to be weak, but how he was going to be better. Scorched earth politics work. They really do, there's a reason people keep using them. But they're not the only thing that works and there are other options out there. Americans, especially after a bad, divisive president, are far more likely to vote for something that will attempt to unify people than a guaranteed division. At the end of the day, Hillary brings no one new to the table. She brings in no new voters, she brings in no new Democrats and she brings no new discussions to the table. But, she has won in New York, even in places that have traditionally hated her, so she does many things right. But that doesn't mean there isn't a better out there. Obama brings in a number of disenfranchised Republicans and ex-Republicans who don't like Bush and remember when Hillary declared all who opposed her as part of a "vast right wing conspiracy". She hasn't been able to bring down her unfavorables of 47% because she never wanted or needed to. She just kept courting her base, but Obama has recently made inroads to that base. So, Clinton is running the kitchen sink campaign now, throwing all she can at him. She gets sarcastic about him, she complains that she's being treated unfairly (conveniently forgetting the months BEFORE all this when she was perceived by the media as an unstoppable juggernaut, as the mistake free candidate and generally pundits claiming many of the primaries were coronations and Obama's too young) and attempts to drive fear into the hearts of Texas voters with the 3am ad. But nothing has stuck.
In a roundabout way, Americans want a good fight for whatever issue is currently in our hot little hands. We want vociferous debate, we want people advocating for what believe. I've said many times Hillary is a fine senator, the debate style of the Senate suits her and she can bring in opinions and make them heard, but that's not necessarily good for running a country. She will always fight for what she believes, but her pride is such she doesn't understand that sometimes you have to leave a little something on the table for others, or your enemies will come back stronger. See the 1994 Republican take over of the Congress. They easily pointed to her "all or nothing style" and Republicans were able to thwart more than what Democrats could have. There are places for it and there are times for it, but as a balanced part of this complete government. We fer empires, and rightfully. The notion of one person dictating terms may look attractive for a small while, but we eventually start fighting it. Bush was practically a lame duck after he was re-elected. Social Security reform failed, immigration reform failed and his FISA updates are failing. The more unwilling to bend a leader appears, the more Americans will, just to feel better, stop them. There probably was room on immigration and social security for real reform, but democrats felt it was wiser to stand as hardline as he had on many issues and he got taste of his own medicine. And someday it has to end.
And this is where we are. Yes, one response prompted me to write all that because this is what is at stake. Whether we as Americans want to be able to look each other in the eye and know we're all Americans who all love our country and want what is best for it, or if we want to be scheming and plotting for the next four years, those against Hillary plotting to take over and her supporters plotting against them. We are in a unique period of American history where we're not as idealistic as we were in the 1960s nor are we as jaded as we were in the 1980s and 90s. A generation of voters who grew up in the shadow of Watergate are coming to be force to be reckoned with and promises of a past that was secure but full of fighting are not as appealing as they once were. Even the Republicans can't use that as appeal, hence the losses by Giuliani, Romney and Huckabee. Better by comparison isn't enough anymore.
We need to demand our politicians be good.
So it is written, so do I see it.
EDIT. I forgot add this in since there was no great place for it, but really, I LOVE that people respond to these and how_i_lie's response made me really think about this for hours. It made me think about the changing and historical nature of American politics and the forces of history compared to the forces of modern media. It's a pretty big crossroads we might be at. And a little more recognition from everyone, including more ardent Obama supporters, that political opponents are on the same side (that is decency, trying to do a little right in the world and America) would behoove us all.
and if you do ever get to New York, lemme know, I know the best cannolis in the city.