(no subject)
Right now I’m reading Rise of the Vulcans: The History of Bush’s War Cabinet by James Mann (Yeah, I had kind of been hoping that by this point it would be more of an exercise in history and less applicable to the current situation, but oh well. Know thine enemy, and all, I guess...). Very well written. Last night, I was struck by a particular passage (found on page 247) regarding US alliances:
"In the first Bush administration, these allies had been treated as partners. In the evolving view laid out by Wolfowitz on Iraq, the allies were treated as ducklings who would inevitably get in line behind their American Mother."
This seems like a pretty accurate assessment. Now, aside from the obvious offensiveness of Wolfowitz's approach, what strikes me more than anything is the ridiculously impractical nature of this view. I mean, did they really think this would happen? Nations that have enjoyed generations of sovereignty would swoon at the sight of our manly military-muscles and acquiesce to anything we asked, just because we asked? Impractical.
And then it got me thinking. We Democrats are supposed to be the hippy-tree-hugger-liberal-pansy-starry-eyed-unrealistic folks who, in our quest for some kind of socialist Utopia, refuse to see the world for what it is. I would respectfully suggest that it is in fact the Republican Party that suffers from some sort of disconnect with reality (this particular administration's brand is brilliantly laid out in that NYT October 17th article by Suskind), and it is the Democratic Party that has a realistic and practical view of the world.
It'd be great of the world was race- and gender-blind. Really great. But it isn't. Until we do reach the point where it is, we're going to have to make some adjustments so that the playing field for future generations is leveled a bit.
By the same token, if you've been able to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, good on you. No, really - I respect anyone who's been able to build a successful life for themselves from scratch. But I know that I've had a lot of advantages over those around me, and I know that not everyone has the opportunity to pull themselves up. Again, sometimes having a level playing field means making some adjustments. A rising tide lifts all boats - if we want to grow as a nation, shouldn't we bring everybody along for the ride, not just those with trust funds?
Capitalism can be pretty snazzy. The markets are indeed self-regulating, after a fashion. I say 'after a fashion' because they'll regulate and balance themselves with regard to the one goal of capitalism, namely the acquisition of more money. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's important to remember that when a company like Enron tanks, people lose jobs and incomes, investors lose faith in the market, and the value of your portfolio tanks as well. Better for all involved if we keep a close eye on things, yes?
It'd be excellent if there were fewer abortions. But instead of simply cutting off access to safe ones, it might be more practical to head it all off at the pass by preventing unwanted pregnancies with a little thing we like to call real sex ed., instead of the "No touching! Ever!" that we get from abstinence-only education, which has proven to be pretty much the opposite of effective. My friend teaches 6th grade, and one of her students from last year is now a daddy. Jesus.
It'd be swell for every kid in America to have a mom and dad who loved them. But it's not always practical - there are lots of kids waiting for parents - and you know what? It's not always best for the kid. Simply having the right plumbing does not a parent make. Above and beyond any of that gender-role-model-bullshit (and really, in a society were the lines of 'traditional' gender roles in the home are blurring, what the hell does that mean anymore?), what matters most of all for a child is that it is loved and supported and it knows that it is loved and supported. End of story.
I am a Democrat. I am a Liberal and a Feminist (and those are not dirty words!), and I am pretty sure that the Republican Party is the one engaged in government-by-wishful-thinking. You're free to disagree, of course, but I'd love to hear how these policies demonstrate a realistic view of anything.
PS - It really is a very good book - I highly recommend it.
PPS - Fare thee well, Ashcroft. Don’t let the door hit your sanctimonious ass on the way out. (Here's hoping he's not replaced by someone worse, if such a thing is possible...)
"In the first Bush administration, these allies had been treated as partners. In the evolving view laid out by Wolfowitz on Iraq, the allies were treated as ducklings who would inevitably get in line behind their American Mother."
This seems like a pretty accurate assessment. Now, aside from the obvious offensiveness of Wolfowitz's approach, what strikes me more than anything is the ridiculously impractical nature of this view. I mean, did they really think this would happen? Nations that have enjoyed generations of sovereignty would swoon at the sight of our manly military-muscles and acquiesce to anything we asked, just because we asked? Impractical.
And then it got me thinking. We Democrats are supposed to be the hippy-tree-hugger-liberal-pansy-starry-eyed-unrealistic folks who, in our quest for some kind of socialist Utopia, refuse to see the world for what it is. I would respectfully suggest that it is in fact the Republican Party that suffers from some sort of disconnect with reality (this particular administration's brand is brilliantly laid out in that NYT October 17th article by Suskind), and it is the Democratic Party that has a realistic and practical view of the world.
It'd be great of the world was race- and gender-blind. Really great. But it isn't. Until we do reach the point where it is, we're going to have to make some adjustments so that the playing field for future generations is leveled a bit.
By the same token, if you've been able to pull yourself up by your bootstraps, good on you. No, really - I respect anyone who's been able to build a successful life for themselves from scratch. But I know that I've had a lot of advantages over those around me, and I know that not everyone has the opportunity to pull themselves up. Again, sometimes having a level playing field means making some adjustments. A rising tide lifts all boats - if we want to grow as a nation, shouldn't we bring everybody along for the ride, not just those with trust funds?
Capitalism can be pretty snazzy. The markets are indeed self-regulating, after a fashion. I say 'after a fashion' because they'll regulate and balance themselves with regard to the one goal of capitalism, namely the acquisition of more money. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's important to remember that when a company like Enron tanks, people lose jobs and incomes, investors lose faith in the market, and the value of your portfolio tanks as well. Better for all involved if we keep a close eye on things, yes?
It'd be excellent if there were fewer abortions. But instead of simply cutting off access to safe ones, it might be more practical to head it all off at the pass by preventing unwanted pregnancies with a little thing we like to call real sex ed., instead of the "No touching! Ever!" that we get from abstinence-only education, which has proven to be pretty much the opposite of effective. My friend teaches 6th grade, and one of her students from last year is now a daddy. Jesus.
It'd be swell for every kid in America to have a mom and dad who loved them. But it's not always practical - there are lots of kids waiting for parents - and you know what? It's not always best for the kid. Simply having the right plumbing does not a parent make. Above and beyond any of that gender-role-model-bullshit (and really, in a society were the lines of 'traditional' gender roles in the home are blurring, what the hell does that mean anymore?), what matters most of all for a child is that it is loved and supported and it knows that it is loved and supported. End of story.
I am a Democrat. I am a Liberal and a Feminist (and those are not dirty words!), and I am pretty sure that the Republican Party is the one engaged in government-by-wishful-thinking. You're free to disagree, of course, but I'd love to hear how these policies demonstrate a realistic view of anything.
PS - It really is a very good book - I highly recommend it.
PPS - Fare thee well, Ashcroft. Don’t let the door hit your sanctimonious ass on the way out. (Here's hoping he's not replaced by someone worse, if such a thing is possible...)