The reason looking at historical voting records of each party doesn't really work is because the parties have changed greatly in the past century. Where once democrats generally included slave owners in the deep south (founded as it was by jefferson, madison, etc), that demographic has pretty much been swept away since the civil rights movement. And where once an intellectual from illinois could comfortably call himself a republican, it is safe to say that that, too, has changed. The current republican party, and this administration in particular, upholds few, if any, of the many moral prinicples it uses to get votes, demonstrating a startling level of hypocrisy. Smaller government? They've gone out of their way to put the unitary executive theory into work, trying their best (as many of them did during the nixon administration) to make the president a quasi-monarch, while tapping our phones for freedom, altering well defined laws of torture and habeas corpus, and putting our country into greater and greater debt. Gay marriage? While Karl Rove and Dick Cheney were openly opposing gay marriage, making it a huge national issue during election election years to distract their homophobic base from any real issues, they consistently asked for 'privacy' when it came to their own families. While everyone knows that Cheney's daughter, Alan Keye's daughter, Newt Gingrich's daughter, etc are open lesbians quietly loved and supported by their families, few know that Karl Rove, while trying to put a gay marriage ban in the constitution, often visited his gay stepfather (who he always called dad) and his stepfather's partner in Palm Springs. Family values? One can only imagine the unholy hate-filled shit storm that would have spewed from the right had a democrat announced a female vp with 5 kids, a six month old with downs syndrome, and a pregnant 17yr old. In short, the republican party of today stands for nothing and just wants power, nothing else.
I figured it was a shame typing up a long, politically-intelligent response and not posting it to my blog, so here is my response, in full:
Why so partisan? The whole purpose of political debate is to further the discourse, ultimately developing a policy that is acceptable to most representatives of both parties, The whole reason I wrote this was that Mr. Herbert's arguments are so blatantly partisan that anybody with half a brain could poke holes in them. Which I proceeded to do. Now, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat. Bigger government scares the shit out of me, as does God in government, as does the nanny state, as do countless other things about both parties. Your point about the evolution of the parties is valid, and I agree wholeheartedly that neither party today is the same as it was 25, 50, or 100 years ago. I found the argument that long-past conduct is a justification for present political control to be ludicrous. Thus Mr. Herbert's insistence that Liberals have a track record to be proud of is not quite true; the modern parties bear no resemblance to those of 40 years ago. Republicans have co-opted the JFK-style Liberalism, and the old-Democrats have evolved (or regressed, depending upon how you feel about it) to Progressivism. It is ridiculous to claim that the modern Democratic party should be proud of FDR's accomplishments, just as it is pointless to suggest that modern Republicans bear any similarity to those of Lincoln's day. If you want to term the evolution of party ideals as hypocrisy, that is fine by me, but I would ask that you recognize that the Democrats are just as guilty of this hypocrisy as the Republicans, and that you consider which is more likely top be successful: a party that stays stagnant, never changing its ideals, or a party that evolves to meet its constituents' wants. I agree that the current administration has been awfully hypocritical, saying one thing and then doing another. However, I invite you to consider the complexities of the issue: would the Democrats have attacked Bush as lax on security if he had not taken precautions, like wiretapping? Although the courts have ruled that habeas corpus extends to enemy combatants, (a bad decision in my view), before that ruling the law only extended to citizens within their own country; enemy combatants without a country were not protected. Historically, in times of war the president has always had the power to curtail certain civil liberties for the sake of security. The courts have taken a new stand, hurting Bush a lot, but restrictions on freedom such as wiretapping are nothing new. Remember that the government rounded up Japanese during WWII and interned them. These restrictions of freedom by the Federal government are nothing new. Although I agree that unbridled executive power is extremely dangerous, speaking as an individual, it's ok with me if they wiretap my phone and subject the tapes to computer analysis to make sure I'm not a terrorist. Just a personal opinion, and I completely see how that wouldn't be ok with you. Debt? Look at the government's fiscal deficit over the past 75 years. We were in debt most of the time. Clinton's surplus was the happy result of increased taxes and a new, flourishing economic sector. I agree that the current debt is bad, (lots of crowding out), but it's nothing new nor particular to the Republican party. Lastly, regarding gay marriage, abortion, and what people do with their genitals in general: I think it's an awful shame people care about this so much. John Edwards had to drop out of the race because it was revealed he had cheated on his wife. If Bill Clinton hadn't lied under oath, I wouldn't care one hoot about his infidelities. Giuliani would have been a great president, I think, but his past spouses reflected poorly upon him. I think that in general, we should all care a whole lot less about what politicians do in their spare time, and instead focus on their policies.
Palin's actions can all be framed in her belief in the right to life and the wrongness of abortion. That is her in a nutshell. She appeals to a lot of people because, well, a lot of people think abortion is wrong. Very wrong. Most Democrats would say they don't think abortion is a walk in the park, I think. What could they do if elected to overturn Roe v. Wade? Nothing, in practical terms, because that was a Supreme Court decision. Personal views, in this case, aren't worth a hoot. As for Republicans trying to define marriage as between a man and a woman, while at the same time having gay children, isn't the simplest reason because they really, really believe in it? Enough to put it above family? I'd like to think that they wouldn't hurt their children just to get votes, but it could just be me. As for a hate-filled shit-storm, as you so-eloquently put it, I don't myself know, but I find it likely that the Republicans could use that as a political leverage device, just as the Democrats are currently doing so wholeheartedly. Again, just a hypothesis.
The whole point of this email is not to support Republicans, because many of the things they do are not supportable. I am merely trying to keep you from demonizing the opposition party. Aside from the political spin in an election year, a crime of which both parties are guilty, their views are founded upon real principles, just as are the Democrats. While I don't agree with all the arguments I have made here, at least I am able to remove myself from the discourse sufficiently to approach the discourse compassionately.
No comments:
Post a Comment