I’ve mostly refrained from commenting on the presidential race because it’s all too depressing, reflecting the political pathologies of our time. And neither party seems able to offer a way forward.
I won’t be voting for Obama, and I doubt I will vote for the GOP candidate. First, the Democrats. They’ve hitched themselves to a narcissistic, messianic leftwing community organizer/academic lawyer with no experience or knowledge of how the private sector generates wealth for society as a whole, and who rigidly adheres to the political ideology that raising taxes on “the rich” (including many small business owners) and expanding the bureaucratic regulatory state by leaps and bounds will lead to economic growth, or if not exactly growth, at least “fairness,” which is more important anyway.
———-
An animated Yule-time look at the Obama presidency thus far that’s not even parody—it’s all too true.
———
The likely Republican choice is coming down to Romney or Gingrich, one bland and one grandiose, pandering to the social conservatives in their base by pledging to deny us basic equality under the law.
The Democrats are stuck with Obama but the GOP has the opportunity to pick a socially moderate fiscal conservative with a proven record in prudent governance and foreign policy. That would be Jon Huntsman, who sits with 1% in the polls among Republicans. Not going to happen.
The other major GOP contender who at least opposes the anti-gay Federal Marriage Amendment (and who voted to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”), Ron Paul, garners around 8 percent but likely would be less electable in the general election than Huntsman because his libertarian views on government—and especially foreign policy—seem out of the mainstream.
So there you have it. The next four years will likely see further polarization, without the bipartisan consensus necessary to trim the entitlement programs that are sinking us in astronomical debt, and will do so if not reformed regardless of any tax increases on “the rich.” The GOP isn’t likely to summon the will to make these cuts on its own, and the Democrats would rather demagogue (“Mediscare”) their way back to congressional power.
Politics is inherently corrupting since it is predicated on power and compulsion. That’s why limited government was so dear to the founders. We’ve lost our way, and may wander in the darkness for a long time to come.
More. In the comments, reader Tom Scharbach is more optimistic, noting: “Stephen, you can take some comfort in the fact that the presidential candidates most closely allied with the far-right religious conservatives (Bachmann, Perry, Santorum) — the true believers — aren’t doing all that well in the contest. …” He also writes:
It is going to take a while for the Republican Party to break loose of the death-grip of religious conservatives. The death-grip was thirty years in the making, and it will take time to undo it. But it will happen, eventually, because the county is changing rapidly. It won’t be too many years before opposition to “equal means equal” becomes a political liability, and that will break the death-grip.
29 Comments for “Political Reflections”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Stephen, you can take some comfort in the fact that the presidential candidates most closely allied with the far-right religious conservatives (Bachmann, Perry, Santorum) — the true believers — aren’t doing all that well in the contest. Together they reflect about 15% of the Republican primary vote nationally, if Real Clear Politics polling data is an accurate indication, and no more than 25% in Iowa, where the far-right conservative Christian base is as strong as anywhere in the county.
Yes, Romney and Gingrich are both pandering, but I doubt that either of them gives a flying you-know-what one way or the other about gays and lesbians, and so we aren’t in any worse position than their grandmothers, in the sense of being sold down the river for the sake of ambition. The moment it becomes politically inconvenient for politicians like Romney and Gingrich to pander — and the polls suggest that it is becoming increasingly inconvenient every year — they will sell the religious right down the river just as fast as they sold you and me.
I’ll grant you that 2012 is a bleak year for LGBT Republicans who don’t want to == and hopefully won’t — vote for politicians pledged “to deny us basic equality under the law”. It is just about impossible to find viable Republicans running for office at state or national level who aren’t so pledged. I think you’ve been able to identify one Congressional candidate and one State Senate candidate so far. I imagine that there are a few others, but they are certainly few and far between.
2016 probably won’t be a lot better. It is going to take a while for the Republican Party to break loose of the death-grip of religious conservatives. The death-grip was thirty years in the making, and it will take time to undo it.
But it will happen, eventually, because the county is changing rapidly. It won’t be too many years before opposition to “equal means equal” becomes a political liability, and that will break the death-grip.
Meanwhile, if you and other LGBT Republicans do what many of us did years ago in the Democratic Party, refusing to give a dime or a minute’s time or a vote to anti-equality politicians within our party while supporting pro-equality candidates generously, you’ll help speed the process of change.
posted by BobN on
“we aren’t in any worse position than their grandmothers”
What legislative risks do their grandmothers face that will single out grandmothers for second-class citizenship?
Romney is a flipflopper of extraordinary ability and Gingrich is a consistently anti-gay panderer. Why assume their antipathy to us — which in Romney’s case might not be “real” — won’t result in any real harm?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I love it when Obama Party staffers like Tom Scharbach blather that they “refus(ed) to give a dime or a minute’s time or a vote to anti-equality politicians within our party” when evidence to the contrary is so blatantly obvious.
And that’s not even counting the fact that, if being against gay marriage makes you “anti-equality”, Barack Obama is “anti-equality”, and Tom Scharbach has had no trouble giving MANY dimes, minutes, and votes to him.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Meanwhile, let’s also point out the winning message that LGBT staffers of the Obama Party like Tom Scharbach are pushing out — such as “Don’t pick on Jon Corzine for stealing billions of dollars because he’s a good ‘progressive’ and supports gay-sex marriage”.
But again, no surprise; we’ve seen Alan down at the bottom of this thread reiterate that LGBT voters care about nothing other than gay-sex marriage, and that nothing an Obama Party member does is wrong if they support gay-sex marriage.
Which makes their hypocrisy again obvious, because Barack Obama does not support gay-sex marriage., but they still will enslave themselves to him and do whatever he says.
posted by kane on
When will people abandon the fantasy that Republican Party stands up for “small government”? It’s unbelievable.
Neither party are for small governments. They are both power-grabbing monsters, which are readily verifiable if you look past their propaganda.
I know it’s desirable to have divided governments from libertarian points of view, but for some reason I seem to hear such (from libertarians) only when Democrat is in power.
I myself consider libertarian-leaning (not totally), but when it comes down to the choice between the two, the choice is pretty clear. At least until the Republican party regains its sanity. As long as Republicans invoke “God” in national politics they should be treated as what they are – nuts.
posted by BobN on
“When will people abandon the fantasy that Republican Party stands up for “small government”? ”
A week after they disabuse themselves of the notion that the GOP stands up for the small businessman. In other words, not in our lifetimes…
posted by Houndentenor on
The GOP is now the know-nothing party. This week Perry released an anti-gay ad underscored with music written by a homosexual (Aaron Copland’s Fanfare for the Common Man). There is no decency among the religious right. But they have the GOP by the balls. It will take decades for the sane factions of the party (those that haven’t already jumped ship) to wrest that control back. I doubt I will live long enough to see it. Copland must be turning over in his grave to know that the executors of his estate have whored out his art to the likes of Rick Perry.
posted by BobN on
Oh, just you wait. Jeb — or someone like him — will swoop in in early 2012 and provide a “sane alternative” to the nutjobs and an “electable alternative” to Romney.
Put your money on it. They are.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, given how Houndentenor’s own Jon Corzine, Obama’s top liaison to Wall Street, got up this week and blathered that he had no idea where the $1.2 billion in client money that he and his fellow Obama donors siphoned off from MF Global went, I’d say “know nothing” applies much better to them.
But of course, we have to remember the mindset of Houndentenor and Alan. If you support gay-sex marriage, nothing else you do is wrong. The fact that Jon Corzine was actively meeting with Barack Obama and getting Barack Obama to remove any regulations that would prevent Corzine from siphoning billions is irrelevant. The fact that Barack Obama supports and endorses Corzine’s behavior, as does the Obama Party, is irrelevant. They can do whatever they want because they’re Obama Party members, and Houndie and Alan will spin for them for supporting gay-sex marriage.
Even though, ironically, Barack Obama doesn’t.
posted by Houndentenor on
Yet another strawman argument from nd30.
I am too baffled to respond. Perhaps someone with a grasp on reality can explain to me when I ever span (spinned?) for Corzine or commented on his current ethical/legal problems. I have no intention of defending him. (Since I never lived in NJ and never voted for him or donated to his political campaign or lifted a finger to support him in any way, I have no earthly how I am responsible for him now.)
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, Corzine was operating and carrying out his swindles with the full approval and knowledge of Barack Obama and the Barack Obama Party.
So since Houndentenor endorses and supports Barack Obama and the Barack Obama Party, he fully supports and endorses Corzine’s actions.
posted by Jorge on
Well, I’m happy.
I would have preferred not to have a president who had to learn foreign policy on the job, but we did okay. It occurred to me a couple of weeks ago that Obama is very smart for someone who opposed the Iraq War. He has a very strong, very reasoned view on that, and he’s been able to use that. He’s taken his disdain for an expansive American influence in the world (which I do NOT share) and used it to craft a stronger focus on destroying al-Qaida. And this country has successfully resisted the insidious influence of Attorney General Eric Holder.
I’ll admit to not paying any attention to Jon Huntsman. Otherwise it’s difficult for me to realistically imagine myself being happier with what’s happening in the Republican field (realistically, now). We’ve gone from having a succession of hyper conservative Tea Party slaves controlling the thunder (especially Bachman) to a showdown between Romney and Romney-lite. We have a commitment toward a bipartisan conservative agenda, compassion toward illegal immigrants, and complete color-blind policy. My preference is still for No Child Left Behind-style racial policy, a commitment to foreign aid, and an unabashedly interventionist foreign policy (that is, Rick Santorum), but I’m pleased that things are at least moving in the right direction.
posted by Houndentenor on
“smart for someone who opposed the Iraq War”???
I would point to that objection as a sign of his intelligence.
posted by Jorge on
I hardly consider “Bush died, people died” as above caveman intellect.
You are displaying a rather disgusting trait right now: equating political positions with intelligence.
posted by Houndentenor on
1. Some of us were skeptical that the Bush administration claimed to know how much of various weapons were stockpiled and their locations (as Cheney claimed on Meet the Press in 2002) while inspectors seemed to find no such weapons. Why rush to war before the weapons were found unless you doubted that they would be?
2. Cheney et al. touted that we would be “greeted as liberators” when we arrived in Iraq. That was a ridiculous claim then and over 8 years later it is patently absurd. Many of us saw clearly that toppling SH would lead to an internal Civil War and that we would be there for many years to come.
Should I go on? We were misled into the war and those who opposed it were right to do so. Those who bought the Bush administrations pile of crap should be publicly ashamed to admit it now.
posted by Houndentenor on
Oh, and how could I forget this piece of Cheney “wisdom”: The oil revenues will pay for rebuilding Iraq. We have borrowed over a trillion dollars and counting for this mess. So much for the GOP as the party of fiscal responsibility. (As if they had been since Eisenhower left office.)
posted by Jorge on
Should I go on?
Yes you should. How about explaining how having a particular political position has anything to do with intellect???
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Some of us were skeptical that the Bush administration claimed to know how much of various weapons were stockpiled and their locations (as Cheney claimed on Meet the Press in 2002) while inspectors seemed to find no such weapons.
Only the ones who weren’t aware that the inspectors and their UN masters were being bribed.
Meanwhile, let’s remind Houndie what his Barack Obama Party was saying back then too:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
–Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
–Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
— Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
— Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
— Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
— Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
— Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”
— Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”
— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”
— Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
— Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.”
— Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
— Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
posted by Alanmt on
I will be voting for President Obama, again. This lifelong conservative, lifelong member of the Republican party until 7-4-10, takes the position that the neither the current sitting President, nor the political party to which he belongs are going to fundamentally wreck the United States and are the most likely vehicle by which nonjudicial recognition of equal rights for me, my marriage, and my family are to be achieved. So he (and it) get my votes until full legal equality is achieved. Then we can work on fixing whatever else has gone wrong.
Although, frankly and regrettably, it just seems that the Democratic party is more likely to achive better results on almost all fronts now, given the weird anti-intellectual, anti-reality, pro-statist Christian Dominionist turn the GOP has taken. This has been the strangest and most embarrassing primary season for either party I can recall.
posted by Seth on
Your marriage rights will do you little good if you are too broke to afford a roof over your head, or, worse yet, if you are in indefinite detention without trial as a result of your political opinions. Gays need to pull their the one end of their alimentary canal from the other and start to recognize that we are all facing much larger threats to our basic civil rights and survival.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oh really?
Tell us, Alan. What do you think about your Barack Obama and your Barack Obama Party ordering the deliberate sale of guns to Mexican drug cartels in the hope of fomenting violence that they could then use as an excuse for taking guns away from US citizens?
Oh, that’s right. You don’t care about anything other than gay-sex marriage.
This is why Republicans and conservatives don’t take people like you seriously, Alan. They’re well aware of the fact that the only thing you care about is having your sexual orientation pandered to, and that you will support and endorse anyone who does that regardless of any other consideration.
posted by northdallasdumbass on
Again, your creepy obsession with “gay-sex marriage” is indicative of your on-going mental deterioration. Most of the homosexual people I know and hang out with spend nowhere near the quantity of time reflecting on “gay-sex marriage.” When the day arrives when homosexuals are not granted, but recognized for having equal marriage rights, duties, and responsibilities, please have a large supply of boppies, I’ll supply the adult depends, until you make the adjustment to the new reality.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Really? That’s the best you could do?
LOL.
posted by Alanmt on
Dude, I only engage in serious political discussion with people who are serious, intelligent and nuanced. Why don’t you and talk about something else? I think we can both agree that In ‘N Out burgers are fantastic, right? Mmmmmm, I wish there was one closer than 1000 miles from where I live!
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I would, Alan, but the problem is this:
– Michelle Obama doesn’t want you to eat them.
– Michelle Obama says you’re a child abuser if you take your family to fast-food places.
– Both Michelle and Barack Obama want the government to regulate and legislate them out of existence.
So really, as an Obama supporter, you shouldn’t even be expressing an opinion on their taste, because that could mislead people into eating them, and you would thus be responsible for their health problems.
And if you’ve ever taken a child there, you’re an abuser.
posted by Jorge on
Nuanced. I must pick up that line.
posted by Houndentenor on
No amount of quote mining or distractions about the weapons inspectors changes the fact that THERE WERE NO WMDs in IRAQ. But thanks for reminding me what spineless weasels the Democratic leadership were during 2002-2003. We went to war based on a lie. The fact that most Americans, including a lot of Democrats, bought it doesn’t make it true. It just makes it even more shameful that to date we have borrowed over a trillion dollars to fight a war based on that lie and that we will be in debt to China and other nations for decades to come as a result. Thanks for reminding me. I was called a traitor to my country just for asking questions about how we would get out of Iraq once we got in and questioning the rationale and evidence for the war. I was right. I’m not letting it go.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No amount of quote mining or distractions about the weapons inspectors changes the fact that THERE WERE NO WMDs in IRAQ.
Oh, I think you’ll flip-flop on that very quickly.
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
–President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998
“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
–Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
–Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
– Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
– Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999
You see, that’s what makes you funny, Houndentenor. You and your fellow Obama puppets are shrieking “Bush lied, Bush lied” over and over again — but were saying absolutely nothing when your Obama Party was making exactly the same claims that there WERE WMDs in Iraq and that Saddam was actively seeking more of them.
posted by Jorge on
No amount of quote mining or distractions about the weapons inspectors changes the fact that THERE WERE NO WMDs in IRAQ. But thanks for reminding me what spineless weasels the Democratic leadership were during 2002-2003. We went to war based on a lie. The fact that most Americans, including a lot of Democrats, bought it doesn’t make it true.
So how come Obama didn’t call it a lie like you just did? You can’t both be right! Someone’s gotta be the fool party here. Is it you or Obama?
So after all this time, with a hat tip to the citations of Madeline Albright et al, we’ve basically come full circle and established that Barack Obama’s position on the War in Iraq reflects an intelligence and depth that is rather more common among the supporters than among the opposition. Was it really necessary to go through all that just to show that I’m right? Next time just admit that I’m right. Bye-bye, red herring. You were fun, but your credibility is now squashed. (Really now, next time you need to attack the weak point of my presentation, the weak point!)
So I’m happy. We did okay on national security, and the Republican candidates are moving closer and closer to what is the ideal on national security. It’s a better place to be at for an election that’s really going to be on the economy than where we were several months ago. Things *could* be better, but you can’t have everything.