Republicans Root For Obama's, America's Failure
Remember a couple of weeks ago when conservatives cheered and applauded the announcement that the United States would not host the 2016 Olympics? Remember when the Republicans in Congress begged the Democrats to water down health care reform and then said they would oppose any health bill even if all their demands were met? Never mind that Americans are literally dying for health care. Never mind that medical bills are the number one cause of U.S. bankruptcies. Republicans have a president to sink, whatever the costs.
Rooting for failure. You expect it from guys like Limbaugh or Beck, who are so drunk on rage and fame that they actually believe their own bullshit. But even I assume there are still some honest, principled voices on the Right. Maybe there are. Somewhere. But they apparently have little power.
7 comments:
I think it has to do with the fact that for many of these people, it's all a game. And what matters in a game is winning. (Despite what all our t-ball coaches told us). What matters is winning and holding power. Who cares what they'll actually DO when they get power. They just want it. They win!
As far as someone on the right not rooting for failure, George Will comes to mind. Whether you're a fan or not, he's an extremely bright man who, very generally speaking, seems to not be completely crazy with rage or rooting for the downfall of the Democratic party. He doesn't agree with 90% of their policy decisions, but he's also not openly rooting for Obama's failure. (Of course I haven't read him in quite a while.)
Just remember that if a Republican ever again wins the White House, you'll be un-American if you root for his failure.
Ok. My wife's been challenging me on the fact that I don't generally get enough progressive input, and she's probably right.
Let me just say at the outset that I really enjoy listening to Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt, but I realize that I'm only getting one side of the story, and I think it's only responsible to try.
I don't see myself becoming a Rachel Maddow fan anytime soon, and it's unlikely I'll set The Huffington Post as my homepage. But I've read your blog on and off since I started my own, and have developed a real respect for your opinion.
So anyway, I'm reading. I may disagree with a lot of what you say, but I'm glad you're saying it.
...if that makes sense.
-David
Politics is a sport with two big rivals. Like the Red Sox and the Yankees and what-have-you, there are the Rs and the Ds. It is cutthroat with some people. With others, it's not that big of a deal. These people that want the president to fail take it too far. They're like the face-painting front row maniacs obsessed with their team.
The only part of politics I see worthwhile in conversing about is the ideals and concepts behind government/community i.e. no government vs. omnigovernment, communal living versus mainstream life. These types of ideas are the original objects that cast the shadows that are politics. By playing the game of politics your just chasing shadows that follow the sun under which there is nothing new (for trash like you).
David, that makes perfect sense to me. I'm honored that you're reading, and I hope you stick around.
By the way, I just read some Medved and Hewitt, so I think now you owe it to yourself to watch Maddow tonight. :)
I really think your wife's challenge is a good one--both for the right and for the left. We all tend to settle into our media cocoons at times, and we could all afford to take a look around the wider world. In practice, I tend to go back and forth on this though. I'm proud (I guess) to say that I recently read the National Review on and off for a year, at my father-in-law's urging. I think it was good for me, but I'll admit I was kinda glad when the subscription expired.
Liz and Chris... I think the game analogies are good. And part of the shrillness of the debate is often because people forget the essentials of what we're arguing over and remember only that we're arguing.
But, as I've written before, I think it's just as big of a mistake for people to step back and say that both "sides" are equally wrong in opposite directions. I think this leads to a sleepy centrism that just accepts the status quo (a de facto victory for what I would call the Right)...not to mention the false idea that there is a "center" that can be easily defined in the first place.
Here's the post I'm thinking of: http://betterthanmachines.blogspot.com/2008/12/politics-aint-geometry.html
Yeah well my tendency would be to shy away like you're talking about. Mostly because I hate that kind of grandstanding, everyone-is-wrong-but-us that both sides are capable of. I get impatient when one side demonizes the other, which YES, the Right is quite good at. But lefties do it too. And that leaves people like me: smart but maybe not politically savvy, just thinking, "To heck with this. I can't identify with any of these people."
That's why I appreciate your blog, D. You for sure have your opinions, but you also back them up pretty well. It makes me think about issues that frankly I'd rather avoid. Which is healthy for me!
And I'll also add that I think Glen Beck is a total gasbag. Can't watch him.
A couple of weeks ago Paul Krugman wrote in the New York Times that in the matter of the Olympics thing the Republicans were acting like spoiled 13 year olds. He had a point. Thanks, Dave, for your blog posts. They are entertaining and educational.
Post a Comment