A Political Achilles' Heel -- For Both Parties!
Bloggers are, almost by definition it seems, political animals and frequently, thought not always, very partisan. That is not necessarily bad but this does lead to a weakness.
There are literally thousands of issues and many issues have multiple facets which means that we are as likely to agree 100% with another person on every issue as we are to share identical DNA. That is good, for the most part, for it makes it more likely that issues will be fully examined and if one idea fails, there are others to take its place, much like survival traits in a species. (As an aside, I do not mean to suggest that I believe in inter-species evolution, but I do believe that survival of the fittest within a species is a reality.)
However, a large number on both sides of the aisle allow their politics to define their beliefs rather than visa-versa. As an example, Jesse Jackson used to be militantly pro-life, proclaiming that abortion was a genocide against blacks, until he ran for president and needed NOW's support (at which point his politics started directing his beliefs.) Al Gore and Bill Clinton used to be pro-life as well. This problem also exists on the political right, but the left seems far more insistent on political conformity aka "Political Correctness". (which I believe is a major weakness of the Democratic Party).
On the other side, our politics sometimes does not allow us to even grudgingly admit when our opponents have a point or do something right. We seem to feel that to ever admit that the "bad guys" did something right or the "good guys" did something wrong is totally unacceptable. For example, did we acknowledge it when Bill Clinton refused to submit Americans the International Court of Justice? He did the right thing in that instance and it should be acknowledged, even if overall I did not like having him for president. I do not need to say that those on the left will never give President Bush credit for any thing he does and will prevent needful things from being done so that he doesn't get credit.
A political party is a consensus of people of varying opinions and this diversity of opinion can be a strength if used properly. We generally agree on the major issues, though disagree on some facets of the issues and differ on lesser issues. If a Democrat votes for something I want passed, then I will thank him and give him ungrudging credit. If a Republican votes against something I care about, well I won't be changing parties over one issue (unless it's a bigee!).
So why do I call this a political Achilles' Heel? The Democrats are determined to prevent President Bush from accomplishing anything, including things that they agree with because they don't want him to go on record as having achieved anything. They are far more obsessed with bringing him down then most Republicans were to bring down Bill Clinton. If he is for it, they are reflexively against it and if he is against it, they are reflexively for it. While many of the GOP went along with Mr Clinton when he made sense, many of the DEMs will oppose Bush on the principal that anything he does is bad because he is evil. They are letting their politics define their stand on the issues rather than letting issues define their politics. This is going to hurt them in '06. And the Republicans need to watch and learn.
There are literally thousands of issues and many issues have multiple facets which means that we are as likely to agree 100% with another person on every issue as we are to share identical DNA. That is good, for the most part, for it makes it more likely that issues will be fully examined and if one idea fails, there are others to take its place, much like survival traits in a species. (As an aside, I do not mean to suggest that I believe in inter-species evolution, but I do believe that survival of the fittest within a species is a reality.)
However, a large number on both sides of the aisle allow their politics to define their beliefs rather than visa-versa. As an example, Jesse Jackson used to be militantly pro-life, proclaiming that abortion was a genocide against blacks, until he ran for president and needed NOW's support (at which point his politics started directing his beliefs.) Al Gore and Bill Clinton used to be pro-life as well. This problem also exists on the political right, but the left seems far more insistent on political conformity aka "Political Correctness". (which I believe is a major weakness of the Democratic Party).
On the other side, our politics sometimes does not allow us to even grudgingly admit when our opponents have a point or do something right. We seem to feel that to ever admit that the "bad guys" did something right or the "good guys" did something wrong is totally unacceptable. For example, did we acknowledge it when Bill Clinton refused to submit Americans the International Court of Justice? He did the right thing in that instance and it should be acknowledged, even if overall I did not like having him for president. I do not need to say that those on the left will never give President Bush credit for any thing he does and will prevent needful things from being done so that he doesn't get credit.
A political party is a consensus of people of varying opinions and this diversity of opinion can be a strength if used properly. We generally agree on the major issues, though disagree on some facets of the issues and differ on lesser issues. If a Democrat votes for something I want passed, then I will thank him and give him ungrudging credit. If a Republican votes against something I care about, well I won't be changing parties over one issue (unless it's a bigee!).
So why do I call this a political Achilles' Heel? The Democrats are determined to prevent President Bush from accomplishing anything, including things that they agree with because they don't want him to go on record as having achieved anything. They are far more obsessed with bringing him down then most Republicans were to bring down Bill Clinton. If he is for it, they are reflexively against it and if he is against it, they are reflexively for it. While many of the GOP went along with Mr Clinton when he made sense, many of the DEMs will oppose Bush on the principal that anything he does is bad because he is evil. They are letting their politics define their stand on the issues rather than letting issues define their politics. This is going to hurt them in '06. And the Republicans need to watch and learn.
posted by shoprat at 7:39 PM
2 Comments:
Well said Shoprat!!!!!
Great post, Shoprat.
Neo, I disagree with you on the the '06 results, but FOR the reason you stated. The Democrats have also failed to learn that spite doesn't win elections. If it did Bill Clinton wouldn't have had a second term, and the Senate would have been owned by the GOP sooner.
The other thing they failed to learn is that folks want a plan. They talk about the lack of firm direction on Iraq, then their House leader says that their diversve views (lack of a firm direction) is a good thing.
Post a Comment
<< Home