On being of good cheer

[nancylebov]

When I just posted about an out(r)age, my tone was rather chipper, and there's a reason.

Earlier in the current administration (may its name be wiped out), it seemed as though a lot of my friends were despairing. America was on a vertical slide to dictatorship, though with some question of whether it would be mostly theocratic or mostly plutocratic. The country was in the hands of Rethuglicans, and membership in that party (past some date after which people Should Have Known Better) was proof of incorrigible evil.

After a while, it occurred to me that the country was showing signs of resiliance. Even a very bad administration isn't the whole story about a nation, and a political party is not completely defined by the people in charge of it. America has a lot of both individual and structural resistance to going completely bad. This was perceptible even before the balance in congress tipped.

So, while you can look at that news story and be primarily focused on how disgracefully the current administration is behaving, what I mostly see is that neither the public nor members of the administration's own party is putting up with it.

Comments

[whouseknecht.livejournal.com]

Even a very bad administration isn't the whole story about a nation, and a political party is not completely defined by the people in charge of it.

My thought exactly. It's why, although I do not desire such a thing, I do not believe that a Democrat majority in the government (White House + Congress) would ruin the country by dragging us closer to a Socialist state. They can't. There is only so much a president can get away with (*cough*semenstainedress*cough*) before popular opinion rises up and makes clear that he/she has crossed a line. Likewise, Congress can only go so far before the individual legislators realize that toeing the party line is going to get them kicked out of office in the next election.

Whether the so-called Blue-State people (which term is nonsensical; the difference is between high-density (Blue, Liberal) and low-density (Red, Conservative) population areas) like it or not, the country as a whole tends to be Centrist-leaning-toward-Conservative. People don't like anything radical (Centrism - both Theocracy and Socialism are disdained), and they prefer things not to change much (Conservative).

Regardless of the ranting of moveon.org and other far-Left groups, there was never any danger of a Theocracy arising during the last two presidential terms. Likewise, even if Gore had not f**ked up his legal challenges in the 2000 election (the Supreme Court didn't cause Mr. Gore to lose; his own mis-handling of the recount requests did) and had won, the warnings from the far-Right groups about "imminent Communism" and "suppression of Christianity" would also have been baseless.

I do not look forward to the country being run by any of the three top contenders (Obama (all rhetoric, no substance), Clinton (too manipulative, just like her husband), and McCain (his picture is next to the definition of RINO on-line, isn't it?). I won't even consider Huckabee, because this country will never elect someone that Right-Wing); even so, I do not believe that any of them pose a significant threat to the basic middle-of-the-road philosophy that has guided our people for these oh-so-many years. If they push things to the Left, they will eventually bounce back to Center-Right, just as a hard push to the Right would eventually be countered by a shift to the Left.

If a Democrat gets elected, I know all the Blue people will cheer and rejoice and be happy. Some of them will even gloat. I expect the celebration will settle down in a year or two when they realize that, just like every other time, they have elected a power-brokering politician who is just like the last one!

Cheers!

[regalpewter.livejournal.com]

Well Said, but don't forget there is precident for totaliarianism in our system. (Woodrow Wilson and his Asst Sec./Navy; FDRoosevelt.) When you read about what the Fabians and Progressives were pushing, there are many folks who would welcome it in this country. Sadly, with the current slate of candidates I fear we are going to live through the '70's again.
YIS,
WRI

[madfilkentist]

The 70's were a period of considerable distrust in government due to a really sleazy president, and resulted in some laws which made government more open, so that might not be altogether bad.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

just like the last one

While I find much to agree with in your post, I must take issue with this emphasized phrase. While it is true that all the candidates are power-brokering politicians, that emphatically does *not* mean that they are all alike, or all equally bad. I fervently hope that we don't see another president "just like" our current one in my lifetime.

[whouseknecht.livejournal.com]

We never get presidents who are "just like" any of the previous ones, except inasmuch as they're power-brokers and manipulators who've worked their way to the top of their profession.

No, our country will always be able to come up with new and interesting variations on the POTUS. People only hope that the next one will be "just like <my-favorite-potus>" (hey, there's a sitcom in there somewhere... dang, Ray & Bill are both deceased! Oh, well...). They're invariably disappointed; however, the learning curve of the herd is very close to flat, so they just keep on hoping...

(Of course, this is not to complain; we could always end up with a chimera, a POTUS that combines the attributes of prior POTUSes (POTI?). Everyone would hope for a combination of all the good stuff (the charisma of Reagan, the courage of Kennedy, the wisdom of Lincoln, etc., etc.), but we'd probably end up with a combination of the bad stuff (the morals of Clinton, the personality of Nixon, the determination of Carter.... oog)).

[nancylebov.livejournal.com]

Well, you're rather cheerier about things than I am. I don't think a decent outcome was guaranteed, just that it was reasonably likely.

And we were lucky that our putative evil overlords were stupid and chaotic. If they'd managed even a modest level of competence in New Orleans and Iraq (or even stayed out of Iraq), they could have stolen the country.

You mentioned that the country wouldn't have gone for theocracy, but you left out the plutocracy option. I found the theory that GWB wanted to turn the country into Mexico rather plausible.

My impression is that Obama is rather better than average, and I hope to have a chance to find out whether I'm right.

[whouseknecht.livejournal.com]

1. In the words of Bugs Bunny: "Remember, Doc: keep smiling!"

2. "stolen the country"? I'm not sure what you mean.

2a. New Orleans - If the Louisiana governor and/or the New Orleans mayor had managed to show even a modest level of competence, the disaster would have been lessened considerably. As it was, their main function was to dither and then blame the Federal government for being racist and incompetent. Nice glass house you got there, be a shame if anything happened to it...

2b. Iraq - perhaps we should not have gone into Iraq; perhaps we should. The problem is that the intelligence game is one which operates with incomplete information. If every Western intelligence agency (not just CIA) says, "Iraq has WMDs!", how can we expect the President to react? I do not buy that he was looking for an excuse, nor that he was "avenging his daddy", nor that it was just to fatten Halliburton, etc.

There is also the problem that, once we did go in, every single f***ing news service (except Fox, but Blue people don't trust them) and Liberal around has been howling "Quagmire! Vietnam! Imperialism!". Yeah, that's it, claim it's doomed from the get-go, present nothing but bad news about, play up the mistakes that must inevitably occur (there is no such thing as a "clean war") and then, when public support starts lagging, jump up and yell, "See! We told you! It's doomed!". We'd all be a lot better off if the press would just report what's happening and stop sifting the information for shit to throw. People on the ground in Iraq have been regularly reporting about the improvements that have occurred, the increasing standard of living, and the optimism of the Iraqi people for their being able to shape their own destiny. Remember when we heard about the purple fingers of the voters in Afghanistan? Amazing how the news just couldn't let a positive moment linger, what with immediately reporting about people being murdered when they went to vote, and people being assaulted after they did. How about the fact that these things didn't stop the people from voting?!?

3. Plutocracy? What about it? You sound as if you think this is a Conservative or Republican tic; it's not. If you haven't noticed, it's been demonstrated that the majority of contributions to Republicans come from small, individual contributors offering less than $100 each, whereas the Democrats receive the bulk of their funds from large organizations and the wealthy. Sounds like them that has want the Democrats in power to so they can keep on getting.

GWB wants to turn the country into Mexico? In what way? I find his policy on illegal immigration to be contemptuous, along with his apparent pandering to the President of Mexico who's presently stumping the country to convince us to let more of his poor, unfortunate people come here against the law. Hm... Okay, maybe I can see that one.

4. All I've heard from and about Obama is that he talks about Hope™ and Change© without specifying much about what he means. Hope? Okay, Blue people "hope" that a Democrat will be elected president. Change? Having a Democrat as president seems to be the major "change" he's offering. How about some specific policy suggestions? How about an Iraq policy that doesn't amount to "We're running like hell and the Iraqis can go f**k themselves!"?

I really wanted to be able to vote for Fred Thompson. He is an actual Federalist: the least government is the best, the rights guaranteed in the Constitution should be upheld, and the Federal government should be as small as possible so the States can get on with running their own business. Alas, he was too late out of the gate, and never caught on with the Republican base. I hope he is well enough and determined enough to try again in 4 years. He'd have my vote in a heartbeat.