A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
October 28, 2004THE END OF THE MODERATE AMERICAN?There is an interesting editorial by Thomas Friedman 0f the NY Times on the damage political polarization is having not just on America but the rest of the world. Most of us have watched with horror as, after a chance to be united on 9/12, the country has only grown farther and farther apart. Many blame Bush, but I think there is enough blame to go around. What we're left with is the seeming absence of civility. Friedman gives some suggestions as to how we can return the majority of America to the middle by changing our place on the world stage. In the end, he sees Bush's ability to get this done as almost impossible. When it comes down to it, if he isn't willing to admit he did anything wrong, how could he begin to fix things in his second term? Valid question. What Friedman doesn't say is how Kerry could get it done either, but maybe he thinks the fact that it's Kerry instead of Bush is a first and necessary step to getting anything done. Comments
that is such a childish assumption. There is no guarantees that Mr. Not-Bush will make things better. Posted by: Rachel at October 28, 2004 11:37 AMThe two party system contributes to polarization, though Bill Clinton was able to reach across party lines in the case of NAFTA and welfare reform, two items opposed by significant elements of his own party. Has Bush ever reached over to Democrats in opposition to significant elements in his own party? Posted by: rickheller at October 28, 2004 12:20 PMRachel, Why is it "childish" to think that, if person A is doing a lousy job, person B might do a better one? It might not be correct, but it's not childish. Otherwise, why ever bother to vote against an incumbent? Obviously, there are no guarantees but it's sort of unrealistic to expect guarantees. How can ever know if someone else would be better? Posted by: MWS at October 28, 2004 12:44 PMrickheller - sure he has. The prescription drug bill was very unpopular with Republican legislators. Republican leaders had to work very hard to get enough Republican votes. I think NCLB was not real popular with the Republicans in Congress, but I'm too lazy to see how they voted. (Then again, I'm out of the mainstream -- I think we should abolish the federal Dept of Education.) Immigration reform and sending people to Mars are a couple of failed Bush initiatives that many Republicans opposed, but the Democrats might have supported. Posted by: Oberon at October 28, 2004 01:19 PMI think it's extreme venomous rhetoric that forces people to choose sides based on who they hate more, rather than who they support...which then leads to more hateful rhetoric. The cycle continues. Take note, Marc Shulman. Posted by: anonymous at October 28, 2004 01:52 PMNo, as far as I know, NCLB was a GOP pony with broad conservative support. It was opposed by the Democrats and especially the teachers unions. In the end, lots of people signed on to avoid being cast as anti-education. So any final vote tally is not going to tell the real story. I understand and respect some of the theoretical rationales behind abolishing fed'l control over education. But as someone on the inside of the education industry, I also know there are some good reasons for it and solid benefits to it. Briefly, the most important benefit is all of the virtues that any sort of standardizing effort brings. Even with the recent increase in federal control, there is still an enormous amount of time, resources, and energy wasted in state-by-state and town by town efforts to re-invent the wheel. If federal control were reduced, we'd see a ton of balkanization and haphazardness to efforts at improving education. Posted by: bk at October 28, 2004 02:28 PMYeah, well, sometimes I'm just a conservative ideologue. Yes I do think it's rather childish. It's definitely presumptive. We're talking about a man (Kerry) who had 18 more years of foreign policy experience, yet he voted to give Bush authority to go to war in Iraq, claim that it was the "wrong war" then demand Bush admit he made a mistake but not admit his own? What am I supposed to expect? Posted by: Rachel at October 31, 2004 08:41 PM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
