A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
June 07, 2005Iran and the American Political SystemThere were two interesting articles in Time Magazine this week. One was about youth in Iran, and how the government is buying their loyalty with bling bling. Maybe I'm over-simplifying the article, so read it and let me know what you thought. And as you're reading it, I want you to compare and contrast to the youth right here in our own country. I work at the mall, and if I had a nickel for every youngling I ran into that didn't know who the Secretary of State was, but knew where to buy $2000 hubcaps for their Honda Civic, I'd be able to afford $2000 hubcaps and a Honda Civic. And in related news, there were a bunch more suicide attacks in Iraq and Game recently put G-Unit on blast at Hot 97 Summer Jam. There was also an article called "Which Brand Would You Buy?" about test marketing two new political parties. There's the "Party of Sanity," an offshoot of the Republican Party (kind of) that is best represented by Tom Friedman from the New York Times. The other is the "Party of Passion," an offshoot of the Democrats (sort of) that is best represented by Lou Dobbs from CNN. It may sound a bit convoluted, but it really is a great read. Here's an excerpt: "But the real oddity of American politics in the information age has been the relative powerlessness of both populism and elitism. Dobbsians despair about the rule of corporate interests; Friedmanites despair about the reign of witless partisanship. Both groups, but especially the Friedmanites, are appalled by the willingness of politicians-and yes, the press-to let social issues like the life and death of Terri Schiavo and peripheral fights over presidential appointments overwhelm the traditional priorities of economic and foreign policy. But the political landscape may be about to change." The preceeding was paid for by John Brodigan for a Better America Posted by Brodigan2016 at June 7, 2005 07:23 AMComments
I read the article on Iran. IT was great and sad at the same time. Iran and the US both have some thing very important in common, the population is distracted just enough to let tyranny continue uninterupted. Posted by: Mark R at June 7, 2005 08:28 AMThe U.S., tyranny? Please, save that kind of garbage for the MoveOn boards. Last time I checked, we got to vote for our representatives. If you get enough signatures you can even get YOUR name put on the ballot in the next election. You have no idea what real tyranny is like. If you did, you wouldn't be so glib throwing around the word like that. Feel good about one thing, however, your little soundbite provides a prime example of why the far Left has so little credibility in this country. Posted by: Cengel at June 7, 2005 10:10 AMI agree with Cengel, to an extent. Yes, tyrany is the wrong word in this situation. But I would agree with Mark's point if it was worded more like "the population is distracted just enough to let corrupt rule continue uninterupted," which is true, even if it is to varying degrees (Iran's being the more extreme of the two, of course). Posted by: Art at June 7, 2005 03:04 PMI don't know what you mean by saying people are "distracted." Does that mean they vote differently than you would prefer? Posted by: MWS at June 7, 2005 03:32 PMTyranny...Gulags. Bush doesn't equal Hitler; Bush=Stalin. ;-) Posted by: c3 at June 7, 2005 04:56 PMC3 - it's ridiculous comments like that which illustrate how far the Democratic party has to come before you're anywhere close tobeing in shape to winning an election. On the matter at hand, Klein's piece is interesting, and spaks, interestingly enough, to the CAFTA issue we were discussing the other day: "There appears to be a growing market for a moderate version of 'America first' populism...[i.e.] more restrictive trade and illegal immigration policies. [A Pew Center survey found] the populust procliviyies of 70% of the electorate, ranging across the spectrum from 'social conservatives' to 'disadvantaged democrats'. 'I wouldn't be surprised', says [James] Carville, 'if the coming word in American politics was neoisolationism'." TIME magazine, June 13, 2005 at 35Posted by: Simon at June 8, 2005 12:25 AM Simon, Carville's comments make sense to me. From the time 9/11 uncomfortably jolted us, it was my sense that as time passed Americans would yearn ever more fiercely for the fjords of navel-gazing and narrow self-interest. The Jacksonian impulse gnrally exhausts itself one the impression spreads that the immediate crisis is past. If this also leads to neo-protectionism, I hope we get an official signal so I'll know when to invest all my money in free-trade countries with competitive advantages. Posted by: bk at June 8, 2005 12:54 PMSimon; c3 - Sorry, my bad. :p Posted by: Simon at June 8, 2005 08:57 PMActually, Cengal, Moveon doesn't have any Bush=Hitler boards. But here's a fun one about religious right=Nazi Germany: http://www.hatecrime.org/subpages/hitler/hitler.html Posted by: Blue Jean at June 10, 2005 01:58 AM |
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?
|
