Party of Ideas
And I'm proud of my party. Our party's been the party of ideas.-----
We said, "Here's a problem, and here's some ideas as how to fix it."
This is the definition of the dynamic that the Administration and Republicans have attempted to frame the terms of debate within. Time and again we'll hear how the Democrats will obstruct, but won't produce an idea to solve the problems.
You know, not all ideas are good ones. This comment is about Social Security, but let's look at some recent Republican ideas:
- Elective war based on very tenuous evidence against an Arab country
- Pre-Emption as a politically viable method of reason
- Significant levels of media manipulation
- Anti-Transparency policies
- Deep Federal involvement in very personal crises
- The addition of morally abandoned Constitutional legal discrimination
- Allowance of massive Corporate Scandal
- Obscene unilateralism
And yet, we must recognize that the Republican party, and more importantly the Conservative Movement, has been one of the most successful and organized system of implementation of ideas of the last 30 years.
None of this should surprise us, considering the lengths the Conservative Movement has been pursuing in terms of development of intellectual theory (think tanks), a media coup (Fox news), the setting and pulling of the greatest political trap of the contemporary age (impeachment of Clinton for inanities), and massive cultural inroads and manipulation (Conservative Evangelicals, What's the Matter with Kansas?, etc). The Republican party simply has been the party of ideas, not necessarily because any of their ideas are substantially better, but because they've utilized the entirety of the party to enact those concepts so successfully.
posted by General Stan at 11:02 PM
2 Comments:
Re: the speech: He didn't really mean this, did he?
"And I am mindful that people in political office should say to somebody, 'You're not equally American if you don't happen to agree with my view of religion.'"
Or did he?
Hm. I'm not sure if he meant it or not. In fact, Freud would argue that irregardless of perception, yes, he meant it. If he said it and simply meant it, then there it is, said and meant, overt and honest. More likely, he rehearsed trying not to say it and got "stressed out" and ended up saying it. Of course, that raises the question: Why was he trying NOT to say something? likely to deceive or blanket certain terms or thoughts. So then, the little freud devil comes out and he ends up saying exactly what he didn't WANT to say, but also exactly what he MEANT. So... it's a double headed coin in this flip, and both sides say "yes."
Post a Comment
<< Home