I struck a raw nerve when I noted Republican's call for President Obama to fail. In the comments, Loren, from Socrates' Academy, managed to put a rational spin on the conservative viewpoint that deserves a reply.
If Republicans, in Congress and out, view it as their mission to insure the Obama Administration is a failure then they will work to that end. But, failure is not an option. If Obama's Presidency is a failure then it means that the United States will be worse off four years from now than we are today. Take a moment to wrap your mind around that depressing thought. Now wrap your mind around the notion that one of America's major political parties would be working for the country's ruination.
Not possible, you say. Here in California the state is halfway through its fiscal year and still does not have a budget because of intransigence by the Republican minority. (Also here.) California Republicans would rather the state devolve into chaos than see a budget with even a hint of Democratic priorities.
None of this means I expect, or want, Republicans to roll over and play dead. I have an abiding faith in the marketplace of ideas. The minority opposition plays a vital function in a democracy. They challenge the majority's proposals, revealing the weaknesses of bad ideas and shine a bright light on process so that the people's collective will is more closely followed. The opposition shouldn't always be agreeable. Hell, it needn't even be respectful (I never was).
What some Republicans are talking about is economic sabotage. Rather than eloquently arguing their points of view with the intention of winning in that marketplace of ideas they simply want to block any initiative on the theory that, after four years of unrelenting and every worsening crises the public will hate Obama even worse than they hate Bush now.
* *
Perhaps my opposition to the Iraq War may show the difference.
I opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. I expected it to fail. I didn't hope it would fail; I hoped I was wrong. I expected the Shi'ites would hate an American occupation army almost as much as the Sunnis would. I expected invading Iraq would strengthen Iran. I expected the three way ethnic split - Sunni, Shi'ite, Kurd - would lead to something looking like civil war. I didn't expect the chaos after the fall of Baghdad; I didn't expect Abu Ghraib; I didn't expect the Iraq War would destabilize Afghanistan. In many ways the Iraq War was a worse failure than I had anticipated.
I didn't work to make the Iraq War fail (as if I had that power), I wouldn't if I could. I criticized the failures and argued for something better (like bugging out) and hoped that through public pressure saner minds would prevail.
My advise to my conservative countrymen
Be critical. Argue against whatever you think is stupid. Make your case for what you think is better and try your best to convince to us. If you can make enough sense you might win a few points. Go ahead and be petty and disrespectful (I was), if we can't stand the heat we shouldn't be in the kitchen.
Don't be obstructionists. Don't block the bridge to the future like brutish trolls (the ogreish Nordic kind) seeking only mindless destruction. Don't seek failure for its own sake.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
But, failure is not an option. If Obama's Presidency is a failure then it means that the United States will be worse off four years from now than we are today.
And that is the nub of my disagreement with you, KE. I think there is plenty of room between Obama's success or failure and that of the country as a whole. In fact, I think the less he is able to accomplish of his agenda, the better off we will all be.
Despite his rhetoric of unity and putting partisanship behind him, Obama is a doctrinaire liberal, and is as partisan a politician as any around.
If the United States is not worse off four years from now, Obama's presidency, categorically, did not fail. Sure, he will not get everything he wants. No president does.
As far as being "as partisan a politician as any around," well, that's nonsense. W "swept" into office with fewer votes than his opponent and a bare lock on the Electoral College. His attitude toward the minority party in Congress was pretty much "Sucks to be you. We're doing it my way."
In contrast, President Obama has gone out of his way to meet with and negotiate with Congressional Republicans on the stimulus package. He's gone out of his way to ask Congressional Democrats to remove things like family planning money from the stimulus package in order to make it more palatable to Republicans. And frankly, he's in a position where he doesn't really need to be so accomodating. He won by a lot more than W did, and he can probably pull off the stimulus without the support of the Republican leadership. It probably wouldn't be impossible for him to pick off 2 or 3 Republicans in the Senate. After all, doing nothing is not a realistic option. Sure, it's a romantic image - "Ah, the strong and wise survive, the weak fall, we all learn good lessons and improve ourselves" but that image has absolutely no bearing on reality.
Post a Comment