We're getting in the middle of Black History Month, and once again we are treated to different visages of cultural ass-kissing -- yes, ass-kissing -- from various sources of the mainstream media. Of course, there's going to be some white conservatives out there that's going to circulate the infamous quotations of Morgan Freeman in his 60 Minutes interview from a few years back when he dispelled his support for Black History Month.
There's two reasons why I don't really like Black History Month: for one, I resent that it fosters the belief that we should only give a damn about black history only one month or a few weeks out of the entire year. In fact, I resent that same idea for all various demographic divisions that humanity has concocted for I am a strong believer that historical awareness should have no boundaries in length of time. History is a beautiful thing and it necessary to be consistently and constantly aware of it so that we have a greater understanding of the present and enhanced perspective as to what we think or hope for in the future.
The second part is the ass-kissing and I'm going to limit this part to this diatribe to only Black History Month even though it could be universally applied to any "Insert Demographic Here" History/Awareness/Only-Give-A-Damn-About-It-Right-Now Month. We're going to see numerous specials, numerous commercials, and schools are going to make numerous announcements in commemoration of black history, and then it's mostly quiet for an entire year afterward. What makes me more of upset that it is largely regurgitation only exploring household names with a little bit of a curtly nod to the less celebrated. We often talk of tirelessly of the work that Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X during Civil Rights Movement, but even during this month, we don't hear much of the work and sacrifice that W.E.B. du Bois, Marcus Garvey, Ralph Abernathy, James Baldwin, Clyde Kennard, James Meredith, Medgar Evers, Claudette Colvin, and others did during those turbulent years. You'll hear of Langston Hughes, a fine author in his own right, but why wait until college to hear about Ralph Ellison and August Wilson?
I understand the awareness which is mainly the purpose that Black History Month serves, and while that is a fair assessment, I still believe that the history of our people, both here in the United States and abroad, is worth way more than just 28 days (or 29 days in a leap year) of conscious groveling that will all but cease on the first of March.
Monday, February 13, 2012
Thursday, February 9, 2012
How Antipathy Has Fueled - and Will Doom - the Republican Party
I attended a political lecture given by William Galston tonight here at the University of Houston. Dr. Galston is a former public policy advisor to former President Bill Clinton and a noted progressive.
In one of his responses in the question-and-answering session after the lecture, he mentioned about the feelings of public antipathy, especially amongst the blue collar sector, that now harbor a resentment towards government and social programs. Moreover, he also noted that in the past half century, Americans have went from "trusting government too much" to "not trusting government at all". He later answered another question after the question-and-answering session about the Tea Party, noting that the Tea Party movement was largely fueled by antipathy and antipathy can go a long way in carrying a political message.
Throughout history it has been proven that antipathy fueled movements may last as long as desired but don't really yield the results desired. The two most recent antipathy movements -- the Tea Party Movement and Occupy Wall Street -- are largely still ongoing in spirit, yet neither movement had a concrete agenda that could lead to significant, implemented change. Considering this post is about the Republican Party, I'll make a comment on the Tea Party: yes, I'm well aware that they talked about being anti-tax, anti-social programs, robust fiscal restraint, and anti-government -- but the Tea Party has yet to accomplish anything relatively significant, except to become the most vocal sect of a political party since the Dixiecrats of the mid 20th century.
Three antipathy movements are fueling Republican discourse at the moment: the relationship between government and the economy, which runs Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich's engines; the relationship between government and society, which powers Rick Santorum's campaign; and an overall disgust with the government, which pushes Ron Paul along. What these movements are causing is deep rifts within the GOP. Granted, I'm well aware that all four candidates have somewhat put out plans to "get America back on track". The only issue is that while all four candidates have plans that undoubtedly address what is pissing people off at the moment, none of them are adequately sustainable.
Because of these antipathy movements, all four candidates are guilty of fostering unrealistic viewpoints of how the current issues facing the United States can be and should be resolved. In addition, all four candidates are dangerously guilty of promoting what they can and their policies can actually do about it.
Here's the reality: technological advancement, coupled with globalization, has increased competition for labor. Wages have stagnated because there's more people competing for jobs -- this time on a global scale. Wealth, increasingly, is transitioning from property to financial capital. Health care is expensive because of how medicine is practiced. The fiscal woes facing various states and governments is less about spending and more about inadequate revenue. The tax system has issues not because people are paying too much in taxes but because the current tax code keeps getting structured to shrink the paying tax base. American values are not on the decline; Americans are becoming more aware that if someone's personal choice does not affect them directly, then their rights shouldn't be infringed on. There's no such thing as a war against religion, but a realization that government is to be religiously neutral.
However, all four candidates are playing on antipathy felt by their constituencies. That should be expected and that is indeed part of -- for a lack of a better word -- "good" campaigning. As a consequence, especially with Ron Paul appealing to younger voters and voters that generally lean to the center-left, the Republican Party has diversified and within that diversification, each bloc of voters is pissed about something different and the aims of every bloc of voters are not universal.
Of course, the idea is that the unifying goal should be to vote President Obama out of office -- the underbelly of that is whatever candidate that wins the nomination will be clueless as to how to properly address and properly accept this new Republican diversity. If you need evidence: there's a reason why the Republican Party didn't accept Romney's moderate position and forced the former Massachusetts governor to project himself as a conservative; there's a reason why the Republican Party rejected the Internet-based and youth movement fueled by Paul's candidacy; and there's a reason why the GOP is still desperate to find the next Reagan, even entertaining candidates that have had ethics issues (Gingrich) and was embarrassed in their last election (Santorum in 2006). As much as the Republican Party and their supporters do not want to admit it -- there's actually more to getting the incumbent out of office. You should have seen that lesson learned with George Bush in 2004 for the Democrats.
So of course, the antipathy streak will continue on in the Republican Party, considering that the schism is inevitable and that schism will end up giving Obama a second term. It will eventually doom the Republican Party. In truth, it dooms any aspiration that the political party has -- either sooner or later.
In one of his responses in the question-and-answering session after the lecture, he mentioned about the feelings of public antipathy, especially amongst the blue collar sector, that now harbor a resentment towards government and social programs. Moreover, he also noted that in the past half century, Americans have went from "trusting government too much" to "not trusting government at all". He later answered another question after the question-and-answering session about the Tea Party, noting that the Tea Party movement was largely fueled by antipathy and antipathy can go a long way in carrying a political message.
Throughout history it has been proven that antipathy fueled movements may last as long as desired but don't really yield the results desired. The two most recent antipathy movements -- the Tea Party Movement and Occupy Wall Street -- are largely still ongoing in spirit, yet neither movement had a concrete agenda that could lead to significant, implemented change. Considering this post is about the Republican Party, I'll make a comment on the Tea Party: yes, I'm well aware that they talked about being anti-tax, anti-social programs, robust fiscal restraint, and anti-government -- but the Tea Party has yet to accomplish anything relatively significant, except to become the most vocal sect of a political party since the Dixiecrats of the mid 20th century.
Three antipathy movements are fueling Republican discourse at the moment: the relationship between government and the economy, which runs Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich's engines; the relationship between government and society, which powers Rick Santorum's campaign; and an overall disgust with the government, which pushes Ron Paul along. What these movements are causing is deep rifts within the GOP. Granted, I'm well aware that all four candidates have somewhat put out plans to "get America back on track". The only issue is that while all four candidates have plans that undoubtedly address what is pissing people off at the moment, none of them are adequately sustainable.
Because of these antipathy movements, all four candidates are guilty of fostering unrealistic viewpoints of how the current issues facing the United States can be and should be resolved. In addition, all four candidates are dangerously guilty of promoting what they can and their policies can actually do about it.
Here's the reality: technological advancement, coupled with globalization, has increased competition for labor. Wages have stagnated because there's more people competing for jobs -- this time on a global scale. Wealth, increasingly, is transitioning from property to financial capital. Health care is expensive because of how medicine is practiced. The fiscal woes facing various states and governments is less about spending and more about inadequate revenue. The tax system has issues not because people are paying too much in taxes but because the current tax code keeps getting structured to shrink the paying tax base. American values are not on the decline; Americans are becoming more aware that if someone's personal choice does not affect them directly, then their rights shouldn't be infringed on. There's no such thing as a war against religion, but a realization that government is to be religiously neutral.
However, all four candidates are playing on antipathy felt by their constituencies. That should be expected and that is indeed part of -- for a lack of a better word -- "good" campaigning. As a consequence, especially with Ron Paul appealing to younger voters and voters that generally lean to the center-left, the Republican Party has diversified and within that diversification, each bloc of voters is pissed about something different and the aims of every bloc of voters are not universal.
Of course, the idea is that the unifying goal should be to vote President Obama out of office -- the underbelly of that is whatever candidate that wins the nomination will be clueless as to how to properly address and properly accept this new Republican diversity. If you need evidence: there's a reason why the Republican Party didn't accept Romney's moderate position and forced the former Massachusetts governor to project himself as a conservative; there's a reason why the Republican Party rejected the Internet-based and youth movement fueled by Paul's candidacy; and there's a reason why the GOP is still desperate to find the next Reagan, even entertaining candidates that have had ethics issues (Gingrich) and was embarrassed in their last election (Santorum in 2006). As much as the Republican Party and their supporters do not want to admit it -- there's actually more to getting the incumbent out of office. You should have seen that lesson learned with George Bush in 2004 for the Democrats.
So of course, the antipathy streak will continue on in the Republican Party, considering that the schism is inevitable and that schism will end up giving Obama a second term. It will eventually doom the Republican Party. In truth, it dooms any aspiration that the political party has -- either sooner or later.
The End of American Unilateralism
There's two emerging forces taking shape in the United States today -- one is a force that recognizes that American unilateralism can lead to disastrous consequences; that recognizes government and policy should aim for realism, not idealism; and that there is a definitive line between sound patriotism and irrational, idealistic, and illogical nationalism. The other force is rooted in a deep insecurity held by the current generation of this country, with visions of the United States being on the decline with elevated unemployment, stagnating wages, a dysfunctional government, and countries such as China, India, and Brazil emerging as influential world economies along with being even bigger players on the foreign policy scene.
I read Fareed Zakaria's (who is emerging as my favorite political writer of all time) Washington Post column, which is in the form of an open letter to Mitt Romney, in response to his quip that Barack Obama believes that "...this century is the post-American century". Zakaria appropriately derided the GOP front runner's sentiments, criticizing it as narrow-minded fodder and stressing that the reality is that the "age of American unipolarity -- which began with the collapse of the Soviet Union -- is over." This is true. Zakaria's book takes the position that the United States should not necessarily feel threatened, but more or less should embrace the emerging success of the aforementioned countries.
The irony of the nationalist-fueled campaigns that the Republican Party candidates have waged is that they constantly invoke the historical foundations of American values, yet at the same time will deny that not even the United States is immune to what history has proven time and time again -- that unilateralism and unipolarity is not perpetual. It's a lesson that Spain learned in the 17th and 18th centuries, that France learned after Waterloo, and what Britain learned after the two World Wars. Not to mention the American system, which for years upon years was touted as the socioeconomic model that everyone should follow, was soon embraced by China (slightly), India (somewhat), and Brazil, amongst others, and its no surprise why those countries are where they are now.
Yet, at the same time, there's something else at play when it comes to the decline of American unilateralism and unipolarity -- the perpetual case of insecurity that, in truth, is displayed but not often discussed in the way that it actually needs to be discussed. Ideally, a nation's foreign policy would to be coordinate the interests of their own country into mutually beneficial and peaceful international relationships. I stress ideally. With unilateralism and unipolarity, this is not the case. The European imperialist drive from the late 19th century to the mid-20th century is a perfect example of this. Britain built an empire over two centuries that proved to be unsustainable in just a short decade plus after the conclusion of World War II. Napoleon's unipolar drive for France only lasted a little more than a decade. We all know what happened to Spain. In short, having a foreign policy that aims to do more or less anything and everything to make sure that the pendulum perpetually swings into your nation's favor is almost always going to do more long term harm than good. The insecurity that fuels the idea that a country needs to do anything and everything to maintain their position at the top of the mountain is driven by nationalist pride. Throughout the course of history that course of action has proven to eventually catch up with the country sooner or later.
Despite not being their biggest fan, I recognize that President Obama, along with Representative Paul, have somewhat a grip on this new reality. In my mind, there is nothing wrong with bringing an end to the "you're either with us or against us" mentality that is a stalwart for neoconservative thinking. It did not do any favors for the United States before and it certainly won't do any favors for the United States now or in the future.
I read Fareed Zakaria's (who is emerging as my favorite political writer of all time) Washington Post column, which is in the form of an open letter to Mitt Romney, in response to his quip that Barack Obama believes that "...this century is the post-American century". Zakaria appropriately derided the GOP front runner's sentiments, criticizing it as narrow-minded fodder and stressing that the reality is that the "age of American unipolarity -- which began with the collapse of the Soviet Union -- is over." This is true. Zakaria's book takes the position that the United States should not necessarily feel threatened, but more or less should embrace the emerging success of the aforementioned countries.
The irony of the nationalist-fueled campaigns that the Republican Party candidates have waged is that they constantly invoke the historical foundations of American values, yet at the same time will deny that not even the United States is immune to what history has proven time and time again -- that unilateralism and unipolarity is not perpetual. It's a lesson that Spain learned in the 17th and 18th centuries, that France learned after Waterloo, and what Britain learned after the two World Wars. Not to mention the American system, which for years upon years was touted as the socioeconomic model that everyone should follow, was soon embraced by China (slightly), India (somewhat), and Brazil, amongst others, and its no surprise why those countries are where they are now.
Yet, at the same time, there's something else at play when it comes to the decline of American unilateralism and unipolarity -- the perpetual case of insecurity that, in truth, is displayed but not often discussed in the way that it actually needs to be discussed. Ideally, a nation's foreign policy would to be coordinate the interests of their own country into mutually beneficial and peaceful international relationships. I stress ideally. With unilateralism and unipolarity, this is not the case. The European imperialist drive from the late 19th century to the mid-20th century is a perfect example of this. Britain built an empire over two centuries that proved to be unsustainable in just a short decade plus after the conclusion of World War II. Napoleon's unipolar drive for France only lasted a little more than a decade. We all know what happened to Spain. In short, having a foreign policy that aims to do more or less anything and everything to make sure that the pendulum perpetually swings into your nation's favor is almost always going to do more long term harm than good. The insecurity that fuels the idea that a country needs to do anything and everything to maintain their position at the top of the mountain is driven by nationalist pride. Throughout the course of history that course of action has proven to eventually catch up with the country sooner or later.
Despite not being their biggest fan, I recognize that President Obama, along with Representative Paul, have somewhat a grip on this new reality. In my mind, there is nothing wrong with bringing an end to the "you're either with us or against us" mentality that is a stalwart for neoconservative thinking. It did not do any favors for the United States before and it certainly won't do any favors for the United States now or in the future.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
SOPA, PIPA, Piracy, and the Power of Liberty
I know, I know, innovating and evolving is difficult.
You have a tried and true system in place and you don't want to change it, no matter how old it is and no matter how much it actually adds fuel to the fire that you're trying to put out.
Piracy, which is what the two laws I'm going to discuss in post is apparently supposed to address, is the result of two things -- companies that are not willing to innovate from an antique business model and a natural progression on the exchange of content. Companies want to maintain the "status-quo" as to how to produce and distribute content, especially the latter, and does not want to do more to do evolve even further in the latter. As we seen throughout history, people take part in illegal activity not only because they can, but because they see the value in it. Online piracy is no different. Not to mention, when it comes to movies, mentioning this as the MPAA is one of the biggest supporters of this bill, companies such as Netflix (i.e., the subscription debacle) and Blockbuster (who waited too long to actually start effectively competing with RedBox) aren't doing any favors for the film industry. Not to mention, the lurid efforts to combat piracy by resorting to attempting to get legal means to be invasive is an illustration of how the MPAA and other media giants fail to get the concept of efficiency.
In other words, as long as the current business model allows for Internet pirates to see value in what they do, well, pirates will still do what they do and other online users will still seek to benefit from the work of the online pirates. I mean, as a society, we always tend to bite from the hand that feeds.
Piracy is no different.
There's two fundamental truths that people on all sides of the debate surrounding the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Internet Protocol Act (PIPA) should take note of: piracy is the result of the aforementioned industries not evolving with the times and secondly neither of these laws would stem piracy, but would have unattended (notice, I said unattended and not unintended) consequences. The reason why for the word choice is that the consequences would be intentional -- corporations seeking more proprietary control of the Internet, which would go unattended because of, well, the law.
We cry about how we interpret laws. We've been doing that over the Constitution since 1787. It's a clear and present danger with this legislation because the legislation in its current form (SOPA, as noted by bill author Republican U.S. Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, will be revisited in February) is extremely vague and ripe for exploitation by whoever seeks to reap benefits from it. Many of the law's detractors, such as Firefox, Google, Wikipedia, Wordpress, among others, are concerned that it would lead to widespread censorship on the Internet and destroy the personal freedom of choice of obtaining information. This is indeed a fear that is far from being unreasonable.
Not to mention, the bill is so vast and vague that it corporations would be able to take knee-jerk reactions to the courts. So, you make a personal YouTube video blog and in the background you have a certain movie or song playing in the background? With SOPA, a corporation could panic, cry infringement, and get your video taken down -- even if you actually went to Walmart and bought the DVD or CD that was playing. Fair use provisions in the Copyright Act? Torched. Imagine going to Wikipedia to read about the subject, then be unable to have no pictures of that subject because companies would demand for any related pictures to that subject to be taken down -- even if the picture was for educational and non profit purposes only.
I could have numerous websites that I build be taken down if it was suspected that any material was pirated. Granted, I do not use pirated content in the websites that I build and of course, I ban it in my contract. Nonetheless, this law could possibly allow companies to come after me for just being an enabler. PIPA could even censor websites that I build or even my own website because of a perception of being a threat -- either competitively or informatively. The power of liberty that fuels the Internet would be severely compromised, and every one of us would lose.
Jobs will be torched because companies will quit innovating as its even more legal hurdles to overcome (the patent laws are bad enough). As the United States furthers its progression as a service economy, the Internet will grow in greater dependence than it already is. Companies know that, which is why they are pushing for greater legally backed control of it. People need to realize that. It's not about just young, tech-savvy geeks that is speaking out against this bill. It's not just about illegal downloads of movies or music. It's about corporations having the legal pathway to do things and affect your daily life and access to information that it has no business in doing so.
So I plead to each person reading this post to contact your representative member of Congress. Do what you can to stop this egregious act against the freedom of the Internet. It affects all of us.
You have a tried and true system in place and you don't want to change it, no matter how old it is and no matter how much it actually adds fuel to the fire that you're trying to put out.
Piracy, which is what the two laws I'm going to discuss in post is apparently supposed to address, is the result of two things -- companies that are not willing to innovate from an antique business model and a natural progression on the exchange of content. Companies want to maintain the "status-quo" as to how to produce and distribute content, especially the latter, and does not want to do more to do evolve even further in the latter. As we seen throughout history, people take part in illegal activity not only because they can, but because they see the value in it. Online piracy is no different. Not to mention, when it comes to movies, mentioning this as the MPAA is one of the biggest supporters of this bill, companies such as Netflix (i.e., the subscription debacle) and Blockbuster (who waited too long to actually start effectively competing with RedBox) aren't doing any favors for the film industry. Not to mention, the lurid efforts to combat piracy by resorting to attempting to get legal means to be invasive is an illustration of how the MPAA and other media giants fail to get the concept of efficiency.
In other words, as long as the current business model allows for Internet pirates to see value in what they do, well, pirates will still do what they do and other online users will still seek to benefit from the work of the online pirates. I mean, as a society, we always tend to bite from the hand that feeds.
Piracy is no different.
There's two fundamental truths that people on all sides of the debate surrounding the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and the Protect Internet Protocol Act (PIPA) should take note of: piracy is the result of the aforementioned industries not evolving with the times and secondly neither of these laws would stem piracy, but would have unattended (notice, I said unattended and not unintended) consequences. The reason why for the word choice is that the consequences would be intentional -- corporations seeking more proprietary control of the Internet, which would go unattended because of, well, the law.
We cry about how we interpret laws. We've been doing that over the Constitution since 1787. It's a clear and present danger with this legislation because the legislation in its current form (SOPA, as noted by bill author Republican U.S. Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, will be revisited in February) is extremely vague and ripe for exploitation by whoever seeks to reap benefits from it. Many of the law's detractors, such as Firefox, Google, Wikipedia, Wordpress, among others, are concerned that it would lead to widespread censorship on the Internet and destroy the personal freedom of choice of obtaining information. This is indeed a fear that is far from being unreasonable.
Not to mention, the bill is so vast and vague that it corporations would be able to take knee-jerk reactions to the courts. So, you make a personal YouTube video blog and in the background you have a certain movie or song playing in the background? With SOPA, a corporation could panic, cry infringement, and get your video taken down -- even if you actually went to Walmart and bought the DVD or CD that was playing. Fair use provisions in the Copyright Act? Torched. Imagine going to Wikipedia to read about the subject, then be unable to have no pictures of that subject because companies would demand for any related pictures to that subject to be taken down -- even if the picture was for educational and non profit purposes only.
I could have numerous websites that I build be taken down if it was suspected that any material was pirated. Granted, I do not use pirated content in the websites that I build and of course, I ban it in my contract. Nonetheless, this law could possibly allow companies to come after me for just being an enabler. PIPA could even censor websites that I build or even my own website because of a perception of being a threat -- either competitively or informatively. The power of liberty that fuels the Internet would be severely compromised, and every one of us would lose.
Jobs will be torched because companies will quit innovating as its even more legal hurdles to overcome (the patent laws are bad enough). As the United States furthers its progression as a service economy, the Internet will grow in greater dependence than it already is. Companies know that, which is why they are pushing for greater legally backed control of it. People need to realize that. It's not about just young, tech-savvy geeks that is speaking out against this bill. It's not just about illegal downloads of movies or music. It's about corporations having the legal pathway to do things and affect your daily life and access to information that it has no business in doing so.
So I plead to each person reading this post to contact your representative member of Congress. Do what you can to stop this egregious act against the freedom of the Internet. It affects all of us.
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
A Tale of Three Candidates
I've come to a realization about the three current front runners of the race for the Republican nomination. It might be a conclusion some of you have reached or may be none of you have reached.
The three front runners -- Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum -- have illustrated to me that idealism should be considered a drug and the Food and Drug Administration should publish pamphlets that state it is more toxic than heroin and cocaine could ever be.
Mitt Romney's candidacy (and apparently, inevitable nomination) is a result of the "Republican establishment" that is obsessed with maintaining power for the ideological ego of the Republican Party. Let's face it -- I really doubt anyone cares about anything that comes out of Mitt Romney's mouth outside of the media, ever. If you go out on to the street and ask someone randomly what are the things that Mitt Romney stands for, you would get an answer of "I'm not quite sure, but I know he's our best bet to beat Obama." Romney has emerged as the "establishment's" top choice for he is a byproduct of an attempt to finally have a coherently operating Republican political machine. They haven't had once since the late 1970s.
That attempt to have a coherently operating political machine is a side effect of Republican Party's idealist drug for finding the next "groundbreaking neoconservative" that will be the indisputable face of the Republican Party, or in other words, to finally resolve the Republican identity-crisis that has persisted since January 20, 1989 when Ronald Reagan was no longer President of the United States. There was Newt Gingrich during the early 1990s until he fell flat on his face during the infamous government shutdown that opened 1996. Tom Delay dominated 1997 and 1998, especially during the Clinton impeachment era, but his career was torched by his campaign finance scandal in the early 2000s. Finally, there was George W. Bush, but even he lost favor with the vaulted establishment during the last year and a half of his term. As with with any narcotic, this time idealism, addiction has its consequences. For the Republican Party, it is the search for Reagan to end in hubris every single time.
Ron Paul is the Libertarian People's Champion. He's also the champion for disgruntled progressives and liberals that have become enamored with his libertarian (or adopted liberal) social agenda and his non-interventionist foreign policy talk. Libertarians and others that lean libertarian look at him as someone that would get the government out of their hair with spending cuts, repeals of regulatory legislation, and implementing Austrian school economic policies. He has a sort of a populist appeal (you can see it among his supporters, who some pejoratively call "PaulBots"), even though he's not a populist. However, he's not above the idealist vacuum. Behind the "free society" campaign cloak is the really the idealist visionary mantra in the form of the rhetorical question of "Why should I pay for other people's problems?" It's the rejection of "everyone has to pay their fair share" -- with the point/counterpoint of view nuanced in how personal comfort and worldview.
The reality is that Paul, if elected, would never have the cooperation of Congress -- too left leaning for some and too right leaning for others. Resorting to pocket vetoes, vetoes, and Executive Orders, he would score major points with his core libertarian supporters, but moderates, liberals, progressives, and other conservatives would quickly sour on him as he would be painted as an uncooperative, obstructive executive. In addition, someone would eventually call him out that as a strict Constitutionalist he sure does seem hypocritical for relying on the Executive Order to achieve his goals -- which by the way comes from a loose interpretation of Article II. In the end though, his free society vision is going to inevitably clash with what Americans are really wishing for -- to have a comfortable and stable life. As pressure will mount for him to come back to the grounds of reality and be forced to compromise for the sake of well, compromise, his most die-hard supporters are going to find themselves disappointed more times than being elated.
Rick Santorum is more or less having visions of grandeur of creating a quasi-Christian-fascist state that will serve as an answer to the Sharia-law driven Arab countries such as Iran. He has the support of the extreme Christian Right, which flirts without right bigoted and xenophobic rhetoric. I don't know whether to call it just being confident, just being arrogant, or so heavily intoxicated by the narcotic that is Christian nationalism he seems on the verge of being downright delusional.
He seems to have forgotten about the trajectory of what was once a, well, um...political career. He was never a star of the Senate as much as he claims to be and he was soundly defeated in his reelection bid in 2006. In truth, the only reason why Santorum is getting any sort of attention is because he's the only candidate that is catering to the Religious Right as Mike Huckabee is spending his time hosting his show on Fox News and not on the campaign trail. In reality, if Santorum was to ever win the election, he would never see his dream of a Christian state materialize. His incessant hard-on for war against Iran and to further shove the United States down the throat of the Middle Eastern political scene will bloat defense spending and as a result, he would be seen as the second coming of Bush 43.
Granted, I seriously doubt any one of these three will be elected into office. Romney's appeal when translated into general national conversation becomes more questionable as it deepens towards Election Day. Paul's anti-big-government rhetoric will not carry the same weight as it did Reagan in 1980 because as Obama's administration and first term overall can be described as "suspect", not "humiliating", and Americans will tolerate "suspect". Santorum will have almost no momentum if he won the nomination because he's way too polarizing of a figure.
Yet, while no politician is above the drug of idealism, I wanted to illustrate these three candidates specifically because they are doing the exact same thing that Obama did back in 2008 -- fill supporters up with such enthusiasm fueled by their own idealism that when it comes time for Game Day, which would be January 20, 2013 -- it's going to lead to sound disappointment.
The three front runners -- Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum -- have illustrated to me that idealism should be considered a drug and the Food and Drug Administration should publish pamphlets that state it is more toxic than heroin and cocaine could ever be.
Mitt Romney's candidacy (and apparently, inevitable nomination) is a result of the "Republican establishment" that is obsessed with maintaining power for the ideological ego of the Republican Party. Let's face it -- I really doubt anyone cares about anything that comes out of Mitt Romney's mouth outside of the media, ever. If you go out on to the street and ask someone randomly what are the things that Mitt Romney stands for, you would get an answer of "I'm not quite sure, but I know he's our best bet to beat Obama." Romney has emerged as the "establishment's" top choice for he is a byproduct of an attempt to finally have a coherently operating Republican political machine. They haven't had once since the late 1970s.
That attempt to have a coherently operating political machine is a side effect of Republican Party's idealist drug for finding the next "groundbreaking neoconservative" that will be the indisputable face of the Republican Party, or in other words, to finally resolve the Republican identity-crisis that has persisted since January 20, 1989 when Ronald Reagan was no longer President of the United States. There was Newt Gingrich during the early 1990s until he fell flat on his face during the infamous government shutdown that opened 1996. Tom Delay dominated 1997 and 1998, especially during the Clinton impeachment era, but his career was torched by his campaign finance scandal in the early 2000s. Finally, there was George W. Bush, but even he lost favor with the vaulted establishment during the last year and a half of his term. As with with any narcotic, this time idealism, addiction has its consequences. For the Republican Party, it is the search for Reagan to end in hubris every single time.
Ron Paul is the Libertarian People's Champion. He's also the champion for disgruntled progressives and liberals that have become enamored with his libertarian (or adopted liberal) social agenda and his non-interventionist foreign policy talk. Libertarians and others that lean libertarian look at him as someone that would get the government out of their hair with spending cuts, repeals of regulatory legislation, and implementing Austrian school economic policies. He has a sort of a populist appeal (you can see it among his supporters, who some pejoratively call "PaulBots"), even though he's not a populist. However, he's not above the idealist vacuum. Behind the "free society" campaign cloak is the really the idealist visionary mantra in the form of the rhetorical question of "Why should I pay for other people's problems?" It's the rejection of "everyone has to pay their fair share" -- with the point/counterpoint of view nuanced in how personal comfort and worldview.
The reality is that Paul, if elected, would never have the cooperation of Congress -- too left leaning for some and too right leaning for others. Resorting to pocket vetoes, vetoes, and Executive Orders, he would score major points with his core libertarian supporters, but moderates, liberals, progressives, and other conservatives would quickly sour on him as he would be painted as an uncooperative, obstructive executive. In addition, someone would eventually call him out that as a strict Constitutionalist he sure does seem hypocritical for relying on the Executive Order to achieve his goals -- which by the way comes from a loose interpretation of Article II. In the end though, his free society vision is going to inevitably clash with what Americans are really wishing for -- to have a comfortable and stable life. As pressure will mount for him to come back to the grounds of reality and be forced to compromise for the sake of well, compromise, his most die-hard supporters are going to find themselves disappointed more times than being elated.
Rick Santorum is more or less having visions of grandeur of creating a quasi-Christian-fascist state that will serve as an answer to the Sharia-law driven Arab countries such as Iran. He has the support of the extreme Christian Right, which flirts without right bigoted and xenophobic rhetoric. I don't know whether to call it just being confident, just being arrogant, or so heavily intoxicated by the narcotic that is Christian nationalism he seems on the verge of being downright delusional.
He seems to have forgotten about the trajectory of what was once a, well, um...political career. He was never a star of the Senate as much as he claims to be and he was soundly defeated in his reelection bid in 2006. In truth, the only reason why Santorum is getting any sort of attention is because he's the only candidate that is catering to the Religious Right as Mike Huckabee is spending his time hosting his show on Fox News and not on the campaign trail. In reality, if Santorum was to ever win the election, he would never see his dream of a Christian state materialize. His incessant hard-on for war against Iran and to further shove the United States down the throat of the Middle Eastern political scene will bloat defense spending and as a result, he would be seen as the second coming of Bush 43.
Granted, I seriously doubt any one of these three will be elected into office. Romney's appeal when translated into general national conversation becomes more questionable as it deepens towards Election Day. Paul's anti-big-government rhetoric will not carry the same weight as it did Reagan in 1980 because as Obama's administration and first term overall can be described as "suspect", not "humiliating", and Americans will tolerate "suspect". Santorum will have almost no momentum if he won the nomination because he's way too polarizing of a figure.
Yet, while no politician is above the drug of idealism, I wanted to illustrate these three candidates specifically because they are doing the exact same thing that Obama did back in 2008 -- fill supporters up with such enthusiasm fueled by their own idealism that when it comes time for Game Day, which would be January 20, 2013 -- it's going to lead to sound disappointment.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)