Published December 19th, 2008
So Barack Obama has chosen Saddleback Church pastor Rick Warren to deliver the Inaugural Invocation. Almost immediately cries of protest went up among some of Obama’s most fervent suporters in some of the most Pro-Obama areas of the country. I’ve been saying this all along - Obama is not a radical political messiah, he’s just another politician. He might be a good, a great one - but he still is one. I support him, but I hold no delusions about this. He has chosen Warren to speak for a couple reasons. First, he was invited by Warren to speak twice at Saddleback and talk to a group of people who might otherwise never have heard him. He is thanking Warren for the respect shown to him. It’s a political tip of the hat. And you know what? I’m OK with that. It’s how politicking works, for better or worse. Obama is also acknowledging a part of the country who, by and large, did not vote for him. This fact prompts me to take direct issue with some of Kathryn Kolbert’s commentary on the Warren selection:
Rick Warren gets plenty of attention through his books and media appearances and has every right to promote his religious views. But he doesn’t need or deserve a position of honor at the inauguration of a president who has given hope to so many Americans by rejecting the politics of division and emphasizing his commitment to constitutional values.
I’m sorry, but the fact that Obama is acknowledging someone who adamantly disagrees with him shows just how strongly he is rejecting the politics of division. He is saying, “I understand that there are a large number of Americans who agree with this man - I disagree with you and him, but I know you are there - let us find some common ground.” That is politics of inclusion. Warren’s are politics of division - I have no doubt in that - but that doesn’t mean he should be rejected wholly given his large following. The large following and high profile of Warren is why this move is a smart one and should not be compared to choosing say, David Duke.This is a chance for Obama to take the high road and he has done so. And the crowd that is so upset over this should remember that Obama has not renounced any of the things he disagrees with Warren over. This isn’t about that.
Those on the left, we should also remember that there is room for common ground with those who think like Warren and we should not be afraid to join with them on those issues. For example, Warren is on board with fighting Global Warming, something that is uncommon for the far right and religious evangelical community. That’s common ground right there - and that’s an example of speaking to a group from within their frame of reference. I don’t believe we should save the earth for the same reasons they might - but I do believe we should save the earth. Let’s not argue over why, let’s just do it. Other issues that Obama could benefit from Warren’s supporters would be AIDS and poverty.
I am no way defending Rick Warren here. I am not fond of him. There are those who speak against him with little respect, as does Christopher Hitchens, as well as those who dissent with respect, like Dan Dennett. I’m probably somewhere in between the attitudes of these two men. And I’m not crazy about him speaking so prominently, because I disagree with him. But I will not condemn nor will I protest Obama for the selection. It’s politically shrewd - and Obama is proving to be a shrewd politician. Those on the left have been shut out of most major decisions for 8 years now - and look what happened? The right has suffered a backlash of nearly epic proportions because of their political divisiveness. They have shrunk their support base. They have alienated too many. The left, now that it has a unified front in Congress and in the White House, would do well to note this lesson. The more people we include and talk to and treat with respect, the longer we may hold power. And I think Obama knows that. I hope it works out well.
Category: Personal, opinion, obama, politics, news | Tags: none| 2 Comments »
Loading ...
Published December 17th, 2008
With the very likely appointment of Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama’s cabinet, NY state will have a new senator appointed to fill her vacated seat. One of the names that has drawn the most attention - and a fair amount of criticism - is Caroline Kennedy. That’s right, Sweet Caroline herself. Some of the arguments for her are linked to “legacy” and the family name. Now, I have great respect for the Kennedy political tradition. Bobby Kennedy is one of my favorite politicians. But I do not believe someone should be handed a US Senate seat - one of the most prestigious political offices in our government - on legacy alone. I think qualifications are important. Now, what is qualified? What does that mean? Open to interpretation.
Today I read Roland S. Martin’s commentary on the Caroline Kennedy possibility. His main point is that Hillary Clinton was no more experienced when she won the US Senate seat than Caroline is now. And there is merit to this statement - but I believe that the two situations are not comparable. Hillary ran a campaign and was elected by the vote of the people. Her qualifications were up for review. She had no voting record, so had to lay out what her personal political beliefs were. The state judged these things and elected her. She passed. Caroline does not have to do this - she would be handed the seat. Her qualifications are not up to the review of the voters of New York State. So whomever is appointed to the seat should be reviewed by the governor very carefully. I’m not saying Caroline Kennedy is unqualified - I’m just saying that there is very likely candidates that are more qualified for this appointment. Whomever is appointed will either have to run for and win the seat in 2010, or step aside for an elected candidate. I understand the political considerations involved - that campaign will be expensive and the seat is yet again up for election in 2012. Caroline Kennedy would have the star power to raise the necessary money.
But I think that consideration is rather minor. I think that not only should an appointed candidate to an elected position be unambiguously qualified - I think their political outlook should be up for review as well. The people of New York elected a particular person and a particular political viewpoint - that of Hillary Clinton. I think the appointed replacement’s views should be as close as possible to Hillary Clinton’s. I do not believe Mrs. Clinton should have final say over the appointment - but I believe she should be consulted.
R.S. Martin is correct when he says:
There are just three requirements as outlined by law for the seat:
“No person shall be a senator who shall not have attained to the age of 30 years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.”
That’s it; end of conversation when it comes to the issue of qualifications. Anything beyond what the Constitution says is entirely subjective.
So it is important that our subjective criteria be well thought out and wise. The minimum requirements laid out in the Constitution are very basic - because we should be free to elect our representatives on broad political criteria that could very well change. My subjective criteria is this - unambiguously as qualified for the post as possible (political experience, public service, etc) and as close to the political views of the person vacating the seat. Preserve the will of the people as much as possible in this matter, because they have no say in this appointment. And this is an elected position.
If Caroline wants to run in 2010 or 2012 for the seat, I have no problem with that. But don’t hand the seat to her just because she’s a woman. Some feel that is an important consideration - I do not, choose the best person for the job regardless of gender. Don’t hand it to her just because she’s a Kennedy. Everyone in an elected position should earn that position - when an appointment is made, the will of the people should be first and foremost in considering the replacement.
Category: Personal, opinion, politics | Tags: none| Be the First to Comment »
Loading ...
Published December 10th, 2008
A Pew Research Poll in 2004 found that about 20% of people under 30 got their news primarily or solely from The Daily Show. I know people - of a conservative slant - who find this a little disturbing because they feel The Daily Show is slanted way too far left. I am disturbed by people who get their news solely from Fox News. In the end - it doesn’t really matter, I think, if a media source is biased - as long as they don’t try to hide it. Jon Stewart has often said his program isn’t a real news source. But frankly, I think he’s being a bit humble. There’s a very good reason to watch The Daily Show for real news. First, they have no fear in calling out hypocrisy - they will show politicians - of both parties - contradicting themselves. No other media source does this so clearly. But there’s a second very important reason - the interviews are some of the best around. They are very civil, candid but poignant. An example is the recent interview with Mike Huckabee. Jon Stewart does not shy away from debating/discussing the issue of gay marriage. He is very, very clear on what he feels the issues are and pins Huckabee down. Huckabee states his case, clearly in a hostile room, but Stewart never makes him look bad outright. But he absolutely eviscerates Huckabee on every point. Read the rest of this entry »
Category: Personal, opinion, politics | Tags: none| Be the First to Comment »
Loading ...
Published December 9th, 2008
So I felt the need today to go to IKEA to pick up a couple small items. I don’t go to IKEA all that often, even though I should go more. I like IKEA. I’ve gone maybe 2 or 3 times in the past year. So I don’t know their hours by heart. So I use the intertubes to look it up.
Sweet! It being only 745pm, I’m golden, if I get a move on. But wait, I spy this:
Holiday Hours 2008
OK, maybe they have longer hours during the holidays so that I don’t have to rush! That would be convenient. What could those awesome, helpful hours be?
Holiday Hours 2008
Tuesday, 12/9 10am-6pm
If you check your calendars, folks, you’ll see that today, of all the days in the year I choose to go to IKEA, happens to be 12/9. Now you’re thinking, well that’s sorta your luck Cephyn, we know, we get it - but no, you don’t - there’s more.
See, last year, the gal I was dating at the time and I went to IKEA (she is fond of them) on a cold December eve to grab a couple of small items. We were wandering the nearly empty store - since you have to wander at least SOME in IKEA right? And suddenly we’re being ushered out. At like, 6pm. We had just gotten there! They’re supposed to be open later than 6! But that day just happened to be the day that IKEA employees were having their holiday party.
As I bet they are having tonight. Once again, I chose IKEA on the one freaking day of the year where they close early. Now THAT is Cephyn luck. Freakin’ A.
Category: Personal | Tags: none| Be the First to Comment »
Loading ...
Published December 9th, 2008
When we feel strongly about something and know others who also feel the same way, we seem to instinctively fall into a tribal mentality - we instantly divide the world into “Us” and “Them” and throw reason out the window. This is partisanship on a grander scale. It is also borne of such deep rooted passion that people are driven to irrational madness if it goes too far. When each side circles the wagons it becomes impossible for any meaningful communication between them. The tribes become so insular that there’s no external reasoning to convert them or compromise.
This sort of tribalism is coming to the forefront in the same-sex marriage debate. Lines are being drawn and people are being forced to choose a side - Prop 8 shows that. There is no apathy. There is no argument of “just following orders” if perhaps you run a gay-friendly restaurant but donated to the Yes on 8 campaign at the behest of your church leaders. The middle ground is unacceptable, it’s like standing in the no-man’s land between the trenches in the Somme in 1916. It is a wasteland and no one trusts you.
And so again the problem is, literally, starting to look like the Somme - both sides are entrenching. The battle WILL be fought and it will not be pretty. God help those in the middle, because you will be forced to choose a side. Neither side has any common ground with the other - and that is a huge problem. No solution will be acceptable except absolute victory.
I understand all this, this passionate feeling. My views on the issue are very strong as well, I’m as guilty of tribalism as anyone. The majority of arguments (and not all, I understand that) are against same-sex marriage are based in religion. The majority of arguments in favor of (again, not all) are based in legality and secularism. And that is why no one from the other side can convince me - because I reject their religious premise. And I cannot convince a single person of the other viewpoint, because they refuse to discard their religious basis. It is an impasse, a stalemate.
So what can be done? The only way to convince anyone of anything different, at this point, is to come at them from within their own tribe. You must accept the base of the argument and then use that to present an alternative view. This is difficult. It is impossible for me to do - I can’t argue convincingly from within a religious Christian context. I’d be a fraud. Just as no fundamentalist can come at me from a legalistic argument, since theirs often begins with the “Christian nation” statement - I’m immediately out.
So today I was happy to read Lisa Miller’s cover story in Newsweek - Our Mutual Joy. I would have been more excited if it was written by a clergy member of some sort - someone from directly within the tribe - but this will have to do. Lisa Miller has been the religion editor of Newsweek since 2006 and has tackled a great many controversies from internal viewpoints. She presents an excellent argument supporting same-sex marriage from within a biblical context. I won’t comment much on it - since I’m obviously strongly biased for her conclusion but against the supporting premise (that the bible has any bearing on this argument whatsoever with respect to legality). But this is the only way to attempt to talk to those against same-sex marriage - from within their own context. I just wanted to include what I consider one of the most fair minded statements I’ve heard from a religious clergy member on this issue:
My friend the priest James Martin says his favorite Scripture relating to the question of homosexuality is Psalm 139, a song that praises the beauty and imperfection in all of us and that glorifies God’s knowledge of our most secret selves: “I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” And then he adds that in his heart he believes that if Jesus were alive today, he would reach out especially to the gays and lesbians among us, for “Jesus does not want people to be lonely and sad.”
Damn right. Because that’s the whole reason we get so entrenched in a tribal mentality in the first place - who the hell wants to be lonely and sad? And why on earth would you wish that upon any decent person? There isn’t much that hurts more than wholesale rejection and exclusion. Jesus knew it. We know it. We should all remember that as best we can.
If anyone has examples of strong arguments against same-sex marriage, but from a secular and religiously-neutral or absent viewpoint, I’d be happy to read it and think about it. That would be arguing against me using my own reasoning base. And that’s the only chance of convincing me to change my mind. But I think it will be tough - because you’ll have to explain to me how it is a fair and decent thing to make an entire group of people feel lonely and sad.
Category: Personal, opinion, politics, news | Tags: none| 1 Comment »
Loading ...
Published December 9th, 2008
Anyone who knows me or reads this blog or is a facebook friend of mine should figure out pretty quickly that my political views lean strongly into liberal territory. But the reason for that is that I have a fundamental belief in fairness and equality. Do not mistake it for a belief in partisanship - which I am strongly against. Anyone who is very familiar with my beliefs knows that I don’t even like political parties. I believe in running as a representative of your ideas and being elected based on that - not on your party. And I believe an elected official should be free to follow his own rational beliefs to represent his constituency - representatives should be elected for their judgement as well as their positions.
But that’s all a bit away from what I’m going to mention here. Back to equality and non-partisanship - if you are a corrupt elected official, I believe you have betrayed the trust of your constituency and betrayed the spirit of this nation. And if found guilty, you should be punished accordingly. I don’t care if you’re a Republican or a Democrat or a Martian. I currently believe that the Rs are more corrupt and dishonest than the Ds, as a whole - but the Ds aren’t spotless in this. Case in point - today’s arrest of Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. A Democrat governor of a blue state. He has been taken into custody to face corruption charges - bribery, for the most part. I don’t know much about the guy, I don’t know much about his stated politics - and I don’t need to. I don’t care if he’s a D or an R. Give him his trial and let’s see. If he’s guilty - he gets the punishment.
I’ve seen in some places people - partisans - saying, “If GWB and his corrupt regime walk off scot free, then Blagojevich should be let go too.” Are you kidding me? If we accept that - sometimes, hopefully rarely - murderers go free, that does not mean that some other murderer that we like better should go free too. There’s no “balancing it out” here - if you’re a criminal, you’re a criminal. The successful or unsuccessful prosecution of others who have committed similar crimes has no direct bearing on your own guilt. It is that mentality that I see suddenly popping up - hopefully it won’t spread - that I just can’t understand. Because I’m a liberal, I’m registered as a Democrat - but I’m not a partisan.
Equality under the law - regardless of your party affiliation, regardless of whether I agree with your stated politics or not. I’m not happy that a prominent Democrat has been accused of corruption - but if he’s guilty, I definitely don’t want him on my side of the fence anymore. I won’t defend it.
Category: Personal, opinion, politics, news | Tags: none| Be the First to Comment »
Loading ...
Published November 26th, 2008
Barack Obama has one and millions of lefties seem to think that its the second coming, that Big O is going to lead us all into a future Democrat utopia. OK, maybe not that bad - but close. Much of the progressive wing of the Dem party (and I consider myself to be pretty much in that wing) expects big things from the Obama administration. Unfortunately - he’s already started to give them a bit of pause, maybe a bit of concern. Why? Because Obama’s cabinet choices are decidedly non-progressive. In fact, they look a hell of a lot like Bill Clinton’s choices. And of course, the faces of the Clinton administration are ecstatic. I’m sure they were wondering if they’d be cut out from the New Democratic Order in the White House/Congress.
But as it turns out, they haven’t been - Obama is even going after individuals who are considered Clinton loyalists (not the least of which is Hillary Clinton herself). And now, Obama is choosing some people to head his economic recovery team that is putting the progressive left into an apopleptic fit.
But how else is one to respond to Barack Obama’s picking the very folks who helped get us into this financial mess to now lead us out of it? Watching the president-elect’s Monday introduction of his economic team, my brother-in-law Pete said, “You can see the feathers coming out of their mouths” as the foxes were once again put in charge of the henhouse.
Well then. I don’t necessarily disagree. And I’m not altogether crazy about the choices Obama is making - again, I consider myself part of the progressive wing. But the difference between me and the rest of them - I never expected Obama to actually follow through with out-of-the-box appointments. No way. Because I don’t consider him to be the Democratic messiah that so many are making him out to be. I’ve said this not once, but twice. While I agree with a great number of Obama’s stated views, not for one second have I ever assumed he wasn’t a typical politician. I think he’s a smart guy - and that’s precisely why I never expected anything else. He’s done, for the moment. playing politics for the American people - now it’s time to play politics within the Democratic Party. And that entails picking people who were last at the top - the Clintonian regime.
Obama is not the American Political Jesus. I knew this - it’s just that some of the left is just figuring this out. He’s a man, a politician. I think he’ll make a good, maybe great, president. I hope that he will enact a good many things I feel strongly about. But he’s not going to do it by wiping the DC slate clean, regardless of what the progressive left might have expected. I hope he will reform government, but I have no expectation of him revolutionizing it.
Category: Personal, opinion, obama, politics | Tags: none| Be the First to Comment »
Loading ...
Published November 11th, 2008
I haven’t posted much on the passage of Prop 8. I’ve tried to consolidate my thoughts on it, gauge what is going on, sentiment and legality. I’ve listened to people I deeply agree with and vehemently disagree with - people I know very well or nearly not at all. Mostly I’ve been frustrated, sad and angry. It isn’t fair. I do not mean this in playground fair - I mean this in the way that this country is founded. Fairness - Equality. The struggle for equal rights in this country started from nearly day 1 in 1776 and - somewhat unfortunately - continues to this day. And beyond. All the talking, thinking, listening I’ve done about Prop 8 leads me to one inescapable conclusion:
No one is changing their mind. Those who oppose gay marriage are stuck there. They are intractable. They are unreasonable. They cannot be engaged in conversation about this. And most of all - they are blind to their own hypocrisy and bigotry. That is the worst part of it all. Any discussion of court decisions and separation of church and state and they become suddenly amnesiacs to why we have those institutions and values. They suddenly forget that the reason they are allowed to have their religious views is because of those things. They refuse to accept that other people don’t share their views and deserve the same rights. One of the most angering statements I recently heard was, “You have to respect that people’s views come from their religion and that’s how they want their society” - actually, no, I don’t have to respect that at all. I completely reject that. This society is an amalgam, just because they have religious views that want to declare people second class citizens does not mean they get to rule by the tyranny of the majority. If the nation suddenly decided that their religion was abhorrent - even though they’ve harmed no one - and voted it illegal, they’d be begging for the courts to protect them. And rightfully so. Pure democracy is no different than lynch mob mentality. The courts are there to protect the rights of the minority. Time and time again, civil rights gains have come from the courts - because the oppressed minority are exactly that - oppressed, in the minority and essentially voiceless. But that does NOT mean they don’t deserve equality. This is no different.
Of late the Mormon Church has come under attack over Prop 8. So has the phenomenon of out-of-state money being used for in-state campaigns. I’m a little sketchy on the first and I believe the second to be a non-issue. Protesting the Mormon Church over this has its place - but ultimately, they are not the majority of people who voted Yes on 8. And their views are just as intractable as the others - we will not be converting them to our side. It is true - and somewhat comforting - to know that a fair number of Mormons (some prominent and famous) came out to side with the No on 8 campaign. I thank them for that support. I hope they will continue to voice their support to their fellow Mormons - they are the only ones with a chance to change their minds. But to protest the Mormon leadership - ultimately a waste of time. They’re not changing their minds and most people won’t care if they did.
They also led the flow of a lot of out-of-state money. But both sides got money from outside California and I don’t see a problem with that. Since marriage isn’t going to be Federally guaranteed anytime soon, the fight must be at the state level. All of them. And that’s going to take a lot of money from all over. Early adopters are bellwethers for the rest of the nation. And eventually there will be issues with getting other states to recognize out-of-state gay marriages, if the couples move, for example. Or are visiting even.
Prop 8 has a good chance of being overturned in the California courts. At least there’s that. There is a good legal argument against it and I hope that fight succeeds. If you voted Yes on 8, I think you need to look very closely at why. Very closely. Remember that marriage has been “redefined” numerous times in this country - allowing African-Americans to marry. Interracial marriage. Divorce laws. And we’re still here. The institution hasn’t fallen. The country hasn’t disappeared. It has simply become more fair, more true to mission of our Constitution. Many people need to learn to disentangle their religion’s views of marriage with the view of marriage from the state. They are not - and should not - be the same. And therefore the laws should not be the same. In fact, I’ll even go so far as to say that if the Mormons want to practice plural marriage - I have no problem with that. Go for it.
Just don’t expect the state to recognize it. Because that’s different. As well it should be.
But all of this is somewhat counterproductive. I won’t convince a single soul with my arguments if they’ve already made up their mind. I feel so strongly about this I almost instantly become louder, combative and - a little bit - rude. So I’m likely only preaching to the converted, a pointless exercise in my view. So perhaps Keith Olbermann can prove me wrong and change some minds with a different tack. I’ll give him that chance right here.
Category: religion, Personal, opinion, election 2008, politics | Tags: none| Be the First to Comment »
Loading ...
Published November 7th, 2008
Sometimes you come across something that is far better thought out and better researched than your own opinions. I came across an article like that today in The New Republic. In it, John B. Judis argues that the current Democratic shift in America has been happening for some time and was simply interrupted by 9/11. He claims that this shift may not be a “soft” realignment, but a “hard” one that will last for some time - if Obama can make the right moves. And according to him, those moves are to govern as if he has a mandate. Interesting argument. I don’t know that I agree, but it’s a good read.
Category: Personal, opinion, election 2008, obama, politics | Tags: none| Be the First to Comment »
Loading ...
Published November 6th, 2008
I positively bristle when people try to characterize the US as a center-right country. I was offended by conservatives who called George W. Bush’s 2004 win (by 1% in the popular vote, 3.5M votes, and a one-state 286-252 electoral victory) a conservative mandate. Don’t remember that? Let’s get a quick taste of what was said:
Q: Bob Novak, is 51 percent of the vote really a mandate?
NOVAK: Of course it is. It’s a 3.5 million vote margin. But the people who are saying that it isn’t a mandate are the same people who were predicting that John Kerry would win. … So the people who say there’s not a mandate want the president, now that he’s won, to say, Oh, we’re going to accept the liberalism that the — that the voters rejected. But Mark, this is a conservative country, and it showed it on last Tuesday.
Well well well. It’s 4 years later. Two years after the “mandate” the US handed Congress back to the Democrats. And two years after that, they gave the presidency to a Democrat and strengthened the Democrat balance of power in congress. Barack Obama, President-Elect of the United States, won with 53% of the vote. He trounced McCain in the electoral college - the final tally likely to be 364-174. Obama won by over 7.5M votes. A Democratic president, a victory in all ways far larger than either of George W. Bush’s victories. More seats in Congress than the Republicans ever had during W’s terms. If W had a mandate - then this is a wholesale rejection of everything the Republicans stand for, right? I mean, it’s not even close! What might Bob Novak say now?!
The first Democratic Electoral College landslide in decades did not result in a tight race for control of Congress.
When Franklin D. Roosevelt won his second term for president in 1936, the defeated Republican candidate, Gov. Alf Landon of Kansas, won only two states, Maine and Vermont, and Democrats controlled both houses of Congress by wide margins.
But Obama’s win was nothing like that. He may have opened the door to enactment of the long-deferred liberal agenda, but he neither received a broad mandate from the public nor the needed large congressional majorities.
Oh. Well….what the hell? See, this is why I have no respect for these talking heads. Let’s just take a brief historical look at this “conservative, center-right” country and what it has done. More people have voted for a Democratic President in every election starting in 1992 except in 2004. That’s more people voting Democrat in 1992, 1996, 2000 and 2008. There was a slight, 1% deviation in 2004. The Republicans controlled Congress from 1994 to 2006, but never with the number of seats the Democrats now hold. Where is the evidence for a center-right country? If anything, it’s center-left. But no conservative will ever admit to this. It’s too unpalatable for them to realize that they are a minority in the big picture, dinosaurs struggling to hold on.
Conservatives in this country have always spoken loudly and tried to hold back the floodwaters of a progressive country. They have fought tooth and nail against civil rights for 50 years. And every time they lose (African-American rights, segregation, abortion rights) they continue to rail against “evil” until no one listens anymore - and then the move on (gay marriage). But they are going to lose. THEY ALWAYS LOSE in this. Social forces are consipiring - and will continue to conspire - against them.
What is my point here? It may not be what you think. I do not believe that this election is a liberal mandate. I think it is a complete rebuke of the current Republican party - which is unfortunate for McCain, but he betrayed all that he previously stood for. I believe that most Americans, after having seen what George W. Bush has done to this country over the past 8 years, trust the Democrats to do a better job representing the rights of everyone. They have given the Democrats the keys, for the next 2-4 years, to the entire government. While it is not quite unstoppable, it is absolutely formidable. I truly hope that the Democrats realize this - that they must work with the Republicans where possible - to properly govern with this much power. But I certainly hope that on many issues they will enact laws that I believe will better this nation and protect the citizens in spite of Republican efforts otherwise. Additionally, Obama will be nominating Supreme Court judges if there are (and I’m betting there will be) any vacancies in the next 4 years.
This is a lot of power. I hope conservatives are not scared by this, but I hope they understand how liberals felt between 2000 and 2006. They’re going to find out what it means to be in the minority - an even smaller minority than the left faced in those 6 years. I hope they can look back at recent history and understand why this happened and why their time in power was so tenuous - it is because this country is NOT center-right. It is centrist. And that is a good thing. But it is important for the conservatives to realize this, that a centrist country wants progress on many different fronts to make a better America, that there are millions who agree with the Democrats. There are millions who agree with the Republicans as well - but when things go wrong - it is the Democrats who the country turns to for fixing. That has been true for almost all of the 20th and 21st Centuries. Because the Republicans, when they win by the slimmest of margins - govern as if they are the only party around.
I sincerely hope the Democrats do not do that. The vindictive part of me wishes they would - but I know that would be just as damaging. I hope they prove my belief that they are better, more fair, more thoughtful leaders.
Category: Personal, opinion, election 2008, politics | Tags: none| 2 Comments »
Loading ...
