I would love to nod and say, "Yeah, you might be right", except for the experience I had just this evening.
I went down to KFC for fewd-like-substances and stood in line, doing the people-watching thing, when I began to pick up on bits and pieces of the conversation of the two guys in front of me. It included such witty repertoire as, "Can you believe those protesters just standing around outside?" "Yeah, no kidding. They actually think freedom is free." (That's a direct quote, BTW.)
If you had caught me about 9 months ago and said, "We have to fix this by doing X", I would've been all for it. Unfortunately, shortly thereafter I realized that, no, things are going exactly the way that a large group of people want them to.
You might disagree with the principles, but the fact is, there is a really big population in this country -- whether it's a majority or not is a matter of extreme debate -- that believes that the President needs more executive power, that torture is OK if it gets you the information you need, that the Iraqi rebellion needs to be crushed at any cost, and that our next stop must be Iran and North Korea oughtta be right after that.
You can't fix that. I'm the eternal optimist, the "You can fix anything guy", and on this one I'm saying, you can't fix that. At least, not in the near future.
The GOP machine has fed the little piece of evil in millions of Americans, and it's way harder to restore a sense of societal morality than it is to feed a little bit of evil.
So that brings us back to your response. Apathy isn't what's keeping the GOP in power; the GOP -- and the lack of a strong alternative -- is what's keeping the GOP in power. And, don't kid yourself, the Democrats' collective sole goal is power, too. They're just a lot more incompetent in their attempts to get it.
Where you say we don't have the luxury of finding a third way, I say that we have the responsibility of finding a third way.
Big GOP losses wouldn't give the party any incentive to rejoin reality. Right now, at this very moment, there are stories of corruption and scandal at every level of national government. Y'know what? They can handle it. They've developed that ability. IOW, they don't see the same reality that you or I do; there's nothing for them to re-join.
See, here's the thing. If the Democratic party were really putting a strong, popular candidate forward, then I would back them, despite their recent history. But, because of the candidates they're putting forward, if, by some long shot, they win in 2008 -- and I do think it's a long shot -- then all the "Freedom's Not Free" people are going to see that as a retaliation against their beloved party, it'll give their beloved party the ability to decry that they were toppled by a giant liberal media conspiracy, and they'll come back even stronger the next time around.
I don't want a brief respite now at the cost of worsening conditions down the road, and I don't want to give a cookie to a weak party. I think a message has to be sent to the Democratic party that, dammit, if they want the offices, they've gotta work for it, and that means getting together a team of politicians that people actually want to vote for. That's the only way we can take the wind out of the GOP's sails, long term.
Rather than litter up packbat's comment thread with continued debate, I'll acknowledge your points and offer one more piece of data ...
I've been working at a newspaper for most of the Oughts, and spent a long stretch of the last four years lurking at length on a number of political blogs. So I've had a decent chance to track the political climate, and how it's been changing.
All of the observations you make are true, but ... things are getting better. I honestly believe that. The Bush administration will always have its true believers, but he's getting to the point where in his zeal to do the things the true believers believe in, he's alienating virtually everyone else. His 28% approval rating this week is a new low; 2/3 think we should be working to get out of Iraq. Etc.
You might take some solace in the fact that national Democrats are no more popular. But the system we're given says that those are the two choices, and without a lot of resources to throw at it, that system has proven pretty resistant to change.
You think change is possible, now, regardless ... I think the system can produce acceptable results in 2008 while we're finding something better. That makes us both optimists of a different sort.
Of course, if Bush declares martial law (http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=665&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0) before the election, so much for optimism. I'll race you to Canada.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timeasmymeasure
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
I went down to KFC for fewd-like-substances and stood in line, doing the people-watching thing, when I began to pick up on bits and pieces of the conversation of the two guys in front of me. It included such witty repertoire as, "Can you believe those protesters just standing around outside?" "Yeah, no kidding. They actually think freedom is free." (That's a direct quote, BTW.)
If you had caught me about 9 months ago and said, "We have to fix this by doing X", I would've been all for it. Unfortunately, shortly thereafter I realized that, no, things are going exactly the way that a large group of people want them to.
You might disagree with the principles, but the fact is, there is a really big population in this country -- whether it's a majority or not is a matter of extreme debate -- that believes that the President needs more executive power, that torture is OK if it gets you the information you need, that the Iraqi rebellion needs to be crushed at any cost, and that our next stop must be Iran and North Korea oughtta be right after that.
You can't fix that. I'm the eternal optimist, the "You can fix anything guy", and on this one I'm saying, you can't fix that. At least, not in the near future.
The GOP machine has fed the little piece of evil in millions of Americans, and it's way harder to restore a sense of societal morality than it is to feed a little bit of evil.
So that brings us back to your response. Apathy isn't what's keeping the GOP in power; the GOP -- and the lack of a strong alternative -- is what's keeping the GOP in power. And, don't kid yourself, the Democrats' collective sole goal is power, too. They're just a lot more incompetent in their attempts to get it.
Where you say we don't have the luxury of finding a third way, I say that we have the responsibility of finding a third way.
Big GOP losses wouldn't give the party any incentive to rejoin reality. Right now, at this very moment, there are stories of corruption and scandal at every level of national government. Y'know what? They can handle it. They've developed that ability. IOW, they don't see the same reality that you or I do; there's nothing for them to re-join.
See, here's the thing. If the Democratic party were really putting a strong, popular candidate forward, then I would back them, despite their recent history. But, because of the candidates they're putting forward, if, by some long shot, they win in 2008 -- and I do think it's a long shot -- then all the "Freedom's Not Free" people are going to see that as a retaliation against their beloved party, it'll give their beloved party the ability to decry that they were toppled by a giant liberal media conspiracy, and they'll come back even stronger the next time around.
I don't want a brief respite now at the cost of worsening conditions down the road, and I don't want to give a cookie to a weak party. I think a message has to be sent to the Democratic party that, dammit, if they want the offices, they've gotta work for it, and that means getting together a team of politicians that people actually want to vote for. That's the only way we can take the wind out of the GOP's sails, long term.
no subject
I've been working at a newspaper for most of the Oughts, and spent a long stretch of the last four years lurking at length on a number of political blogs. So I've had a decent chance to track the political climate, and how it's been changing.
All of the observations you make are true, but ... things are getting better. I honestly believe that. The Bush administration will always have its true believers, but he's getting to the point where in his zeal to do the things the true believers believe in, he's alienating virtually everyone else. His 28% approval rating this week is a new low; 2/3 think we should be working to get out of Iraq. Etc.
You might take some solace in the fact that national Democrats are no more popular. But the system we're given says that those are the two choices, and without a lot of resources to throw at it, that system has proven pretty resistant to change.
You think change is possible, now, regardless ... I think the system can produce acceptable results in 2008 while we're finding something better. That makes us both optimists of a different sort.
Of course, if Bush declares martial law (http://www.altpr.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=665&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0) before the election, so much for optimism. I'll race you to Canada.