This post will be less of a commentary and more of a catalyst for discussion. Hopefully asking readers to think about how they feel about certain points isn't too much to ask here.
For starters, I've had this conversation with a few different people over the past three or four days: The Bush war policy and the Obama war policy are not that different. Sure, Obama is focusing less attention on Iraq and has decreased troop levels there, but he has INCREASED them in the Afghanistan theater. I don't buy the argument that President Obama is cutting military spending by exiting the Middle East, he's only "refocusing his efforts". This policy is nothing new, and was a major concern of Democratic backers in the primary: how little his war policy differed from the current administration. Thoughts?
The second (and final, for now) point I wanted to make is something that was called to my attention earlier today: the two major political parties that are ingrained in our minds almost from birth are highly contradicting and almost hypocritical as far as their official platforms go.
The Democratic Party officially supports strong government intervention and regulation as far as economic freedom goes, but have a "let it be" approach to social issues in the sense that the government should not be involved.
The Republican Party officially supports a lassiez-faire approach to economics and touts a free-market state, while desiring (again, for the most part) to restrict social freedoms.
Is this state of confusion, contradiction, and chaos part of the general disconnect that the average American feels when it comes to politics? That "out of touch" sensation? Again, I'd love your thoughts.
I'd like to clarify that the views expressed above are the official party platforms. I'm not lumping everyone that identifies with either party into two categories, because I personally favor less government on both the economic and social stage.
Either leave a comment below, or comment on the Facebook link that will probably direct you here. Thanks in advance!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I believe Obama went against so much of what he promised to the point that he should admit he either never wanted to do what he promised or tell us why he changed his view. If he was told something that made him see a need to keep troops active then we should be told what the reason is before we read it on Wikilinks.
ReplyDeleteSee, I personally don't think he did go against what he said. One of the concerns that caused the huge fracture in the ranks of the Democratic party was his foreign policy and how he believed in remaining in the Middle East.
ReplyDeleteMembers of boht political parties are seats of influence for different interest groups, and so the contradicitons are a amtter of who influences which party, although the big influencers have lobbyists who play each party. Every once and a while someone counts how many lobbyists there are, registered ones anyway, and divides it out by number of members of Congress. I can see how a Senator or Representative might end up forgetting he is representing the constiuents of his district rather than the lobbyists who can make or break his re-election. Political parties are becoming less important, and that includes the TEA Party. The special interests spend far more money than parties, and have public relations experts. In a way the TEA Party is a branch of the far right so-called "free market" think tank network set up by the Koch Brothers, and other billionaires. But almost no TEA Party person would say that.
ReplyDeleteLobbyiests: No wonder big banks could get trillions of dollars to bail themselves out, while giving large bonuses to the bankers who made the crisis.
Democracy is put into question when wealth is so concentrated that a small group can run the government for their benefit. When comments are made that the TEA Partiers are working against their own self-interests, it is meant that they are doing exactly what people like the Koch Brothers want, and not what would raise the standard of living for the common person.