Musicmystery
Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Why is it that it's wrong for Obama to compromise his principles, and then, on the other hand, wrong for Republicans to hold to their principles? It seems to be a partisan issue to me, really. We all want "the other side" to compromise and come to our side of the policy debate, but don't want "our side" to compromise and go towards the other side of the policy debate.
In your above post, you talk about the Republicans "walking in lockstep" (a partisan description. I'd say "in unison, in accordance with principled objectives" - perhaps another partisan description?), yet complain about the Democrat Parties "circular firing squads".
Well, which way do you want it? Wouldn't you like the Dems to work in unison, in accordance with principled objectives?
As far as the TEA party movement, some of us see it as an attempt to return to first principles, against a Republican Party which has already "compromised" their principles too much with Democrats, Plutocrats and Bureaucrats.
Firm, thanks for the reply.
On your first point, I didn't say it was right or wrong. I said the Republicans set talking points, and strictly adhere to them. This is NOT the same as adhering to principles. I've heard a number of statements over the past few decades that just make my eyes roll, as they ignore an excellent point in favor of repeating the talking point, as if nothing has happened. That's what gives the perception that Republicans ignore reality. This is not the same as holding to guiding principles. For example, Republicans complained that Bill Clinton was "stealing their issues." Now, in a principle centered ideology, they should have been thrilled. See the difference? In the Obama example, his central principle was to pass health care legislation, his top priority. To do it, he was willing to let go of quite a few things other Democrats were not...hence the criticism. To be sure, Democrats have their common beliefs, but nothing like the organized talking points the Republicans are able to enforce.
My criticism of Democrats has a different basis (the question at hand was the perception of Republicans, hence the focus). The party has wings from progressive to quite conservative, and they all have differing agendas. They did, in the end, come up with health care legislation...very compromised, yes, but a common goal. Protecting labor is another common goal--but on issues like this, reality has to be addressed. The protectionism some want would be anathema for the economy, hurting the same people intended to be helped. So somehow free trade has to get in there somewhere. Governing is making choices. That balance is what elected representatives are there to seek, as best they can, understanding someone's going to be unhappy.
Your perception of the Teas is your own, so it is what it is. I think you're mistaken. The "first principles" are simplistic solutions impractical in the modern world, and their adherents naive entrants into politics yet unschooled about the realities of government. The last part of your final sentence is just vapid rhetoric flourish, meaning nothing. Working together is how things get done--and it largely stopped happening in the 80s. It adds to the unrealistic flavor of Tea Party rhetoric.
When they come up with workable solutions, I'll listen. So far...just bluster.
|
RE: Interesting Take on the GOP: It's a Cult - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread