Louve00
Posts: 1674
Joined: 2/1/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zonie63
I think those who are locked in to party politics may have lost their credibility a long time ago, regardless of whether they're Democrats or Republicans. Those who are liberal-leaning or "lefty" based on principles may think of the Democrats as the lesser of two evils, just as those who are conservative-leaning or "righty" think of Republicans the same way. I'll admit it may be a pragmatic approach to the situation, and that may be the only shred of "credibility" there might be - although even that might be debatable.
I don't know if you're expecting any easy answers to a question like this. Politics is a dirty business, and those who wish to participate in the electoral process and still remain "pure" in heart and mind may find it to be an uphill battle.
I think it's a fair question as to whether the President (regardless of party) should have the power to change laws to his liking or start wars on whimsy. History will be the ultimate judge as to whether any actions by the President are/were warranted, and those judgments won't likely coincide with the opinions of his contemporaries more rooted in political partisanship and not looking at the big picture of history. The way people look at contemporary politicians, it's more based on how they "feel," as well as a kind of bandwagon effect based on the perceived popularity (or unpopularity) of a given candidate or office-holder.
I can hardly anticipate what a future hypothetical Republican President might do. I can't predict what the world situation might be or whether there are any wars in our future. We can only review what has happened in the past, and it seems self evident that neither party has any room to talk about the other party starting wars or issuing executive orders. It's more a matter of public opinion as to whether a war may have been started on whimsy or whether there was a legitimate national security reason for doing so. Many still ask such questions about our involvement in Korea or Vietnam, just as we ask about more recent military actions.
Many believe that we shouldn't even be getting involved at all and that we should be more detached and neutral in global affairs, and this view can be found on both sides of the political spectrum. However, the prevailing view in both parties seems to be that America should maintain its globalist interventionist posture, and this means that we're leaving ourselves open to the possibility of Presidents starting wars on "whimsy."
Looking at it from that perspective, those who continue to support US interventionism and global militarism are the ones who would actually lose credibility if they criticize a President for carrying out a policy which they actually believe in and advocate for. Of course, this doesn't have much to do with party affiliation or whether one is conservative or liberal. Some liberals and some conservatives are for interventionism, but some from both factions are also against it.
My thoughts exactly, which is why I've lost my political passion. I still believe more in a democrat's philosophy, as long as we go by principle and not bank accounts. Our only hope is that those top dogs will realize without us little dogs they'll have nobody to "run". Carnegie and all those big business guys realized it on Roosevelt's and Hoover's dime. We'll see how far it goes this time. 
_____________________________
For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearance, as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are. - Niccolo Machiavelli
|
RE: The times will change - 
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