The whole Iraq thing has been a difficult time for me. Not because I’m an any way threatened or even really affected by the war, but because it has led me to question my core values.
I voted for both Clintons. I voted for Gore. I voted against Reagan three times. So I’ve always figured my credentials as a lefty were secure.
But I support the war against Iraq. And not even with a hint of ambiguity. Sure I questioned the way Bush was handling things, but that doesn’t detract form the central issue. And finding myself supporting this war has caused me to think about my life.
Maybe I’m becoming a conservative. Sure, many wouldn’t see this as a problem. After all, we’ve all been told for years that only conservatives are really good people and true Americans, so I’d be hanging out with a better crowd. But I’m at an age where I don’t want to have to go around making new friends, especially ones who’ll expect me to buy a gun or an SUV.
So when I heard a radio report earlier today that said Congressional Democrats were rallying around the war effort and declaring their full support from President Bush, I took heart. “See,” I thought to myself, “they’re not all bad. Even if I become a Conservative Republican, I can probably still have a couple of Democrat friends. Maybe even three for the first few months until I get in well with the new set down at the country club.”
But what really opened my eyes was a television broadcast later this evening. I was watching the Fox news cast (I figured I might as well get started learning the Truth and I couldn’t find Rush Limbaugh on any local radio station). The newscaster was interviewing a Republican congressman about how things were going vis-vis the war and he conceded that the Democrats weren’t acting too badly. The congressman then went on to add that this was surprising because, as everyone knew, most Democrats hated America and always supported the enemy in times of war. I’ll admit I was surprised by this but the newcaster seemed to know this was true, so I figured it must have been something I missed. The congressman and the newscaster discussed the issue and, in the spirit of bipartisanship, agreed that you couldn’t really blame the Democrats in Congress for hating America because they were only doing what it took to get elected by the Democratic voters in this country who hated America.
Well, this certainly opened my eyes and I learned a lot watching this show. And I guess the biggest thing I learned, thanks to Fox news, was that I wasn’t a conservative after all.
Or at least, the type of conservative that makes assinine statements on a TV show.
Why label yourself? There’s far too much lock-step partisanship in the world. Too many liberals agree with issues just because other liberals do, and far too many conservatives do the same thing.
I’ve been ‘conservative’ all my life (well, more libertarian than anything). But at the same time, I’ve changed my position on capital punishment (I’m now against it), abortion (used to be for it in all cases, now I’m against it in the 3rd trimester), etc.
Grownups make up their mind on an issue-by-issue basis. People who don’t care enough to learn about the issues just align themselves with the ideology that most fits them, and follow it.
Huh? I am not a native English speaker and I am not a native American. However, you post makes no sense. Are you lamenting the fact that as you get older you realize that the idealistic dreams of your youth are far-fetched and utterly unworkable? Perhaps now that you are older G.W. Bush makes sense? Perhaps you have realized the the Conserative-Liberal dichotomy does not mean anything? (NOTE: See many, many discussions on this point on this forum). Perhaps you are being sarcastic?
—The newscaster was interviewing a Republican congressman about how things were going vis-vis the war and he conceded that the Democrats weren’t acting too badly.—
You sure this was a congressman? Sounds a lot like the back and forth with Newt Gingrich.
Yes, my post was intended in a humorous manner. However, much of it was based on truth. I do tend to more liberal than conservative. I do support the war against Iraq. And I did hear pretty much the radio and TV reports I described. The Democrat was Nancy Pelosi and the Republican was David Dreier (I think; I’d have to pay for an actual transcript of the interview, but Dreier apparently was the only congressman on that show).
After hearing what Daschle said the other day I definitely wouldn’t want to be affiliated with his party. The decision for action has been made and we should be supporting our leader, not bitching about it. I can understand debate before a decision has been made but this is pathetic whining.
Where did this meme start? I’ve never heard anything so ludicrous. There is no reasonable compulsion to support controversial decisions post hoc.
Would the sort of folks who trot this philosophical gem out adhere to it if the decision in question was one that they didn’t already agree with?
What would you do if 2004 somehow saw a total psychotic elected?
“Look, not everyone feels that executing everyone between the ages of 30 and 64 in order to salvage Social Security is a good idea, but the decision has been made, so quitcher bitchin’!”
This may have been Newt. I was stunned and saddened to hear them bring him in last night, he spoke more about the Dem-Rep battles 12 years ago than the vote yesterday. I flip between Fox and CNN. For that stretch I watched CNN. He is insane.
Well, your options are a bit more palatable than if you were to keep hanging out with leftists. They’re probably expecting you to have an abortion or burn a flag. :rolleyes:
But I’m a Disloyal Democrat. Everything I say is suspect.
Larry Mudd,
Think of it as business. You advise your boss all you want until a decision has been made, then you support your boss regardless of the decision rendered. To continue to persuade him or whine after the fact is bad for your career.
2004 will be a time of decision. March 20, 2003 is not. It is a time for unification.
The thing is, the president works (or is supposed to, at least) for the citizens, and not vice versa. How would you expect your boss to respond if you reacted to disapproval of your decision with “Well, I’ve made the decision, and you should support it instead of questioning me.” A lot of employers would toss you out the door for that sort of attitude, so why should it fly for civil servants, even exalted ones like the president?
“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…”
Or something like that. I thought that one of the nice things about this country was the ability to criticize our government. Silly me. I’ll just report to the department of homeland security now.
As of this morning, Daschle also backs the President. He was kind of tricked into saying this, though.
It was on FOX News this morning, about 6:30 - 7:00 a.m. CST. A blond anchorwoman was interviewing Daschle, and at the end of the talk, she blurted something like, “So you support the troops and President Bush?” Daschle, caught in no-man’s-land, answered “Yes”, and the camera fades out.
No, no … freedom of speech is NOT abridged by either the federal or state governments. But if certain members of Congress or the Senate would continue to publicly stand against the invasion, it would be nice ammo for any future election opponents.
Just because you may speak freely doesn’t mean you won’t suffer some kind of consequences. It’s just wrong for the federal or state governments to impose these consequences.
Well, sort of but not really. The people elect the president to lead. The president is the boss. The prez might work ‘for the people’ in the same sense that a corportae CEO works ‘for the employees’ in that what is good for the company is good for the employees. I just don’t buy into the idea that the president has to go along with some protesters just because they are more vocal.
Bordelond beat me to it in saying that you are very much free to voice your opposition to anything. Hell, if Saddam’s men voiced their opposition they’d be shot. It’s just not a very good idea to.
Float, keep in mind that the Constitution clearly states that Congress, not the President, is the “boss” when it comes to matters of war. It’s Bush who should be listening to his superiors, not the other way around.
Also, if you believe as you say that people of all politicla parites should unite together in times of war, I’d advise you to reread my original post. The Democrat I mentioned clearly was doing so; the Republican was the one who was promoting his own party by attacking the other. These of course are the events of this week. I won’t rehash the events of a few years ago, but it would be difficult to argue that the Republicans ever gave blind allegiance to President Clinton.
I must have been home sick the day we voted for who would own the company I work for. Silly me. In short, brutal analogy. CEO’s only care about workers insofar as doing so is useful to the corporation. A president who only cares about citizens only insofar as doing so is useful to the nation is generally labelled with words such as ‘despot’.
Look, no one’s saying that the president has to go along with a viewpoint because its proponents are vocal. What we’re saying is that people who raise what they feel to be legitimate concerns about the current course of action are under no obligation to keep quiet just because the president has made a decision. Quips about the relative lack of freedom to express dissenting opinions in other places do nothing to demonstrate that dissenting opinions shouldn’t be voiced here.