|
October 26, 2008
The case for gridlock
It might be a bit late in the game for my liking, but I'm glad to see that McCain is finally raising what I think is the best argument in his favor: ALBUQUERQUE (Reuters) - Republican presidential nominee John McCain , trailing in the polls, raised the prospect on Saturday of a complete Democratic takeover of Washington as a reason to elect him over Democrat Barack Obama in 10 days.The American voters have a long tradition of not wanting either party to get too much power. The last time the Democrats held both the executive and congressional branches was when Bill Clinton was elected, and it didn't last long. Of course, once Bush was elected the Republicans held both branches, and it took until 2006 for the public to finally say they'd had enough. Whether that means they want to keep going, and get all the way into the fast lane to socialism, who knows? McCain is a centrist, though, and considering that he'd be up against a hostile Democratic congress, his election would hardly mean GOP control as it's being spun. Clearly, Republican dominance is over, and I think the American electorate want it that way. But how far do they want to go? Do they want the country under the total political control of the Democrats? It's a good question, a larger one than Barack Obama, and McCain should be hammering away at it -- if for no other reason than half the voters don't even know who Nancy Pelosi is. Political junkies tend to forget that what they take for granted as common knowledge is in fact uncommon. A lot of people simply don't know which party is running Congress. Considering the abysmally low approval ratings of the legislative branch, ordinary voters might need a reminder of who is in charge there, and that they actually have opportunity to proceed with caution. Maybe even apply the brakes. Of course, if the voters want socialism, voting for Obama is like taking your foot off the brakes and getting in the fast lane. Yes, the fast lane to socialism certainly is change. But is it the kind of change that American voters really want? I realize that America's "progress" towards full blown socialism may be inevitable. As it is, government nationalization of the economy is continuing full pace, and when the astronomically high cost of baby boomer Medicare "entitlements" kicks in, even many Republicans may welcome socialized medicine because the inevitable rationing would build in a cost containment mechanism. And once these things are in place, they become politically impossible to undo. With all that in mind, I prefer as much gridlock as possible along the way, and I see a vote for McCain as a vote in favor of maintaining at least some semblance of gridlock. Yes, I know that "balance of power" has a much more pleasant ring to it, but this is a blog post, not a speech. "Gridlock" sounds very unappealing. Backward, even. "Fast lane," "progress," and "change" all sound appealing, promising, even sexy. As unattractive, boring, and stultifying as "gridlock" may sound right now, once it's lost it will seem like a precious, time-honored American birthright. Because if it's change they want, it'll be change they'll get! (If only "they" didn't get to drag me into their "we.") posted by Eric on 10.26.08 at 10:53 AM
Comments
Hitler said that socialists keep wanting to "own" busineses. He on the other claw said, "I don't need to own the factories when I own the people that own them." toad · October 26, 2008 12:06 PM This means you believe that electing McCain will result in Gridlock as opposed to his "reaching accross the aisle" to save a few cherished programs = military funding, etc. while giving in on the rest. fiona · October 26, 2008 09:19 PM I have no problem with reaching across the aisle for good purposes. But in general, the less government, the better. In that sense, a little gridlock is a good thing. Eric Scheie · October 26, 2008 09:35 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
November 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
November 2008
October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
Soothe The Monkeys
McCain Is Against Coal All speech is like pornography! And libertarians don't exist! The election is over, but the geographical literacy campaign continues The Obama Economy - An Anecdote cynically naive? Criticism is not hatred Marxing Off A Cliff A time for hope? A building, not a tent.
Links
Site Credits
|
|
The economic system being advocated by "progressive" Democrats is not exactly socialism. Obama, Reid, and Pelosi don't have any interest in having the government actually *run* economically productive enterprises...they aren't interested in government ownership of mines, refineries, and factories, because (unlike old leftists) mining, refining, and manufacturing aren't really things they value. Rather, they want to control the economy via thousands of rules and directives, issued by politicians and officials with little knowledge and less accountability...and then blame the private sector for things that don't work. This is really closer to the economic aspects of fascism than it is to socialism.