Election Results and Armchair Pundits
Well, the results are in, and people have spoken.
Not exactly enouraging news, depending on whom you listen to and what you read. I personally never was in favor of the Iraq adventure, but I think it even more hideous to abandon the post once it's occupied. After all, the USA is responsible for the mess there, and anything that looks like abandoning this project will look like a major defeat of the US military, and the country as a whole. It would further cement international opinion that US foreign policy continues to suffer from a bad case of ADD and "selective vision," as it did in for Afghanistan in 1989, Somalia in the 90's, Rwanda in the 90's, and perhaps even the Yugoslavian conflict, conveniently abandoning innocent people to violent powers as the prevailing winds shift.
The election results have had another effect: effectively polarizing the US political landscape even more, if that was even possible. Most of the republicans ousted from Congress and the Senate were relatively moderate, depriving the US political system of vital centrist views. While it's possible that some elected democrats also hold centrist views, it's too early to tell, and this is a very big risk. (Source: Washington Post)
The pundits have been liberal in their application of vitriol to this situation, probably to the point of inflaming the division that makes the whole US political system such a risky proposition. Without a credible party claiming the divide between right and left in the system, there is no way for the voters to truly express their desire for compromise, should this desire exist. Independents in the USA have been polarizing, historically, as well. Even stranger, the people more accepting of a third US party or credible political movement have been the republicans. They never went to court to knock Ross Perot off the ballots - the democats, however, spared no effort nor expense to try to remove Nader from them. Ah, the irony.
With Ann Coulter, the author of How to talk to a Liberal (if you must) states in her column that this election is a vindication of Diebold, whose CEO has privately been suspected of saying that he will do anything to maintain Bush in power.
Others, such as Ted Rall in his column, do predict a total deadlock and further partisanization of the political scene in Washington. I sure hope they're wrong, for everyone's sake.
Not exactly enouraging news, depending on whom you listen to and what you read. I personally never was in favor of the Iraq adventure, but I think it even more hideous to abandon the post once it's occupied. After all, the USA is responsible for the mess there, and anything that looks like abandoning this project will look like a major defeat of the US military, and the country as a whole. It would further cement international opinion that US foreign policy continues to suffer from a bad case of ADD and "selective vision," as it did in for Afghanistan in 1989, Somalia in the 90's, Rwanda in the 90's, and perhaps even the Yugoslavian conflict, conveniently abandoning innocent people to violent powers as the prevailing winds shift.
The election results have had another effect: effectively polarizing the US political landscape even more, if that was even possible. Most of the republicans ousted from Congress and the Senate were relatively moderate, depriving the US political system of vital centrist views. While it's possible that some elected democrats also hold centrist views, it's too early to tell, and this is a very big risk. (Source: Washington Post)
The pundits have been liberal in their application of vitriol to this situation, probably to the point of inflaming the division that makes the whole US political system such a risky proposition. Without a credible party claiming the divide between right and left in the system, there is no way for the voters to truly express their desire for compromise, should this desire exist. Independents in the USA have been polarizing, historically, as well. Even stranger, the people more accepting of a third US party or credible political movement have been the republicans. They never went to court to knock Ross Perot off the ballots - the democats, however, spared no effort nor expense to try to remove Nader from them. Ah, the irony.
With Ann Coulter, the author of How to talk to a Liberal (if you must) states in her column that this election is a vindication of Diebold, whose CEO has privately been suspected of saying that he will do anything to maintain Bush in power.
Others, such as Ted Rall in his column, do predict a total deadlock and further partisanization of the political scene in Washington. I sure hope they're wrong, for everyone's sake.
posted by jaydub at 5:01 PM
0 comments
View blog reactions
