Why this Center Left girl now considers herself a Partisan Democrat
I didn't used to.
I'm actually still a registered Independent, unable to vote in the Democratic primary. I used to think that was just fine because in every election since 1988 I have voted across party lines for one race or another. This is especially true in local and state elections where I've always voted community interests before ideological priorities.
That all changed with Bush the Junior and for the first time in my voting career I am contemplating an official allegiance to the Democratic Party as a registered voter.
At this point I have become compelled by unseen forces to speak only in a sarcastic, derogatory, or dismissive way about the man who currently holds our highest government office but in 2000 I was rather ambivalent. Bush seemed unserious to me: a figurehead fulfilling the GOP's need for a malleable candidate with built-in Republican creds. A little insulting to the voters, I thought, but then again I never believed my fellow voters wouldn't see right through the Gays n'God scam being perpetrated by the right. Living in Illinois I had the luxury of casting my own 'protest' vote for Nader without fear of putting a hole in the space-time continuum (elections are so anti-climactic when you live in a solid blue state). And so I did.
I was a little distressed by the Bush II victory but I had a busy life to attend to and besides, things were in generally good shape... how much harm could one man do? As it turns out, my apathy was grossly ill-advised in the shadow of the Rove-Cheney-Rumsfeld triumvirate. With the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary bodies now under firm Republican control, and with the Fox News propaganda machine in full swing, I was sadly ignorant of just how out of balance my universe was about to become.
I was quite put off by Cheney's secretive Energy Task Force but the trauma of 9/11 pulled me squarely, if only temporarily, behind Bush. Like everyone else, I was numb and scared and then highly, highly pissed off at having been attacked. Like everyone else, I was happily cheering when our President spoke from Atlanta on November 8, 2001. In fact, I can read the transcript even now and it still sends chills down my spine.
So what happened? Well, first and foremost, I saw a big policy shift away from Bush's statements in that November 8th speech and toward the documented intentions of this group (the membership signatures on this page really freaked me out). I began to strongly resent the dirty game being played against the citizen of this country.
I was angry that we were not taking the path of global alignment to relentlessly root out and destroy the existing terrorist threat by shoring up our own intelligence and building an effective international intelligence and counter-terrorist network. The entire world was, for the first time in our history, entirely sympathetic toward our cause. But instead we embarked on the unrelated and divisive folly of ousting Saddam. I was in disbelief regarding the manipulative (and factually incorrect) attempt to tie Al Qaeda to Saddam. I was angry that the administration and its friends in the media, despite intelligence to the contrary in early 2003, continued to use the WMD threat to push for the Iraq invasion while deriding those of us who questioned it as unpatriotic or treasonous. I was angry that they stirred up that ridiculous anti-France, anti-Germany fervor to obfuscate the real, more pragmatic issues surrounding the invasion. I was angry (and still am) that Osama is alive and that we've all but abandoned any attempt to find out who was behind the Anthrax poisonings.
But mostly I'm angry that instead of rooting out the finite terrorist threat we once faced in Al Qaeda, we've now ignited the passion of everyday Islamists to create an endless parade of activists in the mother of all us-versus-them battles. Now we're not just dealing with a group of dangerous martyr idealogues financed by Osama... now we've created an entire movement against our interests. Our invasion of Iraq, no matter how carefully disguised as "liberation" or "neutralizing a WMD threat" or "enforcement of a UN Resolution" or "domino democracy theory", still reeks of our attempt at direct regional control. Maybe good from our perspective but certainly not to the theocratic nations that actually populate region. So now we have independent terrorist cells, copycat terrorists cells, and homegrown terrorist cells. Instead of a specific terrorist threat, we have now inspired a new army of Islamic homicidal maniacs to join the party. And, proving once again that you never know how bad it can get, the latest foiled UK terrorist airplane plot revealed a new threat from disaffected local psychos now converting to Islam in order to participate in terrorist activities. That's a business with frightening growth potential, one that the evil Al Qaeda has spotted and is suddenly keen to exploit.
But back to Iraq.
Once we invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam, most of those of us who were appalled by everything in the runup to the war (including the ignorant strategy itself) recognized the need to win the thing. Strangely, the only people who seemed not to recognize the need to win was the Bush administration, who immediately called it a "mission accomplished" and then failed to stabilize the country. What a different situation this might have turned out to be had we had enough troops on the ground to lock down the country. Instead we played whack-a-mole with the insurgents, allowed Iran to exert its influence among the Shia, and gave Al Qaeda a playground for inciting sectarian violence AND a training ground for the next round of terrorist-inspired urban warfare. Now we have the trained and armed Kurds in the North taking pot shots at Turkey, the Sunni insurgents focused on securing their turf, and the Shia with fabulous new competing militias. I can't wait to see what happens next.
On the domestic front we have a booming business in globalization. You can't turn back the clock on global trade or labor displacement but you can create a softer landing for the affected until the international market achieves some kind of balance. Protectionist policy and isolationism, while sounding good, helps some and hurt others (remember the steel tariffs?) and probably isn't a sound go-forward strategy, But fair trade (as opposed to free trade) ought to be given some consideration. And instead of corporate welfare (which isn't spurring the large U.S. investment one might have expected with the incredible profits as of late), how about reshaping the tax breaks as a carrot to incent the investment of dollars here at home?
I hate to wind down this post without touching on the downside of privatization, social security dismantling, blurring the lines of church and state, the decline of meritocracy/rise of plutocracy, the tax-and-spend Republicans, the defiling of the constitution, or the erosion of civil liberties but there are simply not enough hours in the day to hit them all.
Let me conclude by saying that you can be a pragmatic, financially responsible, values-driven, socially conscious, national security supporting, individual freedom-individual responsibility sharing patriot and still fall comfortably left of center. I'm willing to cast my lot with the Democratic party in support of those ideas because I see NO SIGN that the Republican party takes them seriously or is able to execute on them with any degree of competency.
I'm actually still a registered Independent, unable to vote in the Democratic primary. I used to think that was just fine because in every election since 1988 I have voted across party lines for one race or another. This is especially true in local and state elections where I've always voted community interests before ideological priorities.
That all changed with Bush the Junior and for the first time in my voting career I am contemplating an official allegiance to the Democratic Party as a registered voter.
At this point I have become compelled by unseen forces to speak only in a sarcastic, derogatory, or dismissive way about the man who currently holds our highest government office but in 2000 I was rather ambivalent. Bush seemed unserious to me: a figurehead fulfilling the GOP's need for a malleable candidate with built-in Republican creds. A little insulting to the voters, I thought, but then again I never believed my fellow voters wouldn't see right through the Gays n'God scam being perpetrated by the right. Living in Illinois I had the luxury of casting my own 'protest' vote for Nader without fear of putting a hole in the space-time continuum (elections are so anti-climactic when you live in a solid blue state). And so I did.
I was a little distressed by the Bush II victory but I had a busy life to attend to and besides, things were in generally good shape... how much harm could one man do? As it turns out, my apathy was grossly ill-advised in the shadow of the Rove-Cheney-Rumsfeld triumvirate. With the Executive, Legislative, and Judiciary bodies now under firm Republican control, and with the Fox News propaganda machine in full swing, I was sadly ignorant of just how out of balance my universe was about to become.
I was quite put off by Cheney's secretive Energy Task Force but the trauma of 9/11 pulled me squarely, if only temporarily, behind Bush. Like everyone else, I was numb and scared and then highly, highly pissed off at having been attacked. Like everyone else, I was happily cheering when our President spoke from Atlanta on November 8, 2001. In fact, I can read the transcript even now and it still sends chills down my spine.
So what happened? Well, first and foremost, I saw a big policy shift away from Bush's statements in that November 8th speech and toward the documented intentions of this group (the membership signatures on this page really freaked me out). I began to strongly resent the dirty game being played against the citizen of this country.
I was angry that we were not taking the path of global alignment to relentlessly root out and destroy the existing terrorist threat by shoring up our own intelligence and building an effective international intelligence and counter-terrorist network. The entire world was, for the first time in our history, entirely sympathetic toward our cause. But instead we embarked on the unrelated and divisive folly of ousting Saddam. I was in disbelief regarding the manipulative (and factually incorrect) attempt to tie Al Qaeda to Saddam. I was angry that the administration and its friends in the media, despite intelligence to the contrary in early 2003, continued to use the WMD threat to push for the Iraq invasion while deriding those of us who questioned it as unpatriotic or treasonous. I was angry that they stirred up that ridiculous anti-France, anti-Germany fervor to obfuscate the real, more pragmatic issues surrounding the invasion. I was angry (and still am) that Osama is alive and that we've all but abandoned any attempt to find out who was behind the Anthrax poisonings.
But mostly I'm angry that instead of rooting out the finite terrorist threat we once faced in Al Qaeda, we've now ignited the passion of everyday Islamists to create an endless parade of activists in the mother of all us-versus-them battles. Now we're not just dealing with a group of dangerous martyr idealogues financed by Osama... now we've created an entire movement against our interests. Our invasion of Iraq, no matter how carefully disguised as "liberation" or "neutralizing a WMD threat" or "enforcement of a UN Resolution" or "domino democracy theory", still reeks of our attempt at direct regional control. Maybe good from our perspective but certainly not to the theocratic nations that actually populate region. So now we have independent terrorist cells, copycat terrorists cells, and homegrown terrorist cells. Instead of a specific terrorist threat, we have now inspired a new army of Islamic homicidal maniacs to join the party. And, proving once again that you never know how bad it can get, the latest foiled UK terrorist airplane plot revealed a new threat from disaffected local psychos now converting to Islam in order to participate in terrorist activities. That's a business with frightening growth potential, one that the evil Al Qaeda has spotted and is suddenly keen to exploit.
But back to Iraq.
Once we invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam, most of those of us who were appalled by everything in the runup to the war (including the ignorant strategy itself) recognized the need to win the thing. Strangely, the only people who seemed not to recognize the need to win was the Bush administration, who immediately called it a "mission accomplished" and then failed to stabilize the country. What a different situation this might have turned out to be had we had enough troops on the ground to lock down the country. Instead we played whack-a-mole with the insurgents, allowed Iran to exert its influence among the Shia, and gave Al Qaeda a playground for inciting sectarian violence AND a training ground for the next round of terrorist-inspired urban warfare. Now we have the trained and armed Kurds in the North taking pot shots at Turkey, the Sunni insurgents focused on securing their turf, and the Shia with fabulous new competing militias. I can't wait to see what happens next.
On the domestic front we have a booming business in globalization. You can't turn back the clock on global trade or labor displacement but you can create a softer landing for the affected until the international market achieves some kind of balance. Protectionist policy and isolationism, while sounding good, helps some and hurt others (remember the steel tariffs?) and probably isn't a sound go-forward strategy, But fair trade (as opposed to free trade) ought to be given some consideration. And instead of corporate welfare (which isn't spurring the large U.S. investment one might have expected with the incredible profits as of late), how about reshaping the tax breaks as a carrot to incent the investment of dollars here at home?
I hate to wind down this post without touching on the downside of privatization, social security dismantling, blurring the lines of church and state, the decline of meritocracy/rise of plutocracy, the tax-and-spend Republicans, the defiling of the constitution, or the erosion of civil liberties but there are simply not enough hours in the day to hit them all.
Let me conclude by saying that you can be a pragmatic, financially responsible, values-driven, socially conscious, national security supporting, individual freedom-individual responsibility sharing patriot and still fall comfortably left of center. I'm willing to cast my lot with the Democratic party in support of those ideas because I see NO SIGN that the Republican party takes them seriously or is able to execute on them with any degree of competency.
posted by Logic101 at 9/03/2006 11:25:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home