Pages

Saturday, November 10, 2012

Politically Homeless


I’ve seen a couple of articles recently that refer to Barack Obama as a possible Eisenhower Republican (i.e. Psychology Today, the Daily Beast.) It is an interesting thought. There are some interesting comparisons; both seem to reflect common middle-American values and both were forced to deal with issues that may have interfered with their primary objectives. Obama had to face a horrible recession not of his making which got in the way of his social agenda of aiding the American middle class and the poor; forcing him into big spending he didn’t want. Both seem to be fiscal conservatives but Obama had wars and a recession to deal with as Eisenhower had to send troops to Little Rock to defend minority children. Eisenhower wanted the country to evolve and did not want revolution, but was pushed there by rampant racism in the country. He was much more interested in building the infrastructure of the country and began that work with the interstates, but the follow up with rail, air, and water travel improvements got left on the drawing board.

The Republican moderates of the 50’s and 60’s seem to have no place to lay their heads. Their party seems to be hijacked by radicals such as found in the Tea Party, and the self-serving interests of the extreme wealthy whose views are less the centrist. Note the change in Romney’s rhetoric during the Republican Campaign and his Presidential campaign.

To lesser extent democratic liberals may feel a bit homeless too and look with envy and the social progress made in European countries which seem to place more value on all the citizens that we do. We spend a lot but it has not made us happier. Consider Sweden which has an over 50% income tax rate and yet are rated as the happiest people in the world. Concern for the poor seemed to have been a casualty in the recent elections issues.

Many have pointed out that until we get the obscene amounts of money out of political campaigns the average moderate American will have lost the political voice to which they are entitled. Inherent in our constitution is equal freedom of speech.

I do think there are traditional Republicans and Democrats left in congress but they are overshadowed by their intolerant and the inflexible colleagues and the nation suffers. Though no great political mandate came from the election one was clear, increases taxes on the very rich supported by the vast majority of Americans both Republican and Democrat. But can they prevail?

Where will we be able to find a political homeless shelter for today’s moderates? We can always seem to unite against a common enemy such as in the world wars, but we seem incapable of united for common causes that benefit all citizens; fiscally responsible, thankful for the gifts we get in this country to enhance our lot, and caring for those who are in need.

9 comments:

  1. The moderates these days I think are defaulting more and more to the D party since it has shifted rightward over the years as the R party has slid 'over the edge' as it were.

    President comes into the fiscal cliff talks with 52% approval rating, Congress with 21% approval. Pres Obama can stick to his guns because if the deadline is reached, automatic tax hikes and defense cuts ensue that would be far, far more odious to Republicans than any likely negotiated compromise. It wouldn't be thrilling to liberals either, but for many more palatable than the usual caving in to the demands of the republicans.

    The President now holds the high hand, in both the political and in the practical sense. He needs only to play it and call Boehner's bluff. Obama now has the power to force the issue and finally exert the will of the voters over the will of the almighty Grover Norquist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Pres Obama can stick to his guns because if the deadline is reached, automatic tax hikes and defense cuts ensue that would be far, far more odious to Republicans than any likely negotiated compromise."

      The result of which is the economy kicked over the cliff by the blow of tax hikes, and the terrorists cheer at a weakened US. I don't see this as any sort of catbird seat for Obama.

      Delete
  2. No mention of comparing wars between the two would be complete without mentioning that Ike started the US involvement in the Vietnam War.

    As for PK's claim in the first paragraph, this simply has not happened. But I have seen many on the left claim this.

    " exert the will of the voters over the will of the almighty Grover Norquist."

    Now, that I hope never happens. Greedy unnecessary tax hikes would throw the economy off the cliff. All the Norquist pledge demands is fiscal responsibility, and that the government use is vast, almost record level tax revenues wisely.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Watched a panel discussion this morning: 4 Republicans on why they can't seem to get more voters. IMO, the sparks between Gary Bauer and Jon Huntsman identified the main
    problem; the first guy what is wrong with the GOP, the second fellow....what is right.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Haha. But I hope they all realize that the difference between Romney and Obama was so small that something different on just one little issue. or even minor things as campaign stategy differences would have had the Democrats scratching their heads. It was no mandate, and no sweeping endorsement of anything.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. These days any election that isn't called by Scotus is a mandate of sorts. I would agree there
      isn't much difference between the candidates, but
      Gingrich didn't make the cut.

      Delete
  5. There wasn't any election called by SCOTUS, sorry. In 2000, the Supreme Court did not "call" the election. They just let the will of the voters stand. They said no to ballot tampering and Gore's claim that ballots that lacked votes should be "counted" for him.

    Conjuring is more like it. That is what happens when you take a ballot that lacks a vote for President on it and some how 'find' one.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, so the Supreme Court had nothing to do with the 2000 election. Somehow they sure sullied their judicial reputation that year, though....

      Delete
  6. Well, they did shoot down an attempt for the loser to overturn the popular vote by getting voteless ballots counted for him. But the end result of the Supreme Court action is identical to what has happened in all the elections since, and before: the votes of the people remained, and were not overturned by frivolous suits and actions.

    Sullied? Not a chance.

    ReplyDelete