In our last class, I argued that no matter who wins the election, the next presidency will be dominated by the aftermath of the Bush presidency. The unresolved events begun by the Bush administration [Iraq, North Korea, Afghanistan, the trillion dollars in bailout money] are both time and money guzzlers. Where is a President Obama going to find the money for universal health care? Where is a President McCain going to find the room for tax cuts? I want to expand on this idea a bit.
To begin, the last couple of days- with Obama's credit crisis aided jump in the polls- have spawned what I call "The Right wing Armageddon Article." Basically, the article presumes that the Democrats will win a filibuster proof majority in the Senate as well as the presidency, and then goes on to list the damage they will do to this country. Here is one from Pat Buchanan (I wonder if he minds me reading his work) and another from the WSJ.
People. Chill! The next president will not have the wiggle room to institute the dramatic changes in policy that those on the right wing fear so much. Further, the Democrats are not winning based on a positive, logical argument, [The New America is about...] but rather on the negative, emotionally charged argument that W. is a disaster and we need to throw out the party he calls home. What is the difference between these two claims? Well, the latter argument weakens exponentially with the passage of time. In two years, if things still are going badly, will the Democrats really be able to claim "The time for change is now"? Throw in American's distaste for single party rule, and I predict a Democratic supermajority that does not last past the next elections, especially if the democrats try to institure an ideaologically charged agenda.
P.S. In a previous post I mentioned an inaccessible WSJ editoral that debunked deruglation as teh source for the current economic crisis. Here is a simalar article I can post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Are they not winning on a logical, positive argument because they couldn't win with that argument or because they know that people aren't really influenced by logic but rather by negative, illogical campaigning (Mccain's campaign seems to believe that and it seems to be working).
The former. Obama has no "mandate" for America. And what he does have of a mandate, is NOT why people are voting for him. We have discussed this at lengtrh in class and this should be obvious to everyone concerned. Look no farther then his motto: "Change". Change? from what to what? It does not matter. That is exactly the campaign strategy Obama has embraced. Thus, his fortunes have waxed and waned with the level hate/frustation American's have with Bush. Thus the "credit crisis bump." Further, McCain negatiev campgainign has backfired because of the overwhelming press double standard toward his attacks.
2 Points
1. Obama has CLEARLY articulated what his change means, check out his website, he has clear policies. Perhaps in the Primary season he had not yet articulated his policies but the argument that he stands for nothing but "change" is unfair. Palin has used the word change more than Obama has recently (take a look at the VP debate to see what I mean).
2. The only double standard of the media that exists is Mccains standard. When the media attacks him, its liberal and biased, when it attacks Obama the media is correct, that in my mind is a double standard.
Post a Comment