McCain 2008
John McCain is probably going to be the Republican nominee. And, amazingly, the earth is still spinning.
I, for one, am a little amazed at all the weeping and gnashing of teeth. It's really not the end of the world. Really.
While it's true that the Republican party is going through an identity crisis, it's been going on ever since quasi-conservative George W. Bush took office and started trying to pass off bigger government as both "conservative" and "compassionate." Republicans in Congress similarly lost their way as they became more and more comfortable with their majority digs, until the only thing that differentiated the parties was their position on Iraq. Congress and the President are currently enjoying 20-something-percent approval ratings. Plus, not one of the presidential hopefuls seemed capable of coherently articulating basic conservative ideas in a way that didn't make audiences yawn. Not exactly a position of strength we're coming from here, folks.
Despite all this, I do not believe that a McCain nomination will equal the death of the party. Or the destruction of everything pure and good in America. Or the end of the world.
Party platforms are continually in flux, and both parties will and should continue to evolve to address the most pressing needs of society. But what could cause the end of the world in a very literal sense is if we end up with an appeasement-minded president who has no grasp of current international relations, and thinks that all we need to do to end wars is take Al Qaeda out to dinner and talk them into liking us more (Obama). Even Hillary would be marginally better since, regardless of what she says now to get elected, she's not so blinded by ideology that she doesn't know pulling troops out of Iraq would be disastrous for national security and could trigger a domino effect in the Middle East that touches off a third world war. Obviously this is worst-case scenario, but it's possible nonetheless.
For all the right-leaning doomsayers, the reality is that we knew from the very beginning that NONE of the candidates that were running were going to be "ideal." So then it becomes a matter of which issues are a higher priority to you than others. Social policy, economic policy, national defense, etc. I would argue that right now, it's more important to have a competent Commander-in-Chief than an economic or social policy wonk. Besides, as this great op-ed so articulately stated, "We have a $14 trillion economy. The idea that presidents can control it lies between an exaggeration and an illusion."
Congress controls the purse, so if you want to see changes in our economic policy, elect different folks to the House and Senate.
At least for me, the nuances of immigration policy or federal election laws hardly trump the more critical issues of defeating terrorists and protecting human life. I just hope the rest of the party comes around before it's too late.
I, for one, am a little amazed at all the weeping and gnashing of teeth. It's really not the end of the world. Really.
While it's true that the Republican party is going through an identity crisis, it's been going on ever since quasi-conservative George W. Bush took office and started trying to pass off bigger government as both "conservative" and "compassionate." Republicans in Congress similarly lost their way as they became more and more comfortable with their majority digs, until the only thing that differentiated the parties was their position on Iraq. Congress and the President are currently enjoying 20-something-percent approval ratings. Plus, not one of the presidential hopefuls seemed capable of coherently articulating basic conservative ideas in a way that didn't make audiences yawn. Not exactly a position of strength we're coming from here, folks.
Despite all this, I do not believe that a McCain nomination will equal the death of the party. Or the destruction of everything pure and good in America. Or the end of the world.
Party platforms are continually in flux, and both parties will and should continue to evolve to address the most pressing needs of society. But what could cause the end of the world in a very literal sense is if we end up with an appeasement-minded president who has no grasp of current international relations, and thinks that all we need to do to end wars is take Al Qaeda out to dinner and talk them into liking us more (Obama). Even Hillary would be marginally better since, regardless of what she says now to get elected, she's not so blinded by ideology that she doesn't know pulling troops out of Iraq would be disastrous for national security and could trigger a domino effect in the Middle East that touches off a third world war. Obviously this is worst-case scenario, but it's possible nonetheless.
For all the right-leaning doomsayers, the reality is that we knew from the very beginning that NONE of the candidates that were running were going to be "ideal." So then it becomes a matter of which issues are a higher priority to you than others. Social policy, economic policy, national defense, etc. I would argue that right now, it's more important to have a competent Commander-in-Chief than an economic or social policy wonk. Besides, as this great op-ed so articulately stated, "We have a $14 trillion economy. The idea that presidents can control it lies between an exaggeration and an illusion."
Congress controls the purse, so if you want to see changes in our economic policy, elect different folks to the House and Senate.
At least for me, the nuances of immigration policy or federal election laws hardly trump the more critical issues of defeating terrorists and protecting human life. I just hope the rest of the party comes around before it's too late.
No comments:
Post a Comment