Eccentric Flower:201002/Pragmatism
From Eccentric Flower
«February 2010 «Eccentric Flower
Pragmatism
Buried in a Boston Phoenix article about Mitt Romney is one of the most depressing sentences I've read in the last twelve months. But first, background:
As Republicans go, the "real" Mitt is not all that odious to me. I don't like his stances on a number of social issues, but the man has always struck me first and foremost as a businesslike, pragmatic man who simply wants to get things done. He does suffer from the same flaw that happens every time you put a businessman into politics - learning, or failing to learn, that he's no longer the CEO and he can't just order people around. But as a candidate, I dislike the "real" Mitt far less than I disliked his trying to masquerade as a frothing social-issues conservative (and no one believed him anyway). I wouldn't have nightmares if he were elected, the way I would if, say, Sarah Palin were. I could live with him, is what I'm saying.
But it doesn't matter, because a reasonable Republican with relatively sane policies is no longer the sort of Republican who can get his party's nomination. And thus we come to that depressing sentence:
That's right: A large chunk of the population in this country is now officially more interested in electing an ideologue than a pragmatist. (And that includes some people on the left.)
When did "pragmatist" become a bad word? When did "ideologue" become a good one? What the hell has happened to us, and how do we fix it?
You wouldn't have nightmares if he were elected? A pro-life, anti-gay marriage, go-go-capitalism-fuck-the-poor, smarmy, lying Republican? I sure as hell would.
-- 23:40, 12 February 2010 (GMT)
I'd like to hear from someone who actually lives there how his universal, mandatory health care program is working out for the average man. He was responsible for that, wasn't he? Seriously. Did it work? What parts of it helped? Do people like being forced to have coverage? There was all that screaming about the Patriot Act taking away our freedom. What about freedom to opt out of insurance? Or does one cherry-pick which freedoms matter and which ones don't?
Until recently I was a card-carrying Republican, but the ideologues have pushed me out of the party. Frankly, I don't think Mitt would be the worst thing that could happen in 2012. Palin's way too extreme fundamentalist for my taste. Guys like Sean Hannity and Michael Savage, not to mention Glenn Beck, scare the crap out of me. Religion-imposed government sanctions and restrictions make my blood run cold.
I could put up with most of what blue dog Democrats espouse, if they'd just become more sensible about fiscal policy and money management. Instead, they push class envy to limits I'd never have imagined possible. They refuse to acknowledge that wealthy people are, in fact, people, who are going to do whatever they can to protect that wealth, and why shouldn't they? They'll cut back on corporate expansion (read: jobs) and they'll stop buying luxury items, thus depriving the middle class schlubs who produce those items of gainful employment. Greedy? I don't see it that way at all. Just try to come and take away my things that I worked hard to acquire. I'd circle the wagons, you better believe it. It's the same thing, only on a different level.
All I'm saying is if Mitt Romney comes to represent a more moderate faction of the Republican party, then I, for one, will welcome him. I'm just afraid the hysterical extreme right have too firm a foothold already to ever allow him to be nominated. If ever there were a time for a third party, it's now!
"...pro-life, anti-gay marriage, go-go-capitalism-fuck-the-poor, smarmy, lying Republican..."
So, is that meant to apply to all of us, or just Mitt? If that's the general consensus among liberal Democrats, then it's no wonder there are no meaningful constructive discussions. Paint me with that brush and I want nothing further to do with whatever the topic of discussion happens to be.
-- 03:48, 13 February 2010 (GMT)
Don't mind Nonelvis. First off, she's a horrifically uncompromising socialist, and second, I'm pretty sure she just meant Romney.
-- 04:24, 13 February 2010 (GMT)
Bunny, I was referring specifically to Romney. But I'd say the same about any person who espouses those same values, no matter whether they come from Democrat or Republican. Surely you can't defend "smarmy" and "lying" as good values from either side? And personally, I'm not willing to compromise on abortion -- if you don't like it, don't have one -- or on gay marriage, because gay people should have exactly the same rights as heterosexuals.
We are clearly not going to agree on whether capitalism is, at its heart, a good system, so I'm not going to discuss that. But you should know that I am a small business owner, someone you'd think would be very in favor of the pro-business policies Republicans espouse -- but in fact, I generally find their policies pro-management instead of pro-worker, which is a very different thing.
-- 14:24, 13 February 2010 (GMT)
See, that's why I'm having problems with the Republican party, these days. I agree with you about abortion and gay rights. Also, I think it's criminal not to use waste products of any kind for stem cell research. I guess you'd say I'm fiscally conservative and socially moderate. There's no place for me in the current iteration of the Republican party.
However. The Michael Moore, George Soros, Susan Sarandon, Al Gore, Dannny Glover faction of the Democratic party is equally extreme and terrifying to me. I'd be leaning toward Libertarianism, if many of them weren't such moonbats. I'm not nearly enough of an activist to work to develop a third party. And so, increasingly, my choice seems to be to hold my nose and vote for the lesser of the evils, which, in my judgment, is generally the Republican. Or, to just stay home.
And no, I don't advocate smarmy or lying. But for those qualities, I would probably have found Bill Clinton to be an okay president.
-- 18:56, 13 February 2010 (GMT)
Joy:
I think you'll find many Democrats (or those who tend to vote that way) feel the same way, Bunny: the choice is to hold your nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. For me, that means I care more about abortion and gay rights than I care about fiscal issues, and I sure as hell can't bring myself to vote for someone who is approved of by the far right elements in the Republican Party (whatever their personal beliefs are).
-- 01:36, 14 February 2010 (GMT)
That's exactly the problem. Nor can I vote for anybody approved of by the likes of Keith Olberman or Chris Matthews. It's a real problem. What's a moderate to do? I do care more about fiscal policy, because I'm on a fixed income, with excellent health care benefits, both of which can be gravely damaged by activities in DC. And, having worked for government enforcement and experienced the frustrations inherent in lack of funding, I'm a hawk when it comes to allocating monies for fighting terrorism, be it in Iraq, Afghanistan, or right here in the U.S. So I tend to lean Republican. That's a heck of a way to cancel one another out, innit?
It becomes more and more tempting to hide in a hole and watch what happens. But living in FL I can appreciate the importance of each and every vote, so I probably will never just stay home.
-- 17:04, 14 February 2010 (GMT)
Andy:
Bunny, you say you care about fiscal policy. Look at this graph if you want to see which party is more fiscally responsible.
So the democrats are more fiscally responsible, and you agree with them more on social issues. So why not vote democratic?
The Republicans have been the party of "give lip service to fiscal responsibility, while being way more irresponsible than the Democrats" for 70 years now. It baffles me that they continue to get away with this.
-- 20:52, 18 February 2010 (GMT)
Ysabel:
I say we nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
-- 17:01, 12 February 2010 (GMT)