Scott's Dream For The Upcoming Political Season

It wasn’t that many years ago that people could actually have intelligent political discussions without resorting to clichés and name calling. People had their own opinions, but also respected that others may think differently.
Obviously, that has changed in the past ten years or so. The rise of multiple cable news channels, along with the AM talk radio boom, led to not only the rise of Howard Stern-ish political shock jocks, but the cottage industry of paid experts whose entire careers consists of spouting talking points on both radio and television.
Add to this brew the continued use of the internet, and the emergence of politically-oriented blogs that don’t have any obligation to present actual facts, let alone both sides of an issue. It’s a sad state of affairs when made-up internet stories are now utilized as facts in the mainstream media.
I’m sure some of you are going to read those above paragraphs and automatically assume which side of the political fence I’m on. No, you can’t. The sins of one side are just as much part of the other side’s game. Sean Hannity may sneer “liberal” as if it’s one of George Carlin’s “Seven Words” to anybody who doesn’t agree with everything he says, but Democrats are just as guilty when describing a Republican.
There’s absolutely no civility in politics these days, even though there really is little difference these days. The fiscally responsible side spends like a long-lost Kennedy cousin, and there’s not a Democrat who wouldn’t sell out his virgin daughter for a political contribution.
Yes, I’m also guilty of a cliché or two in that last paragraph, but the point is that despite the rhetoric and the silly games of one-upsmanship, it is business as usual in Washington. At what cost, though?
With this environment, is there any real surprise when we hear of a nonsensical violent act like the type that occurred this past weekend at a church in Tennessee? I’m actually shocked that there haven’t been more shootings, bombings, or other acts of violence against people or groups of people that have different beliefs.
I’m not blaming any persons or organizations for the actions of Jim David Adkisson. Yes, he reportedly targeted this church because of his hatred of so-called “liberals”. This same crime could have been perpetrated against an anti-gay church by somebody who hates Bush. It’s the climate of close-minded hate that I despise. Neither party has the one and only answer on any single issue, let alone an entire agenda. As the various social, economic, and environmental issues become more essential to our future life and well-being, we must put aside the labels and the games and actually begin working together. We’re heading towards a few months where we’re going to bombarded by political rhetoric. My hope is that we don’t repeat the circuses we endured in 2000, 2004, and 2006. Hey, a boy can dream.


Anonymous said…
'Upcoming Political Season with no coherent agenda' should've been the title. Neither candidate for President, or their party, has any intention of securing the border. The American people learned nothing from 9/11. Not to mention violent criminals from Mexico, and deadbeats pouring over the border. Drug trafficing, organized crime, gangs and free services for people that aren't even American citizens. Between that and two mismanaged wars, I have no incentive to vote in '08. By the time a majority of citizens notice that Lou Dobbs really did have good points, it will be too late. The invasion of the morally bankrupt will be complete in my lifetime. From superpower to third world toilet. Coming to a neighborhood near you. They wrecked every other country, now they're going to work on yours. Unless you live in a gated community - which by virtue of investment acknowledges the have-nots will plunge into the third world status.
Have a nice day.
Anonymous said…
So what if Tim Johnson decided not to debate what's-his-name. The funny part was the Republican school yard responses from the local registered pit bulls testing their tactics on undecided voters. The Argus recorded one (obvious) Republican responding: "Oh that Johnson won't debate, the voters will have to read the candidates views on numerous issues." Ohh poor if reading was hard work. But to use reading as a talking point tactic to discredit Johnson is priceless. Ya, we can't have reading going on or the voters might get informed about the candidates. Then another obvious Republican editorial accused Johnson of attempting to undermine Dykstra by not debating. Might be some degree of truth in that, since I have to look up Dykstra's name again for my blog. If Dykstra needs a debate to become discovered, I doubt he deserves to be a Senator. Why should Johnson be held responsible for Dykstra's obscurity. Maybe the Republicans should find a candidate that people know first, then name recognition could come later. Then there was the old tactic that voters need the Senatorial debate to compare candidates. (As if reading couldn't accomplish that.) What do political debates offer that's informative? One liners like: Where's the beef? -or- 'I knew Tom Daschle, and you're no Tom Daschle.' Or my personal debate favorite: "Tell me in 2 minutes what your plan is for the federal budget." Leave it to TV debate to give political candidates an hour or two for voters to decide who will rule America. Because we wouldn't want to take time away for all the important entertainment programs. (sic) Then there was the Republican blog that claims Johnson couldn't be re-elected because he couldn't debate on the Senate floor - which is "his primary job". Last time I checked, a Senator's primary job is voting on Senate bills. Which doesn't require speaking. Or writing bills, which doesn't requiring speaking. It's not likely that the other Senators will ridicule Johnson when he speaks in committee meetings or on the Senate floor, unless Republicans don't like people with speech impediments. And in fact, Republicans do. Which reminds me of a funny story. Former California Republican Congressman "B-1 Bob" on Fox a few years back stated that Pope John Paul should be removed from office because "his hunched back no longer made him look like a Catholic leader." So much for Republican sympathy for disabililities. FDR couldn't walk, but that didn't mean Americans should've shot him like a lame horse. If Republicans don't like to read, does that count as a disability grounds for termination?


Popular Posts