Sunday, November 27, 2005

An 'independent' viewpoint on politics

In an e-mail group I belong to, a liberal friend of mine posted a link to a page on The Moderate Independent site, where the motto is “Not left, not right, just right.”

I read the linked piece titled “Inside the Fall of the Democratic and Republican Parties.” What follows are some excerpts and my comments:
Notice there is nothing about principles in this. There is nothing resembling confidence. There is nothing resembling boldness. There is only self-interest and the wanting to take advantage of a power structure that has been set in place and is going to work to their personal advantage.
I wonder what this guy would think of Feingold?
And so when, in the early 1990's, the Republican Party, under the initiative of George H. W. Bush, began assembling a lying propaganda network like the ones the CIA Bush formerly led has used around the world, the Republicans felt not disgust but at last some hope. While they knew morally that lying was wrong, and they knew that one-side-promoting propaganda was an un-American tool that never should be trusted - was the standard implement of evil stalwarts like the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein - their desperation give a Machiavellian embrace to their only hope.
Florid, yet entertaining!
And while Limbaugh and Gingrich were the first gleam of light at the end of a very long tunnel for Republicans, many were still not ready to accept lying and intentionally misleading propaganda.
As opposed to unintentionally misleading propaganda?
Clinton won re-election handily
And, whaddaya know? With less than 50% of the popular vote!
And there waiting for them were the people they had dubbed hateful, disgusting, and undesirable just a few years back, the new breed of Soviet/Nazi-emulating Limbaugh/Gingrich Republican.
I'll just let this one go.
...[Governor Schwarzenegger's] documented past of nude posing, drug use, orgies, and lechery
I thought that Dems didn't mind these things...
America's two major political parties have both fallen into complete demise. The Democrats have entirely lost their principles and ability to stand up for anything at all, standing only for their personal political ambitions; and the Republicans have lost their moral code, sold their souls for the sake of political wants, abandoned principleand conscience for the sake of political expediency.
Can't argue with this too much. It's clear that the author wishes that the Dems would straighten up and fly right, so I can't really accept the “independent” part of his moniker.

I checked out another piece of his, "PAY ATTENTION TO RUSSIA, DAMMIT!" I found this interesting:
President Bush's inept, naïve foreign policy was allowing President Putin of Russia to play our nation and the world and take bold steps, rolling back human rights and democratic reforms and consolidating power and wealth in his hands.
I read through the article looking for what the author felt would be the right thing to do. He fixed the blame on Bush for rescinding the ABM treaty. He goes on:
But even despite that, shortly after September 11 the world came together, and Putin was among the leaders who took the opportunity to stand together with us and work to craft a plan that could make the world a safer place. As reported by CNN (see article: "A New Era For U.S.-Russia Relations?") on November 14, 2001, it was Putin who suggested a massive cut to both Russia's and the United States' nuclear arsenals. It seemed like we were entering a "new era of US-Russia relations" where we truly were allies working together in securing the world's safety against threats by rogue nations and terrorists.

But going to Iraq changed things, and no sane nation felt it could sit by waiting for America to come up with some reason to go after them "pre-emptively." And so instead of this "new era" of positive relations, Russia has done an about face.

So, while we are stuck ostrich-like in Iraq, the real threats to America, actual thoughtful leaders like Putin who realize power is a chess match, not a spitting contest, continue to gain for their nations as America slips and weakens and goes further into debt – the sort of the debt that brought the Soviet Union down to begin with.
What's puzzling to me is how he figured Putin would not go on to do the things he's done in Russia if the U.S. hadn't dumped the ABM treaty. As if Putin's own consolidation of power relied on the ABM treaty being revoked by the U.S. The author blames Bush but treaties are ratified (or ended) by the Senate. I suppose that if the Dems are as spineless as he claims in his other piece, then the vote to end the ABM treaty makes sense. But does he truly believe that Putin would not have gone on to consolidate power?

No comments: