Monday, July 18, 2011

Chicken or the Egg

One of the frustrations, that a person who pays attention to politics faces, is the political leaders out there to hear and watch. This is directly proportional to whether they suit our agenda or not-- and anybody who pays attention to politics, who votes, does have an agenda which means they are looking for those who voice what they already believe.

I am constantly being attacked from the righties when I defend something Obama has done. This happens whether it's one of the emails they circulate for seemingly forever and appearing mysteriously out of the ether. They send it to me say something about all Democrats/liberals wanting to take away our liberties while all Republicans/conservatives want to give us all the ultimate freedom.

So I write back the freedoms that Republicans want to take away and usually hear back something like I am an Obama apologist or a socialist. You name it, but they won't address what I wrote back nor can they usually defend the email they forwarded at least not to me even though they are basing their political philosophy and vote on the ideas within it.

Same thing can happen if I put a comment into a right wing blog where people who think like me will usually be the minority because like draws like. Almost right at the start it will either be I am not a fair-minded person or am an Obama nut who cannot see the man for what he is.

Well Obama didn't come before my philosophy on what the nation needs to do. I voted for him because he was voicing some of what I wanted to see happen and the other side was voicing none of it. As it turns out, he's been a lot more right wing than I would have chosen, but he was the best of the alternatives available to me. This is likely to happen again in 2012.

Rush Limbaugh often says he didn't create dittoheads. I agree with him. They found him, but they already had that way of wanting to think which is that the rich are the ones who will save our nation, who create jobs, who are the super achievers. The poor are the ones who suck the nation dry, don't care, and won't take a job if they can help it because their job is figuring out all the aid programs they can sign up for. The people who listen to Rush Limbaugh and his ilk (their names are legion) already think like that and he appeals to their sense of logic-- such as it is. If he stopped saying it, he'd be toast.

So if someone likes Bachmann, it's not because she talked them into it. They already like the idea of any woman who says that their husband tells them what to do because that's their understanding of the Christian way. I don't know if they have yet realized that means a shadow presidency with the real power behind the throne, power given to a man who doesn't have to stand out front and face evaluation of his doctorate that he bought from a mail order system, his rather suspicious counseling service that doesn't have to be licensed in Minnesota, or the question of why he's so obsessed with using methods to try and get people from one gender to turn into people of another.

Think about this for a bit why someone becomes obsessed with that kind of thing from a Bachmann or any of the others running from the extreme right who are willing to sign pledges that they will do this or that from a group called FAMiLY because in a family, you are the small i, what you think doesn't matter, only what is good for the FAMiLY and that translates into church or political movement.

Think about voting for anyone who says God speaks to them. A lot of us would think that means schizophrenia but not a particular group in this country. You know, if you weren't already a certain type of person, there is no way under the sun you'd do that. But if you are, she didn't create you and neither did Glenn Beck. She just reinforces you.

For anyone who has accused me of being an Obama apologist, I am not. I see the things he has done that I didn't like. I also though see no alternative coming from the right who will come closer to what I want to see done in this country-- and wanted for many years before Obama came along.

Obama loses to a generic Republican in current polls. That's because he is specific and that right winger is a general idea of 'other than' which is what many want where it comes to any election.

It'll be interesting to see how many Americans are already of the ilk that wants a candidate who will be so numbskulled as to have signed Grover Norquist's pledge (these kind of pledges are very popular among righties for deciding where to cast their votes) for no new taxes period, ever, not under any circumstances. That means no matter what situation arises, these politicians can never vote even to take out loopholes in the tax code because that qualifies as a tax increase to mindless robots, which I have called zombies and still do as those who follow a political agenda with no real knowledge of where it is taking them.

I would not vote for any politician who signed any such pledge. Now that's easier for me as I haven't heard about it from the left wing even happening. Not sure how much success it would have given the mix of beliefs among Democrats-- but it's real popular among Republicans and only the strongest leaders among them resist (or those who still have hope for getting the middle to swing their way).

So I am not an Obama apologist but when someone brings up a particular issue, I will generally be defending the position Obama would defend even if he's been disappointing for what he would do about it. To those who slam Obama from the left, he's not all I want either but take a look at the Supreme Court for whether you want him or a right winger in there appointing the next Justice when Ruth Bader Ginsburg retires as she is saying she will.

Another Clarence Thomas or possibly a Hillary Clinton? That's what the next election will come down to. Obama appointed two women to the court (Elena Kegan and Sonia Sotomayor) who have pretty much pleased me. I don't expect I would be able to say the same thing about an appointee by say President Pawlenty. Give Obama a working majority in the US Senate and we'd have far more likelihood of getting a Hillary Clinton.

I don't know what Obama would do if he got a second term. It's always hard to say. Bush was doctrinaire far right with his first term, but by his second he got more moderate and by the last two years of it he had lost his majority in the House and Senate thereby making him less capable of more big tax cuts with no accompanying spending cuts. Most of the debt with which he saddled the country was from the first term.

These ideas, political ideologies and movements weren't created by those out front of them. No, it's something we do when we hear words and a leader who seems to be heading our way; and we may grow more convinced of our position, but it is because we already wanted that.


Kay Dennison said...

Well said!!!!! Now how do we fight back?

Robert the Skeptic said...

When I start off on a rant of a similar vein, a friend reminds me that the average IQ in this country is 98. That explains a LOT, to my thinking.

Ingineer66 said...

That is how the test is set Robert, so the mean is 100. So half the people are above average and half the people are below average.

I would be more interested in knowing the average IQ of Congress.

Rain said...

What gets me about it is I know plenty of quite intelligent people on both sides of this argument. The question is what strokes someone in such a way that they will go against what is best for the whole, buy into what is best for them, but with no facts behind it? I don't know how we fight back. I am not sure how many people are on either side but when someone says they would vote for someone like Bachmann with her saying what she did about her husband telling her what to do, with his mail order degree, unlicensed (because you don't need one in Minnesota) counseling service, their taking a lot of farm subsidy money while they claim to be against government handouts, etc etc. what makes someone with intelligence think she is a good choice? How do we get people to look at the facts of different issues, look at statistics and actually be willing to go where they take them? No, we can't spend more than we have forever but no we can't solve the problem without increasing revenues, not when inflation is not letting someone stay still.

Harold said...

Thank you for reminding me that the choirs have been waiting for these preachers. I still blame the con men for taking advantage, but it doesn't seem to take much effort for them to fill the seats.