The press overplayed its hand. It has thoroughly abdicated its role in questioning government when Democrats are in office. The same press crew that challenged Bush on the economy when there was 4.6% unemployment now reports as wonderful the fact that unemployment when [sic] up from 9.7 to 9.9 in April. This proves more people are optimistic enough about the future to re-enter the job market! Imagine if we hit 11 or 12, we will have to send a ticker-tape parade down Wall Street.This tells the independent voter there is no longer a contest between Democrat and Republican. There is a contest between charismatic leaders surrounded by naïve sycophants versus practical leaders surrounded by skeptical interrogators. The independent has to vote Republican not because he buys the ideology but merely because he thinks it healthy to have a guy who is challenged rather than venerated.
Those last two sentences constitute today's memory verse for gentle readers, so we repeat them: "There is a contest between charismatic leaders surrounded by naïve sycophants versus practical leaders surrounded by skeptical interrogators. The independent has to vote Republican not because he buys the ideology but merely because he thinks it healthy to have a guy who is challenged rather than venerated. "
As SWNID says often: words to live by.
6 comments:
The press has largely failed to report that democrat Mark Critz, who defeated a republican challenger, is pro-life, pro-gun, anti-obamacare, and anti cap and trade.
As a KY resident, I would likely vote for that kind of democrat rather than a Rand Paul republican.
I agree that charismatic leaders are not always our best option if we aren't keeping them in check, but I do take exception with the celebration around the figure of 4.6% unemployment that was thrown out. I think it's a weak and misleading example.
The most recent unemployment figure close to that was in September of 2001 (http://is.gd/cj5wM) and if you look at the graph it started climbing immediately after. I know that most of that initial climb is due to the recession that hit immediately after 9/11, but crediting the Bush administration with consistently low unemployment numbers is a bit of a stretch. Yes - lower than what we have with Obama right now, but I think that we're seeing some of those low numbers were birthed from a clearly unsustainable bubble.
I guess the question that I would ask in response to the author is who was challenging the Bush/Cheny apparatus? It seems like anyone who did was pushed out the door (see: Colin Powell who is speculated to have challenged it after finally coming around) and he hasn't been seen anywhere near government since.
Quick ammendment/correction:
- October 2006 was the last time we were close to those figures, but I think this is consistent with my view that the unsustainable bubble was what put this number where it was.
- The punctuation and grammatical structure of my last sentence are just awful. Apologies.
Farris: the author's point is not that Bush did anything to create low unemployment in 2006 or deserved credit for it. The point is that the mainstream media take an adversarial role with Republicans and an enabling role with Democrats. Your observations actually underline that point.
The author's point is also not that Obama lacks disparate voices in his cabinet (as Powell was for a long time in Bush's) to any degree notably different from other POTUSes. It's that with both Houses in his pocket and the press on his side, the public senses a need to redress the imbalance, so independents are planning to vote R to create a conversation where there has been an echo chamber.
And let's note the case of Powell while we're at it. Was he pushed or did he go on his own? We don't know, as you rightly acknowledge. The fact is, however, that Bush worked with Cheney and Powell and Rumsfeld and Rice, all strong personalities with differing opinions, and he did it for a long time under a lot of pressure. His cabinet was no rival to Lincoln's for its range of opinions, and neither was his skill in handling it a rival to Lincoln's. He can be rightly faulted for too much loyalty to his advisers, as in letting Rummy stick around until after the 2006 elections.
But he worked every day with rabid criticism that came not just from social fringes like Obama's Birthers but from the heart of the political/media establishment. And he deliberately sought a cabinet wide enough to test ideas with rigor.
And when he did what he needed to do to Rummy--finally--he named a replacement who is still on the job, saving BHO's military/foreign policy bacon every day.
I miss Condi. I really do. I feel like I have a very small grasp on the leadership apparatus that is "The Cabinet", but if there's anything that I feel comfortable about - it's foreign policy. Condoleezza Rice had, for the most part, the right ideas.
Condi beats Hillary in a diplomatic girl fight.
Post a Comment