…which is not now. I’m sorry for the length of the two recent Presidency posts below. I just felt it might be helpful to discuss how I make decisions about candidates – there’s too much stuff I’m seeing on the Internet which is of the sort “I favor candidate X because he can beat candidate Y” or “I would like candidate X in party A to win because he’ll tear apart party A.” There’s also too much stock being placed in polls, and slick media campaigns.
For my part, there is no one more qualified for the job than Newt Gingrich, and it is “qualification” that the Electoral College existed to consider. There are Clintonesque moral issues involved with Dr. Gingrich, but I would say this to those who say it is the same problem regarding the two of them: If Bill Clinton had decided instead of being Mr. Popular Class President to be an actual statesman – if he had treated all of us like we were adults in his approach to issues and not reduced politics to “town meetings” (which are impossible to work in a country where the number of Representatives had to be capped at 435 so the House wouldn’t get too big, and are just media events) and polls – I would bet that the rage the Right has at the Clintons would be a tenth of what it is.
Moral failings are a problem, but especially a problem when one doesn’t do their job. I was a teenager during the Clinton Administration and I was more serious than he was about foreign policy and sustainable economic growth (which might have been even bigger if there were tax cuts then). I know that is arrogant to say, and I’m sure Dr. Clinton has a far better grasp on many issues than I do, but one has to at least look like one cares for the job.
So I guess I’m actually making a point here without knowing it: this less a defense of Newt and more a warning about how we can discuss politics. We can discuss the upcoming election in terms of how candidates fare at media events, like McCain, poor man, looking pallid on “Meet the Press,” and say that his candidacy is doomed because of the ever-so-mature observation he looked bad on TV.
Or we can talk about it in terms of actual qualifications and issues. Again, I don’t think there’s any candidate that comes out better than Newt, and I hold – and it is just my opinion, when all is said and done – that to do the former, and concentrate on “who looks better, they might be viable” is to conduct the politics that Bill Clinton conducted, that made moral failings in a sense unforgivable, as there was no other literal reason the man gave us to support him.
Also: If you actually like my preaching, reading and linking back to the “Is Politics Reducible to Rhetoric?” post is most, most welcome. There I try to take on the politics of “The Daily Show” through considering an old argument about the conjunction of government and speech.
Technorati Tags: presidency, elections, newt gingrich, double standards, impeachment, clinton
powered by performancing firefox
2 responses so far ↓
Irate_Nate // March 3, 2007 at 2:39 pm |
Awesome post my outspoken friend. Hopefully this time next year we will still be able to even think of the election seriously. It is a mad house full of fluff and spin. No matter the case… that candidate found to be our Right Minded Leader should be just that,… RIGHT. No more pussyfoot’en around the media. No more scratching backs of those countries that truly could give a **** about our children’s future. Social Security, Illegal Immigration, Terrorism, Moral Security… meaning secure our children’s morals in a cleaner environment. The far far left has destroyed the protective moral fibers thread by thread through years of “if it doesn’t effect me, who cares” kind of mentality. There isn’t much further logic after such a statement. OUR children are bombarded with a multitude of destructive social issues. While we are looking. At their schools whie in class or recess. All the while our leaders stroke the egos of those liars saying they have our children’s best interest in mind. BULLS***!
Oops… I’m ranting on and on…
Bottom line,.. WE NEED NEWT… if not him? GOD HELP US SOMEBODY RIGHT
great posting brother ashok
ashok // March 3, 2007 at 3:17 pm |
Yeah, agreed entirely.
I should balance out this post, but I think the argument for Clinton’s approach is just too sketchy.
The best argument for the media consciousness of the Clinton years is something like this:
1. Issues where all Americans can agree can soften the nasty edges of populism.
2. When those edges are softened, a greater concord arises among Americans, and we are more productive because we aren’t political. We’re more content and able to focus on the private.
I mean, the thing about making the best argument for any Leftist good – i.e. “an end to using force,” or “building social welfare to help the poor,” etc. – is that the argument inevitably tries to dodge “politics.” That’s the strength of Lefty argumentation: the goods are idealistic, transpolitical. Wouldn’t it be great if we were all friends? And if we didn’t war with each other?
I think any Rightist argument has to start with a recognition that people will sin, and in a democracy, will want things that justify their baser desires, or cater to them, and that we can’t and shouldn’t always stop this – we have to persuade more than fight back, we have to show that our seriousness comprehends their narrow notion of rights, and that we want something a lot greater that all Americans can share in.
You must be logged in to post a comment.