Thanks for the lengthy and well thought out response. Here are my thoughts:
I don't think that Bush and Cheney truly represent this 'center' party, for a couple of reasons:
1) Their necessary ties to the Religious Right. I say 'necessary' because, in their minds, they need the support of Jerry Falwell et al. The main price of this support is their stance on abortion. A whole segment of the population believes as strongly about prochoice as the right does about the right to bear arms. It is a fundamental chasm that separates 'New Democrats' from becoming 'Compassionate Conservatives.
2) Their views on the environment. Given the ecological disasters of Three Mile Island, Love Canal, and the Exxon Valdez, these 'centrists' are suspicious of leaders who do not step cautiously in the pursuit of natural resources. When Bush says that it is safe to drill oil in our national parks and wildlife areas, EVEN IF IT IS, they are suspicious. Because that's what they were told about nuclear power, industrial waste, and oil drilling; completely safe. The fact is: nothing is completely safe, so people perceive it as a lie. A better approach would be to build trust, start some pilots, get some good results, and then sell it to the rest. Ploughing ahead full steam simply reinforces the wall between Bush and the environmentally sensitive.
3) Simple politics. In my opinion, 99% of the politicians operate on an ethical level lower than the general population. They have been born and bred to 'spin' (i.e. lie), and to maintain their party lines before any true ethical standards they hold. Gore's lies were matched by Bush's dirty tactics in Florida. Gore's wooden phoniness is matched by Bush's combination smirk/deer in a headlight look. The political party system weeds out honest, ethical candidates in favor of 'electable' drones that will spout the party spin. The few 'statesmen' (in my opinion, McCain and Jerry Brown) are vilified and torn down by the party system.
These three main reasons, and other more minor ones, are why I do not believe Bush and Cheney can win over this 'centrist' party.
I try not to lump the vast majority of good Christians in with the religious right. I have true fear and loathing for the religious right, as they are led by people who have no ethical standards. Jerry Falwell is either the biggest liar ever, or truly demented. However, I don't lump all prolife people into Jerry's camp; many Christians simply believe that abortion is wrong, and I respectfully disagree with their position.
I agree with the assessment on our education system. I disagree that private schools are the answer. Certain aspects of our society must have a consistent high standard, and be regulated (e.g. Energy). The trouble with the public schools must be fixed; higher standards, better teaching methods, more qualified teachers, more accountability.
I do not believe that we can offer a private school system to people on the lower end of the income scale that is even up to par with the current public schools. Private schools need to make money, and poorer people simply cannot afford it. Even with vouchers at the proposed levels ($4000/year in CA), they could not break even. The local private schools here just raised their rates to $12,000/year, and it is NOT a fancy school (my kids are in the excellent public school here). I do not believe it is economically feasible to privatize the school system; I believe the result will be a steeper curve between the 'best' and the 'worst' schools.
Taxes ARE way too high. One of the good things that came out of the Clinton/Gingrich catfights was the trend towards smaller government, fiscal responsibility, and reduction of the debt. I would have preferred to see this tax cut go towards the debt; let's rid ourselves of it once and for all. I'm in favor of an balanced budget amendment. Unfortunately, I think the Social Security issue is going to present a huge obstacle for this goal of a balanced budget and low taxes. A tough problem. Again, I don't think that privatization (individual investment) of retirement savings is the answer; see the recent market decline for evidence. Many people saw their 401K investments halved and more.
One of the embarrasments of the 'centrist' Democrats is the extreme left ecologists. The take the same approach as the NRA; if you give an inch, they'll take a mile. The same sort of thinking that landed us in Vietnam. We need to carefully compromise in our ecological decisions. The reality is, we need trees, oil, and other resources to survive. On the other hand, we need to ensure that we invest in renewable resources, so that we don't rape the land and leave nothing for our children. That's why I don't understand Bush's slashing of the renewable energy research budget; it's that kind of thinking that scares the centrist Democrats away from Bush.
Well, I fear I have rambled on more than was necessary. Some disagreements, but I always tell my Republican friends that we are closer together than they think. It is the job of the 2 party system to make us appear we are further apart than we are; they must justify their existence. In business, we call it 'identifying your differentiators'.
One last point: I know my stance on gun control is far left. What many on the thread did not want to see was that I was not proposing that we take away all guns; just handguns. Keep your rifles and shotguns for sport and protection. If someone breaks into your house, protecting yourself with a shotgun is surer than a 38. Also, I recognize the current improbability of a ban on handguns, much as I'd like to see it. I would hope for stronger laws that prevent the current easy access to firearms.
That's for the chance at an intelligent exchange of opposing views without be called a 'retard'. |
