When I was nine years old and in the third grade, I started following Presidential elections. My interest began with Ford/Carter ’76. It now seems literally a lifetime ago.
I’ve been a lifelong Democrat. It started with rooting for Carter, and for every Democratic candidate since. However, simply because I would disagree with a political party doen’t necessarily mean that I can’t respect it.
Admittedly, while Democratic Presidents have been historically better at domestic policy, (One only needs to look at the Clinton surplus in the year 2000) Republicans have been pretty good at foreign policy. Iran/Contra notwithstanding, Reagan was a good foreign policy President. He took a new approach to the Cold War, and brought respectability to the US from the rest of the world.
Now the party seems to be in this state of limbo and lost identity. What happened?
I believe that George W. Bush was a catalyst to the implosion of the GOP. While Reagan stated that government was the problem and not the solution, Bush expanded government in ways that the extreme liberal left couldn’t have fathomed. This problem had been brewing for a while with extreme fringes of the right gaining a platform, and speaking for the entire party. Bush merely brought this problem to a head. While creating the expensive bureaucracy of Homeland Security, Bush believed that the American Government could intervene and promote democracy in other nations with cultures far different from ours. While Gerald Ford told Wall Street in the ’70s to “drop dead” rather than bailing them out, Bush endorsed the partial socializing of our banking system by doing the very thing that the old guard Republicans vehemently opposed; throw money at the problem. For the full scope of this Presidency, look at my blog, President Evil 2: Dark Legacy.
While the Democrats unabashedly brought forth the best and the brightest, The Republicans have had this annoying habit of bringing forth the plain-spoken and folksiest. Bush again was a prime example, especially during the 2004 debate with John Kerry when the nation witnesses Bush slumped over his podium, and faltering over his talking points. Bush spin doctors in spin alley hailed Bush as “plain-spoken.” In actuality he wasn’t plain-spoken, he was being inarticulate. There is a difference.
Now we have to deal with Sarah Palin, who played up her folksy Alaskan demeanor during the 2008 Vice-Presidential debate. Like Bush, there’s not much substance behind the smile. She is mostly backed by editors of “The Weekly Standard” and “The National Review” like Fred Barnes, William Kristol, and Rich Lowry. I do wonder if these men are in denial mode, looking over her glaring inadequacies while wanting her so much to succeed. My question to the GOP is, do you really want a pushy, overly ambitious, non-intellectual to lead your party? Too many of the reactionary extremists have hijacked the GOP, and it needs to reclaim the party. It needs to say that the Hannities and the Limbaughs of the right do not reflect the GOP as a whole. For all of the faults of the Democrats, the party on the left has become remarkably moderate. We [Democrats] take in the fringe, but we take them with a grain of salt. The left extremists are heard, but they aren’t the voice of the Democratic Party. The GOP needs to act similarly.
It’s like looking at an old foe with whom you’ve shared this wonderful rivalry who is now hurting, and you want to put differences aside to help that foe. Although I seldom agreed with the Republican platform, I respected it. I want so much for the Republican party to make a comeback and earn my respect again. I feel real sadness for the GOP, and hope that they can repair their broken party.
