Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Liberal Radio Part One
The new "liberal" talk show network annoys the crap out of me. Admittedly, I haven't heard all the hosts yet (I still look forward to the Chuck D and Lizz Winstead combo), but it doesn't matter what the hosts are like, I have a problem with the whole concept.
Some disclosure here before I continue. I am not a Republican, neither am I a Democrat... I am a registered independent. I have to say that by registering, it seems like I've given up the independence thing.... much like an organized meeting of anarchists. That aside aside, my leanings are definitely more liberal than conservative and I won't count myself amongst the biggest Bush fans in the world.
One of my earlier rants was on the state of leadership in this country, specifically the dearth of leadership. I think the 2000 campaign with Al Gore and George Bush was a wonderful example of that. They're both about as inspirational and exciting as a Benny Hinn Revival in Mecca. That leadership vacuum still exists in this upcoming election. Kerry or Bush again, seems more like a lesser of two evils choice than anything else.
I can't vote Republican because they've simply become a caricature of a party. Their fiscal decisions make no sense, ideologically they've been taken over by the very vocal far right fundamentalists and frankly, their views on civil rights are disturbing. At times, with the installation of the Patriot Act and their opinion that anyone against their ideals is also against America, I wondered how soon it was going to be before the Sedition Act made a return.
As bad as the Republicans are, the Democrats are no better, maybe even worse. During the 60s though the 80s, you knew what the Democrats were about. They led the way on social issues, battling for equality and just rights. Economically they weren't as strong as the Republicans, but at least they seemed like they were looking out for the working man. They might have been freakishly to the left sometimes, but at least they could be defined by something. At least they could stand up on an issue and say, "this is ours, we're right, we believe in this and we will fight for it." Clinton came along and changed that.
I'll admit here too, I liked Clinton. I thought he was an ok president. On a personal level, he might not have had the best decision making process, but he was from Arkansas.... for Arkansas he did great.... at least he was sleeping with women from outside his own gene pool. The one thing Clinton did that killed the Democrats was to become more of a populist. To do this he basically started co-opting Republican ideas that worked and then pulled the left more to the center. This was a very successful political move and he remained a popular president throughout his years in office, despite the many scandals. When he was done though, he left a Democratic party that didn't have an identity of its own.
It was during those Clinton years that we saw a rise of the far right and their taking possession of the Republican party. It was necessary to pull the party that way, because everything in the middle was so muddled by the presence of the Clintonian Democrats.
9/11 struck and for the next couple of years the Democrats, not wanting to be viewed as anti-American conceded everything to the Republicans. It's just now, with the election upon us that the Democrats are once again finding their footing as an individual party and not a more liberal outcropping of the Republicans.
Part two is on the way... this just got way too long for just one post....
Some disclosure here before I continue. I am not a Republican, neither am I a Democrat... I am a registered independent. I have to say that by registering, it seems like I've given up the independence thing.... much like an organized meeting of anarchists. That aside aside, my leanings are definitely more liberal than conservative and I won't count myself amongst the biggest Bush fans in the world.
One of my earlier rants was on the state of leadership in this country, specifically the dearth of leadership. I think the 2000 campaign with Al Gore and George Bush was a wonderful example of that. They're both about as inspirational and exciting as a Benny Hinn Revival in Mecca. That leadership vacuum still exists in this upcoming election. Kerry or Bush again, seems more like a lesser of two evils choice than anything else.
I can't vote Republican because they've simply become a caricature of a party. Their fiscal decisions make no sense, ideologically they've been taken over by the very vocal far right fundamentalists and frankly, their views on civil rights are disturbing. At times, with the installation of the Patriot Act and their opinion that anyone against their ideals is also against America, I wondered how soon it was going to be before the Sedition Act made a return.
As bad as the Republicans are, the Democrats are no better, maybe even worse. During the 60s though the 80s, you knew what the Democrats were about. They led the way on social issues, battling for equality and just rights. Economically they weren't as strong as the Republicans, but at least they seemed like they were looking out for the working man. They might have been freakishly to the left sometimes, but at least they could be defined by something. At least they could stand up on an issue and say, "this is ours, we're right, we believe in this and we will fight for it." Clinton came along and changed that.
I'll admit here too, I liked Clinton. I thought he was an ok president. On a personal level, he might not have had the best decision making process, but he was from Arkansas.... for Arkansas he did great.... at least he was sleeping with women from outside his own gene pool. The one thing Clinton did that killed the Democrats was to become more of a populist. To do this he basically started co-opting Republican ideas that worked and then pulled the left more to the center. This was a very successful political move and he remained a popular president throughout his years in office, despite the many scandals. When he was done though, he left a Democratic party that didn't have an identity of its own.
It was during those Clinton years that we saw a rise of the far right and their taking possession of the Republican party. It was necessary to pull the party that way, because everything in the middle was so muddled by the presence of the Clintonian Democrats.
9/11 struck and for the next couple of years the Democrats, not wanting to be viewed as anti-American conceded everything to the Republicans. It's just now, with the election upon us that the Democrats are once again finding their footing as an individual party and not a more liberal outcropping of the Republicans.
Part two is on the way... this just got way too long for just one post....
