Looking beyond the election. -- The unfortunate reality in America and a call for prayer and God's blessings for our great country and its leader.
After reading this, and regardless of your political persuasion, I invite you to join me in praying for America and asking for God's guidance with our next President, whether it is Pres. Bush or Sen. Kerry.
Toxic political climate likely to continue
By Dick Polman
November 2, 2004
Philadelphia Inquirer (from Columbus Ledger-Enquirer)
We'll pick a president Tuesday, and perhaps bring closure to an acrimonious year. But it's highly unlikely that either George W. Bush or John Kerry will be able to bridge the partisan divide and usher in a new era of civility.
In pursuit of victory, both have uttered grand promises - Bush talks about overhauling the tax code and partially privatizing Social Security, while Kerry touts an ambitious health-care plan with a price tag in excess of $600 billion - but they have rarely leveled with the voters about a few fundamental truths:
The bitter ideological conflicts that predate this election year will persist in 2005. Barring a surprising blowout Tuesday, political sentiment will remain starkly polarized. Nearly half the voters will feel scant allegiance to the man in the White House. The victor will still be grist for the hostile voices on talk radio, cable TV and the Internet. And congressional members of the opposition party - less devoted to the art of compromise than their forebears - will be tempted to win points with their die-hard supporters by shredding the victor's policy agenda.
As Thomas Mann, a nonpartisan Washington analyst, said Monday: "It's going to be a horrible governing climate. The opportunity always rests with the president, who can try to change the dynamic through his actions. But the combination of the fiscal constraints - the massive deficits, the ongoing cost of Iraq - plus the likely composition of Congress, and the overall political dynamic, is going to be devastating."
No candidate wants to say stuff like that. But the fact is, a victorious Bush - having already failed in his 2000 promise to be "a uniter, not a divider" - will get no slack from Democratic partisans who are convinced he is one of the worst presidents in history. His political health might also be imperiled by his lame-duck status; traditionally, presidents accomplish less during their second terms.
As for Kerry, the conservative echo chamber has already painted him as a conviction-free weather vane and betrayer of the troops in Vietnam; in all likelihood, he would be hard-pressed to steer an ambitious agenda through a House of Representatives that remains in the grip of Republican conservatives.
The impending uncivil war will mark a continuation of the hostilities. Anti-Bush voters seeking to dissent have been thrown out of Bush campaign events; meanwhile, in Florida last week, a motorist jumped a curb and gunned his car at Rep. Katherine Harris, the former Florida election official, before veering away at the last moment. Later, when police tracked him down, the registered Democrat said: "I was exercising my political expression."
Moreover, the polls reflect stark divisions within the electorate. Broadly speaking, Bush is the favored candidate of rural voters, married voters, Southerners, whites, socially conservative suburbanites, and born-again Christians. Kerry is the favored candidate of urban voters, singles, Easterners, minorities, socially moderate suburbanites, and those who are not religious. Those were the general fault lines when Bush ran against Al Gore, and some pollsters believe the lines have deepened.
Perhaps that's because the prospects for bipartisanship soured so quickly. A number of Democratic lawmakers broke ranks in 2001 to back the Bush tax cuts, and members of both parties stood together on the Capitol steps to sing "God Bless America" in the aftermath of Sept. 11. But the comity was gone within the year, in the heat of the 2002 congressional elections.
Bush and his Democratic rivals have hardly created this dynamic. Rather, the president in 2005 will be forced to deal with a toxic political climate, decades in the making, that is now virtually institutionalized.
Republicans say the congressional Democrats started it by launching an attack against Robert Bork, Ronald Reagan's Supreme Court nominee in 1988, thereby introducing the ideological litmus test as a credential for the judiciary, and by enacting a law that put a squad of special prosecutors on the trail of Reagan's aides. Democrats blame Newt Gingrich's conservative revolution of 1994, the subsequent impeachment of Bill Clinton, and the festering wounds of the Florida election overtime.
But the causes go deeper. After the Democratic-led civil rights laws of the 1960s, the two parties began to reorder themselves along ideological lines. Conservative whites left the Democratic Party, particularly in the South; and, as a result of the growing Southern dominance of the GOP, Republican moderates have become an endangered species. And with liberals now dominating the Democrats, there are fewer people on either side willing to compromise. (This situation is exacerbated by the fact that most House ideologues have safe seats and rarely face a well-financed challenger; in the 435 House races that will be decided Tuesday, no more than 36 are truly competitive.)
Acrimony aside, the ideological divide also reflects a profound philosophical disagreement about the future path of the nation.
If President Bush prevails Tuesday, and in 2005 promotes his "ownership society" (young workers "owning" their retirement plan, more citizens "owning" their health plan), liberals will contend that the safety nets erected during the New Deal and Great Society are still better than a market-oriented program. And if a President Kerry seeks (as promised) to finance his health-care plan by repealing Bush's tax cuts for the affluent, the resistant congressional Republicans will contend that he is trying to take away people's hard-earned money and using it to finance big government.
Either man will be forced to deal with the same daunting realities: Huge budget deficits and historically low revenues as a share of the gross domestic product (as a result of the Bush tax cuts); the ongoing rise of health-care costs; the expense of financing Iraq, with the aim of stabilizing the war zone and crafting a U.S. exit strategy; and more spending pressure for defense and homeland security.
"Kerry, if he wins, would understand all the obstacles," Mann said. "The question is, would he be able to craft a governing strategy that crosses party lines? That's a formidable task. As for Bush, if he wins, he will feel affirmed. So he would aim big. But because of the climate of the last four years, he'd have a mess on his hands."
But would Bush seek to cross party lines, in search of the sensible center? Not likely, if you believe Donald Evans. At the Republican convention, the commerce secretary and longtime Bush friend spent a few minutes lamenting the tone of Washington, and leaving no doubt where he thought the blame belonged.
"It's been one obstructionist kind of action after another," he said, referring to Senate Democrats. Bush "is a leader who brings people together around common goals, and, yes he understands politics and he plays to win. But when that's over with, we should be solving problems for all the people. In Washington, though, every day is a zero-sum game: `What can I do to get more power for myself, because the other guys are the enemy?' ... So the idea is, we're not going to give them any more power; we've got to keep it for ourselves."
Or, as the poet William Butler Yeats once penned, "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
_______________
. . . Amen.
Toxic political climate likely to continue
By Dick Polman
November 2, 2004
Philadelphia Inquirer (from Columbus Ledger-Enquirer)
We'll pick a president Tuesday, and perhaps bring closure to an acrimonious year. But it's highly unlikely that either George W. Bush or John Kerry will be able to bridge the partisan divide and usher in a new era of civility.
In pursuit of victory, both have uttered grand promises - Bush talks about overhauling the tax code and partially privatizing Social Security, while Kerry touts an ambitious health-care plan with a price tag in excess of $600 billion - but they have rarely leveled with the voters about a few fundamental truths:
The bitter ideological conflicts that predate this election year will persist in 2005. Barring a surprising blowout Tuesday, political sentiment will remain starkly polarized. Nearly half the voters will feel scant allegiance to the man in the White House. The victor will still be grist for the hostile voices on talk radio, cable TV and the Internet. And congressional members of the opposition party - less devoted to the art of compromise than their forebears - will be tempted to win points with their die-hard supporters by shredding the victor's policy agenda.
As Thomas Mann, a nonpartisan Washington analyst, said Monday: "It's going to be a horrible governing climate. The opportunity always rests with the president, who can try to change the dynamic through his actions. But the combination of the fiscal constraints - the massive deficits, the ongoing cost of Iraq - plus the likely composition of Congress, and the overall political dynamic, is going to be devastating."
No candidate wants to say stuff like that. But the fact is, a victorious Bush - having already failed in his 2000 promise to be "a uniter, not a divider" - will get no slack from Democratic partisans who are convinced he is one of the worst presidents in history. His political health might also be imperiled by his lame-duck status; traditionally, presidents accomplish less during their second terms.
As for Kerry, the conservative echo chamber has already painted him as a conviction-free weather vane and betrayer of the troops in Vietnam; in all likelihood, he would be hard-pressed to steer an ambitious agenda through a House of Representatives that remains in the grip of Republican conservatives.
The impending uncivil war will mark a continuation of the hostilities. Anti-Bush voters seeking to dissent have been thrown out of Bush campaign events; meanwhile, in Florida last week, a motorist jumped a curb and gunned his car at Rep. Katherine Harris, the former Florida election official, before veering away at the last moment. Later, when police tracked him down, the registered Democrat said: "I was exercising my political expression."
Moreover, the polls reflect stark divisions within the electorate. Broadly speaking, Bush is the favored candidate of rural voters, married voters, Southerners, whites, socially conservative suburbanites, and born-again Christians. Kerry is the favored candidate of urban voters, singles, Easterners, minorities, socially moderate suburbanites, and those who are not religious. Those were the general fault lines when Bush ran against Al Gore, and some pollsters believe the lines have deepened.
Perhaps that's because the prospects for bipartisanship soured so quickly. A number of Democratic lawmakers broke ranks in 2001 to back the Bush tax cuts, and members of both parties stood together on the Capitol steps to sing "God Bless America" in the aftermath of Sept. 11. But the comity was gone within the year, in the heat of the 2002 congressional elections.
Bush and his Democratic rivals have hardly created this dynamic. Rather, the president in 2005 will be forced to deal with a toxic political climate, decades in the making, that is now virtually institutionalized.
Republicans say the congressional Democrats started it by launching an attack against Robert Bork, Ronald Reagan's Supreme Court nominee in 1988, thereby introducing the ideological litmus test as a credential for the judiciary, and by enacting a law that put a squad of special prosecutors on the trail of Reagan's aides. Democrats blame Newt Gingrich's conservative revolution of 1994, the subsequent impeachment of Bill Clinton, and the festering wounds of the Florida election overtime.
But the causes go deeper. After the Democratic-led civil rights laws of the 1960s, the two parties began to reorder themselves along ideological lines. Conservative whites left the Democratic Party, particularly in the South; and, as a result of the growing Southern dominance of the GOP, Republican moderates have become an endangered species. And with liberals now dominating the Democrats, there are fewer people on either side willing to compromise. (This situation is exacerbated by the fact that most House ideologues have safe seats and rarely face a well-financed challenger; in the 435 House races that will be decided Tuesday, no more than 36 are truly competitive.)
Acrimony aside, the ideological divide also reflects a profound philosophical disagreement about the future path of the nation.
If President Bush prevails Tuesday, and in 2005 promotes his "ownership society" (young workers "owning" their retirement plan, more citizens "owning" their health plan), liberals will contend that the safety nets erected during the New Deal and Great Society are still better than a market-oriented program. And if a President Kerry seeks (as promised) to finance his health-care plan by repealing Bush's tax cuts for the affluent, the resistant congressional Republicans will contend that he is trying to take away people's hard-earned money and using it to finance big government.
Either man will be forced to deal with the same daunting realities: Huge budget deficits and historically low revenues as a share of the gross domestic product (as a result of the Bush tax cuts); the ongoing rise of health-care costs; the expense of financing Iraq, with the aim of stabilizing the war zone and crafting a U.S. exit strategy; and more spending pressure for defense and homeland security.
"Kerry, if he wins, would understand all the obstacles," Mann said. "The question is, would he be able to craft a governing strategy that crosses party lines? That's a formidable task. As for Bush, if he wins, he will feel affirmed. So he would aim big. But because of the climate of the last four years, he'd have a mess on his hands."
But would Bush seek to cross party lines, in search of the sensible center? Not likely, if you believe Donald Evans. At the Republican convention, the commerce secretary and longtime Bush friend spent a few minutes lamenting the tone of Washington, and leaving no doubt where he thought the blame belonged.
"It's been one obstructionist kind of action after another," he said, referring to Senate Democrats. Bush "is a leader who brings people together around common goals, and, yes he understands politics and he plays to win. But when that's over with, we should be solving problems for all the people. In Washington, though, every day is a zero-sum game: `What can I do to get more power for myself, because the other guys are the enemy?' ... So the idea is, we're not going to give them any more power; we've got to keep it for ourselves."
Or, as the poet William Butler Yeats once penned, "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold."
_______________
. . . Amen.
posted by Sid Cottingham | 6:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home