prolog, on Jul 7 2004, 02:01 AM, said:
^ This is the sort of bitterness I can only aspire to.
Nah, I'm not bitter at all. I've got a great job, a great family, a nice house, a trade-deficit-contributing fuel-inefficient car; my life is good.
What I am is concerned. I was raised by my Republican, US Army Officer, Vietnam Veteran father to believe in noblese oblige
, not driot de signoir
. That society works best when we consider issues greater than ourselves. That we, as good citizens, are obliged to inform ourselves about the political process and the issues, have informed and respectful and polite discussions about the issues, carefully consider both side, then make consciencous decisions about our leadership, and vote appropriately.
One of the things, then, that most concerns me, is overly simplistic and often belligerent tone of most of today's politics. Today's pundits, both left and right, have greatly reduced the intelligence level and increased the bile in what passes for political debate these days. What got me started in the first place was this... (by Drew)
There goes John Kerry's domestic platform.
The idea that an increase in the GDP somehow invalidates Kerry's platform is overly simplistic. While an increase in the GDP is nice for the incumbant, it's not what the average voter cares about. What the average voter cares about is the age old question... "Are you better off now than you were four years ago?" The increase in the GDP doesn't change the answer to that question for a lot of Americans, and it saddens me that right now, for far too many, the answer is "no."
That's mixing together two or more different issues. One is about the overall economy going up and down, and the other(s) is/are the relevance of standard economic measures to people's financial well-being.
And the latter is far more relevant to Kerry's platform and the election in general than the former, which is my point.
The latter has been steadily but gradually getting worse for decades, but hasn't been talked about so much in politics because it's so slow and unidirectional. But the fact that one thing continues to get worse as it always has since before I was born doesn't mean that the other isn't pretty good and still getting better right now, or that it doesn't matter.
I disagree with this. In my lifetime, the American standard of living, at least in my perception, has fluctuated, going both up and down. It went down badly in the 70s. Climbed in the mid-80s, dropped again in the late 80s/early 90s and rose again in the 90s. Now, at least from where I sit, it's falling again. A lot of things contribute to this, some of which can be controlled, some of which can't. But to me, this is the biggest domestic issue in any election. Presidents who make people feel like their lives are getting better (Reagan, Clinton) get re-elected. Presidents who don't (Ford, Carter, GHWB), don't.
Okay, I'm done. I usually stay out of political discussions on this board because...
a) I don't like the level of invective that typifies OT political talk, and...
b) I'm in an usual situation here since this board grew out of my old website and I don't like taking an "editorial" position here.
So I'll be moving along.
Editted plenty cause of reason...
c) I can't spell and I'm a sloppy typist.
Edited by Robert Hewitt Wolfe, 06 July 2004 - 11:52 PM.