How a Moderate Conservative Can Go From General Indifference to Total Disenfranchisement in Three Short Months
I was just looking back at my List of 100 from last week, trying to see how it looked now that I'm not in stream-of-consciousness writing mode. Overall I think it was a pretty accurate description of me, but one thing in particular jumped right out at me as I glanced it over this time around - my little tangent on politics. Number 80 was pretty much dead on. I really have very little interest in politics, and that's probably the last thing I would ever look to when trying to judge someone else's character. I just don't care whether you support abortion or guns or whatever else. If you're a good person, then we're cool.
But it was what I wrote right after that probably surprised anyone that knows me a little bit. Hell, it actually kind of surprised me too - I have become decidedly anti-Bush Administration. As many of you may know, I've never exactly loved the man, but I have generally tolerated him and even found reason to support him for his stance on a couple of different issues. So how after 5 years in office, am I just now developing this attitude? I thought it was a (relatively) interesting question, so I decided to start at the beginning.
Early 2000
As primary season got underway as the leadup to the highly-anticipated November 2000 election, there was no doubt in my mind I was voting Republican. Clinton had seemed to provide nothing but Enquirer-worthy headlines during the end of his term, and I - along with much of America - was looking to restore a sense of dignity to the White House. I was also very pumped as this was my first opportunity to vote for the highest office in the land, and for the first time in my life, I really started to pay attention to political developments around the country.
After reading up on some of the issues, watching a few campaign speeches, and then watching the news folks give their two cents on it, to me the choice was clear: John McCain was the man. Here was a war hero who, while espousing adherence to certain conservative values, also showed a rather enlightened stance on issues such as the environment. The other guy seemed to me to be riding along on his famous last name, and dodging a lot of questions concerning his sketchy military and substance abuse records. I didn't think W stood a chance.
Somehow, as the primaries sorted themselves out, though, Bush emerged as the front-runner. When he got the nomination, I was a little disappointed. But I guess he can help the nation put the Clinton scandals behind us, right? And besides, Gore was a robot, and voting for Nader would just be throwing my vote away. Honestly, I wasn't that excited about any of the three. I did find it pretty peculiar when the Supreme Court got involved, and that they decided like they did. But with law school still off in the horizon, I didn't read too much into it.
2001 (January - September 10)
During this period, I wasn't completely impressed by ol' W. Sure, he had avoided any major embarrassment, but I generally saw him as a very mediocre president. There he was, a Republican, with Republicans sitting firmly in the House and Senate (and Court), and I just didn't see him do anything at all to make me stand up and take notice. Of course, he was still new at the whole Commander-in-Chief gig, so I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
2001 (September 11) - Late 2002
This was the height of my Bush support. Ignoring everything in Fahrenheit 9/11 (which, for the most part, I think is pretty easy to do), Bush was exactly what this country needed on September 11. We were scared; we were confused. Bush reassured us. He was at Ground Zero literally before all the dust had settled to offer support and encouragement to the rescue workers. He made it clear we would find out how this happened, who did it, and that it would never happen again on his watch (cue the Toby Keith CD here....).
As it became clear that Osama was behind the whole thing, and that the Taliban was basically allowing him to operate at will in Afghanistan, Bush did the only thing he could - the Taliban had to go if we we're going to have any chance of catching bin Laden. I supported this action 100% at the time, and still do today. That was a war that needed to be fought. The Afghan people became better off and Osama and his buddies were forced to move their little operation into dessert caves to avoid meeting Ala face-to-face.
Late 2002 - Mid 2005
Now the Taliban is gone, the cleanup is underway, and all of the troops are coming home...aren't they? This is where I really started to get suspicious of W. How exactly is Saddam involved in all of this? Oh, there might have been a meeting between the Iraqis and bin Laden, maybe, sometime and somehow that brought about the events of 9/11? OOOOOK. And Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, and we have to free the Iraqi people?
How does that relate to 9/11 exactly? What, now this whole thing is about Iraq violating sanctions from the '91 Gulf War?
I never really bought all that from the get-go, but I still wanted to support Bush. I figured if nothing else, he deserved our respect after taking care of business in Afghanistan. I was torn. Something just didn't feel right about all this to me, but I generally just kept my mouth shut and tried to trust that Bush was doing the right thing.
By the time the 2004 elections came around, I certainly wasn't anti-Bush, but I was definitely open to new possibilities. Even if that meant - gasp - voting Democrat. All they really had to do to get my vote was produce a good down-to-earth candidate with a level head, and I would've seriously considered jumping on board. Instead they gave us John Kerry. Yeah, I found his platform to be solid, but where are the people skills? Could you imagine this guy trying to talk to foreign leaders? What if said leader didn't speak English and needed a translator? Poor translator.
So once again, I watched a presidential election pass me by with feelings of indifference. Sure, a change may be good in some respects, but at least Bush clearly stands for something. The only thing that really surprised me about the results was how close the final tally was. I didn't think Kerry would've been able to round up even that much support.
As 2005 came around, my focus shifted away from politics as I started to worry about such minor inconveniences as graduating law school and passing the bar exam. Plus, I liked Bush's talk on reforming the tax code, and that was enough to keep me in the "not-actively-seeking-a-change" camp for the time being.
Mid 2005 - Present
Then everything changed for me.....quickly. You might even say as quickly as debris being blown in 150+mph storm winds. I was in Europe when Katrina actually made landfall in New Orleans, but the somewhat-limited news coverage over there gave me enough information to know what was going on. Yeah, the storm had been catastrophic, but that paled in comparison to the botched relief effort. To make matters worse, nobody even seemed to know who was supposed to be doing what. Is this a job for the state or the feds? What about the local folks? FEMA was on the ground in the city, but what were they doing exactly, if anything at all?
The city was in complete chaos. Looting. Riots. Cops were committing suicide because they were so overwhelmed. And then - and I'm so glad I was back in the US to see this in it's full English-speaking, non-subtitled glory when it happened - Bush goes on national television and commends FEMA, and Michael Brown specifically, for the wonderful job being done in New Orleans. Whoa, whoa, whoa....back up. Did he say they were doing a good job? Did he not see the poor people herded into the Superdome like cattle, or the people clinging to their rooftops amid the floodwaters, or the newly-homeless wondering the streets in tears begging for even the most basic provisions? And to think I supported this guy at first to move away from Clinton's embarrassments to the nation.
It generally came as little surprise to anyone when it was revealed that Brown was nothing but a political appointee. He was grossly under-qualified for the job of heading the federal government's disaster response team, but he was an old friend of W who undoubtedly had done some favor in the past, and this appointment was payback. This is how things work in Washington; we all know that stuff like this goes on behind the scenes all the time. But head of FEMA isn't just some desk job - it has real responsibilities, and real Americans suffer when things go wrong. This was clearly a mistake on W's part (and, I might add, a mistake that he never fully took responsibility for, which also really bothered me). But certainly he learned his lesson here, and wouldn't just appoint another questionably-qualified old buddy to any other important government positions, would he?
Enter Harriet Miers. Before the Katrina disaster (here I mean the mismanagement of the recovery effort; not the storm itself) is even out of the headlines, Bush goes and does to the Supreme Court EXACTLY what he did to FEMA. Thank God Congress and the media had the good sense to scrutinize that choice in the depth that they did. I also thank God Ms. Miers had the good sense to withdraw before things got really ugly.
This whole ordeal just really blew my mind. Let's look at a baseball analogy: Prior to this past season, the pressure was on for steroid reform. The players knew it and the coaches knew it. Several big time sluggers showed up to training camp after "mysteriously" dropping 20 or 30 pounds during the off season. Right, I'm sure that was all Atkins. But that was the right thing to do in a situation like that - when you're obviously busted, you learn from your mistake, hope there are no long term consequences, and move on. Bush nominating Miers for the Court is just like if Barry Bonds had shown up to spring training 30 pounds heavier with a needle literally dangling from his arm.
Next we have the Valerie Plame incident. I realize that this story at its heart predates both Katrina and Harriet Miers, but for me it didn't really hit home until Scooter Libby was indicted. Now I'm usually not one that goes for the whole guilt-by-association thing: we've all been that 19 year old who has promised the cops that we "don't where those guys got that beer; but we weren't drinking anything." But in the clandestine world of Bush's inner circle, tracing the trail all the way to Libby was all I needed to hear. To me, in this situation Cheney and who knows who else in the administration are just like those 19 year olds - they were drinking beers just like those other guys, but they just happened not to be holding a bottle at the exact time the cops showed up. The Bush White House has publicly made national security a top priority. It is a disgrace when our own agents can't even do their jobs without being compromised, no matter how high up this goes.
Finally we have the ever-present "war on terror" which has irked me in two specific ways as of late. First of all is the torture issue. After the Abu Ghraib PR disaster, the absolute least we needed to do as a nation was appease international fears and condemn torture outright. Congress took the initial steps in the form of a bill that prohibits torture of any form in any situation. Then, what does the administration do? They openly talk about vetoing the bill because such prohibitions would hinder their anti-terrorism goals! Do you actively desire for EVERYONE else on the planet to hate us? I'm not saying we should automatically cater to Paris, or London, or Moscow, or anyone else, but come on! At least make it look like we're done beating the crap out of terrorists! Here's what I say: sign the bill, and have a big ceremony with speeches, etc, saying how this is the right thing for humanity, yada, yada, yada. Then quietly do whatever is necessary behind closed doors, with as few people involved as possible, if the situation dictates. Didn't these guys watch 24 last season? (I told you it would be a stretch for me to totally go Democrat.)
The second point here is the ongoing debacle in Iraq, or to Daily Show fans, the "Mess o'potamia." How can the President and Vice President continue to go on television and act like everything over there is going exactly as planned? Every day I turn on the news I hear about more American soldiers lost, or another suicide bombing in a civilian area. Then I see Cheney talking about how everyone there is so much better off, and that the insurgency is on its last legs. Is he watching the same news I am? Do you realize it's been TWO AND A HALF YEARS since W pulled his aircraft carrier stunt and announced under that "Mission Accomplished" banner that major combat was finished? I am definitely NOT for a strict pull-out deadline a-la-Murtha (we started this mess; we need to make sure we clean it up, no matter how long it takes), but don't pretend everything is great when it clearly is not.
And why does this administration continue to insist that the massive intelligence failures leading up to the war can just be brushed off completely? I just love how whenever that's brought up, the automatic response is "well lots of Democrats voted to go to war too." Of course they did! They based their vote on blatant misinformation! I'm not going to pass premature judgment completely on this issue - the fact that they're acting like this is no big deal is bad enough - but IF it is revealed that ANYONE associated with the president intentionally doctored that information, then I would only hope that the scant 37% of this country who still support Bush would come to their senses, and we as a unified nation would move for impeachment, removal, and jail time for everyone involved.
Whew. I kind of slipped back into that stream-of-conciseness mode again there for a few minutes. So where does that leave me, politically? I'd say I'm still pretty much right of center for most issues, but well to the left of W and his cronies. I basically feel like I've become closer to the Democrats and farther from the Republicans, but only because both parties have shifted their respective stances in recent years - the Democrats to hold onto moderates in an increasingly conservative atmosphere, and the Republicans to push the political boundaries as far as possible while they control all three branches of government.
So what do I see happening in the future? I predict big Democrat gains in Congress in the '06 elections as more and more Americans loose faith for precisely the same reasons as I've outlined here. That should balance things out for a while. In '08? I hope McCain gives it another run....he is probably the only realistic Republican candidate I would consider throwing my support behind at this point. Anyone from the Bush White House is completely out of the picture in my book. Sorry Condi. I guess I could also get behind Colin Powell though, if for nothing else, because he had the good sense to bail out before things really went to shit. Giuliani is a little too buddy-buddy with Bush for my tastes too. And don't even get me started on Jeb - if America had wanted a royal family, we would've stayed with England in the first place.
For the Democrats, I could see myself going with Obama. I think he's exactly the kind of young blood that would be good for Washington. Unfortunately, he may still be considered a little too young for the'08 race (the Dems really don't need another John Edwards-type in that election). That leaves Hillary, then. I'm not sure about that one, though. I also think an uber-liberal like Howard Dean would be a mistake at his point. Gore's still out there - and un-bearded last I saw - so he may come back for another round. I doubt Kerry will make another run so soon, but wierder things have happened. It should be interesting.
Whatever happens in '06 and '08, though, something tells me I'll be watching with much more than just a passing interest.
But it was what I wrote right after that probably surprised anyone that knows me a little bit. Hell, it actually kind of surprised me too - I have become decidedly anti-Bush Administration. As many of you may know, I've never exactly loved the man, but I have generally tolerated him and even found reason to support him for his stance on a couple of different issues. So how after 5 years in office, am I just now developing this attitude? I thought it was a (relatively) interesting question, so I decided to start at the beginning.
Early 2000
As primary season got underway as the leadup to the highly-anticipated November 2000 election, there was no doubt in my mind I was voting Republican. Clinton had seemed to provide nothing but Enquirer-worthy headlines during the end of his term, and I - along with much of America - was looking to restore a sense of dignity to the White House. I was also very pumped as this was my first opportunity to vote for the highest office in the land, and for the first time in my life, I really started to pay attention to political developments around the country.
After reading up on some of the issues, watching a few campaign speeches, and then watching the news folks give their two cents on it, to me the choice was clear: John McCain was the man. Here was a war hero who, while espousing adherence to certain conservative values, also showed a rather enlightened stance on issues such as the environment. The other guy seemed to me to be riding along on his famous last name, and dodging a lot of questions concerning his sketchy military and substance abuse records. I didn't think W stood a chance.
Somehow, as the primaries sorted themselves out, though, Bush emerged as the front-runner. When he got the nomination, I was a little disappointed. But I guess he can help the nation put the Clinton scandals behind us, right? And besides, Gore was a robot, and voting for Nader would just be throwing my vote away. Honestly, I wasn't that excited about any of the three. I did find it pretty peculiar when the Supreme Court got involved, and that they decided like they did. But with law school still off in the horizon, I didn't read too much into it.
2001 (January - September 10)
During this period, I wasn't completely impressed by ol' W. Sure, he had avoided any major embarrassment, but I generally saw him as a very mediocre president. There he was, a Republican, with Republicans sitting firmly in the House and Senate (and Court), and I just didn't see him do anything at all to make me stand up and take notice. Of course, he was still new at the whole Commander-in-Chief gig, so I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
2001 (September 11) - Late 2002
This was the height of my Bush support. Ignoring everything in Fahrenheit 9/11 (which, for the most part, I think is pretty easy to do), Bush was exactly what this country needed on September 11. We were scared; we were confused. Bush reassured us. He was at Ground Zero literally before all the dust had settled to offer support and encouragement to the rescue workers. He made it clear we would find out how this happened, who did it, and that it would never happen again on his watch (cue the Toby Keith CD here....).
As it became clear that Osama was behind the whole thing, and that the Taliban was basically allowing him to operate at will in Afghanistan, Bush did the only thing he could - the Taliban had to go if we we're going to have any chance of catching bin Laden. I supported this action 100% at the time, and still do today. That was a war that needed to be fought. The Afghan people became better off and Osama and his buddies were forced to move their little operation into dessert caves to avoid meeting Ala face-to-face.
Late 2002 - Mid 2005
Now the Taliban is gone, the cleanup is underway, and all of the troops are coming home...aren't they? This is where I really started to get suspicious of W. How exactly is Saddam involved in all of this? Oh, there might have been a meeting between the Iraqis and bin Laden, maybe, sometime and somehow that brought about the events of 9/11? OOOOOK. And Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, and we have to free the Iraqi people?
How does that relate to 9/11 exactly? What, now this whole thing is about Iraq violating sanctions from the '91 Gulf War?
I never really bought all that from the get-go, but I still wanted to support Bush. I figured if nothing else, he deserved our respect after taking care of business in Afghanistan. I was torn. Something just didn't feel right about all this to me, but I generally just kept my mouth shut and tried to trust that Bush was doing the right thing.
By the time the 2004 elections came around, I certainly wasn't anti-Bush, but I was definitely open to new possibilities. Even if that meant - gasp - voting Democrat. All they really had to do to get my vote was produce a good down-to-earth candidate with a level head, and I would've seriously considered jumping on board. Instead they gave us John Kerry. Yeah, I found his platform to be solid, but where are the people skills? Could you imagine this guy trying to talk to foreign leaders? What if said leader didn't speak English and needed a translator? Poor translator.
So once again, I watched a presidential election pass me by with feelings of indifference. Sure, a change may be good in some respects, but at least Bush clearly stands for something. The only thing that really surprised me about the results was how close the final tally was. I didn't think Kerry would've been able to round up even that much support.
As 2005 came around, my focus shifted away from politics as I started to worry about such minor inconveniences as graduating law school and passing the bar exam. Plus, I liked Bush's talk on reforming the tax code, and that was enough to keep me in the "not-actively-seeking-a-change" camp for the time being.
Mid 2005 - Present
Then everything changed for me.....quickly. You might even say as quickly as debris being blown in 150+mph storm winds. I was in Europe when Katrina actually made landfall in New Orleans, but the somewhat-limited news coverage over there gave me enough information to know what was going on. Yeah, the storm had been catastrophic, but that paled in comparison to the botched relief effort. To make matters worse, nobody even seemed to know who was supposed to be doing what. Is this a job for the state or the feds? What about the local folks? FEMA was on the ground in the city, but what were they doing exactly, if anything at all?
The city was in complete chaos. Looting. Riots. Cops were committing suicide because they were so overwhelmed. And then - and I'm so glad I was back in the US to see this in it's full English-speaking, non-subtitled glory when it happened - Bush goes on national television and commends FEMA, and Michael Brown specifically, for the wonderful job being done in New Orleans. Whoa, whoa, whoa....back up. Did he say they were doing a good job? Did he not see the poor people herded into the Superdome like cattle, or the people clinging to their rooftops amid the floodwaters, or the newly-homeless wondering the streets in tears begging for even the most basic provisions? And to think I supported this guy at first to move away from Clinton's embarrassments to the nation.
It generally came as little surprise to anyone when it was revealed that Brown was nothing but a political appointee. He was grossly under-qualified for the job of heading the federal government's disaster response team, but he was an old friend of W who undoubtedly had done some favor in the past, and this appointment was payback. This is how things work in Washington; we all know that stuff like this goes on behind the scenes all the time. But head of FEMA isn't just some desk job - it has real responsibilities, and real Americans suffer when things go wrong. This was clearly a mistake on W's part (and, I might add, a mistake that he never fully took responsibility for, which also really bothered me). But certainly he learned his lesson here, and wouldn't just appoint another questionably-qualified old buddy to any other important government positions, would he?
Enter Harriet Miers. Before the Katrina disaster (here I mean the mismanagement of the recovery effort; not the storm itself) is even out of the headlines, Bush goes and does to the Supreme Court EXACTLY what he did to FEMA. Thank God Congress and the media had the good sense to scrutinize that choice in the depth that they did. I also thank God Ms. Miers had the good sense to withdraw before things got really ugly.
This whole ordeal just really blew my mind. Let's look at a baseball analogy: Prior to this past season, the pressure was on for steroid reform. The players knew it and the coaches knew it. Several big time sluggers showed up to training camp after "mysteriously" dropping 20 or 30 pounds during the off season. Right, I'm sure that was all Atkins. But that was the right thing to do in a situation like that - when you're obviously busted, you learn from your mistake, hope there are no long term consequences, and move on. Bush nominating Miers for the Court is just like if Barry Bonds had shown up to spring training 30 pounds heavier with a needle literally dangling from his arm.
Next we have the Valerie Plame incident. I realize that this story at its heart predates both Katrina and Harriet Miers, but for me it didn't really hit home until Scooter Libby was indicted. Now I'm usually not one that goes for the whole guilt-by-association thing: we've all been that 19 year old who has promised the cops that we "don't where those guys got that beer; but we weren't drinking anything." But in the clandestine world of Bush's inner circle, tracing the trail all the way to Libby was all I needed to hear. To me, in this situation Cheney and who knows who else in the administration are just like those 19 year olds - they were drinking beers just like those other guys, but they just happened not to be holding a bottle at the exact time the cops showed up. The Bush White House has publicly made national security a top priority. It is a disgrace when our own agents can't even do their jobs without being compromised, no matter how high up this goes.
Finally we have the ever-present "war on terror" which has irked me in two specific ways as of late. First of all is the torture issue. After the Abu Ghraib PR disaster, the absolute least we needed to do as a nation was appease international fears and condemn torture outright. Congress took the initial steps in the form of a bill that prohibits torture of any form in any situation. Then, what does the administration do? They openly talk about vetoing the bill because such prohibitions would hinder their anti-terrorism goals! Do you actively desire for EVERYONE else on the planet to hate us? I'm not saying we should automatically cater to Paris, or London, or Moscow, or anyone else, but come on! At least make it look like we're done beating the crap out of terrorists! Here's what I say: sign the bill, and have a big ceremony with speeches, etc, saying how this is the right thing for humanity, yada, yada, yada. Then quietly do whatever is necessary behind closed doors, with as few people involved as possible, if the situation dictates. Didn't these guys watch 24 last season? (I told you it would be a stretch for me to totally go Democrat.)
The second point here is the ongoing debacle in Iraq, or to Daily Show fans, the "Mess o'potamia." How can the President and Vice President continue to go on television and act like everything over there is going exactly as planned? Every day I turn on the news I hear about more American soldiers lost, or another suicide bombing in a civilian area. Then I see Cheney talking about how everyone there is so much better off, and that the insurgency is on its last legs. Is he watching the same news I am? Do you realize it's been TWO AND A HALF YEARS since W pulled his aircraft carrier stunt and announced under that "Mission Accomplished" banner that major combat was finished? I am definitely NOT for a strict pull-out deadline a-la-Murtha (we started this mess; we need to make sure we clean it up, no matter how long it takes), but don't pretend everything is great when it clearly is not.
And why does this administration continue to insist that the massive intelligence failures leading up to the war can just be brushed off completely? I just love how whenever that's brought up, the automatic response is "well lots of Democrats voted to go to war too." Of course they did! They based their vote on blatant misinformation! I'm not going to pass premature judgment completely on this issue - the fact that they're acting like this is no big deal is bad enough - but IF it is revealed that ANYONE associated with the president intentionally doctored that information, then I would only hope that the scant 37% of this country who still support Bush would come to their senses, and we as a unified nation would move for impeachment, removal, and jail time for everyone involved.
Whew. I kind of slipped back into that stream-of-conciseness mode again there for a few minutes. So where does that leave me, politically? I'd say I'm still pretty much right of center for most issues, but well to the left of W and his cronies. I basically feel like I've become closer to the Democrats and farther from the Republicans, but only because both parties have shifted their respective stances in recent years - the Democrats to hold onto moderates in an increasingly conservative atmosphere, and the Republicans to push the political boundaries as far as possible while they control all three branches of government.
So what do I see happening in the future? I predict big Democrat gains in Congress in the '06 elections as more and more Americans loose faith for precisely the same reasons as I've outlined here. That should balance things out for a while. In '08? I hope McCain gives it another run....he is probably the only realistic Republican candidate I would consider throwing my support behind at this point. Anyone from the Bush White House is completely out of the picture in my book. Sorry Condi. I guess I could also get behind Colin Powell though, if for nothing else, because he had the good sense to bail out before things really went to shit. Giuliani is a little too buddy-buddy with Bush for my tastes too. And don't even get me started on Jeb - if America had wanted a royal family, we would've stayed with England in the first place.
For the Democrats, I could see myself going with Obama. I think he's exactly the kind of young blood that would be good for Washington. Unfortunately, he may still be considered a little too young for the'08 race (the Dems really don't need another John Edwards-type in that election). That leaves Hillary, then. I'm not sure about that one, though. I also think an uber-liberal like Howard Dean would be a mistake at his point. Gore's still out there - and un-bearded last I saw - so he may come back for another round. I doubt Kerry will make another run so soon, but wierder things have happened. It should be interesting.
Whatever happens in '06 and '08, though, something tells me I'll be watching with much more than just a passing interest.
posted by jonphiwil @ 10:42 PM
0 Comments
