- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
A few additional late night points (over tylenol and insomnia).
First, I agree wholeheartedly that Republicans have outspent the Democrats. I have a vague recollection of David Stockton, Reagan's budget director, saying the government should not be bailing out troubled farmers in the early '80's. If memory serves, Stockton was caricatured as an extremist and a hater, and driven out of government. Since that time, I don't think true small government conservatism has really had a chance. Kind of like the '94 elections in response to national health care. The country seems to like things the way they are: low taxes, relatively high spending on existing programs only, and deficits. Trouble is, those deficits are catching up with us; we're now up to $200 Billion annually in interest payments alone.
By the way, I did not mean to suggest 90% of my politics is abortion. I meant to say 90% equals (i) my preference that government not get any bigger and (ii) opposition to abortion on demand. I think 1,000,000 abortions per year, or whatever the number is, is absolutely appalling, and I blame young women for this -- especially those who know something about birth control and make no reasonable effort to use it. I have said before I don't know what specific policies I would favor if Roe were overturned (some of the things you mention might make sense), but I am very confident from my reading of constitutional law that dissenters are correct in saying such a right does not exist. You have to start somewhere: getting the thing overturned in step one. Although, it isn't going to happen now, which I freely concede. I'm not even all that upset with the courts. The people, through Congress and the states, could amend the constitution should they choose to protect fetal life. We the People choose not to do so. Again, I think it's a travesty, but there is nothing I can do to stop it.
As for Sarah Palin, and the female vote, I can't make any predictions. I don't think the Democratic party will lose in 2012 anyway; since 1916, a newly elected party failed only once to hold its place, and that was with Jimmy Carter. History favors re-election, the first time out. If I were her, I would do exactly what she's doing: let it be known you are interested, but leave yourself an opt out.
And as for the financial meltdown, gee, I really don't care. I would let the banks go bankrupt. The economy is cyclical. We were destined for a downturn at some point, and this is it. I feel sorry for anyone who loses their job temporarily, but we have much better unemployment insurance programs, and general prosperity to support people in need, than in the past. The less we spend on bogus, politically motivated bailouts -- both corporate and individual -- with borrowed money from overseas, the better. We have to take a long view of this for once, as a country. Perpetual borrowing is not good for us.
Finally, I would offer a slight dissent on the issue of competence. It's true, Iraq has been mismanaged. But look at Vietnam, spearheaded by whiz kid Bob McNamara along with liberalism's best and brightest. Those guys screwed up far worse than Bush. On Katrina, conventional wisdom is that Republicans had their least fine hour. But if so, why did Louisiana throw out their Huey Long-o-crats in favor of a very young Republican running on a "clean" platform? I think it's a mixed bag.
Like I said, I don't favor Palin because I think she is incompetent, and would muck up the federal government. That's early 80's thinking, where some Reaganites hoped deficit spending would break the back of support for liberal programs. Rather, I compare her to Angela Merkel because Merkel, as a center right politician, presides over a country with very large tax and spend structures compared to ours, and is not a "movement" economic conservative any more than Palin. Palin strikes me as a competent state administrator, and I assume she could do the same at the federal level.
You asked earlier what Palin's platform would be. How about, "No, we can't" -- in response to "Yes, we can." Every time the government says "no," my budget for Christmas presents, family vacations, and other enjoyments says a corresponding, upward "yes." I love to hear the word "no" from Washington. It's postively optimistic, to my ear.
