Dear Tough Lover,
Your observations on the Democratic leadership might be correct.
However, it is not only the Democratic leadership that has changed;
the whole American society has changed. Therefore, your nostalgia for
JFK and his leadership might not be in place and moreover - JFK
himself might have reacted differently today.
In JFK's period (see : http://www.jfklink.com/, for example) the
international system consisted of the bi-polar power-struggle, between
the Eastern and the Western forces, headed by the USSR and the US
respectively. After 1989, this power-equilibrium has changed. The USSR
and the past enemies - including Cuba and Vietnam - have vanished, or
became less relevant to the American foreign policy. The American Cold
War foreign policy dogmas should have changed (See
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~gcdixon/s02_455day5a.htm) , but there was no
new formation of foreign policy, that would apply to old friends
turned foes (I mean, of course, all sorts of dictatorships and
authoritarian regimes supported by the US, only because they were
"anti communist", while harbouring terrorism, or popular hatred
against the US, as supporter of these regimes). In other words - the
JFK doctrine might have not worked today; JFK himself might have not
had the advices he had then, in the age before the confusion, when it
was clear who's a friend and who's a foe.
The expeditions to the moon were, in a way, a by-product of the Cold
War - the race to the moon was not driven by scientific curiosity -
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03e.html In that aspect - there's
no "reason" to launch missiles - unless they could do something
against Bin Laden.
You also point out to the financial policies of the JFK
administration. However, they also did not face the social realities
of today. The US population is getting older, and requires more
assistance in funding of medication, assisted living, and the such. It
is not a coincidence, that the condition of the senior citizens was a
central point in both 2000 campaigns (see:
http://216.239.53.100/search?q=cache:W9Tjy1kMahcC:www.seniorjournal.com/NEWS/12-01-00IgnorYuth.htm+%222000+campaign%22+%22senior+citizens%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8).
Your feeling, that the institutionalised party leaders are interested
only in narrow partisan interests is understandable and also shared by
many. However, I am not sure that JFK really placed himself above
these interests. Many biographies suggest that JFK was not above his
own family's interests, let alone partisan interests. Again, it was
much more cut-clear what was "the right thing to do", as in our much
more complicated world (here, I must admit, on a personal note, that
my family in the States views him as Holier than Thou, and would not
even admit to some flaws in his or his brothers' characters).
In the last few years, the leadership of both parties is filled with
people using their families' money, or their own, to promote their own
(or their family's) interests in politics. However, JFK is sort of a
bad example of a person who did not come from a rich and influential
family. This crisis of leadership would probably impact the 2004
elections - I am in doubt if the Democrats would have a suitable
candidate, that could win, and that despite the fact that in my humble
opinion - a Democrat would not have handled the past 2000 crises in a
worse way than Bush did.
Last but not least, the fear of lose, and the small margin in several
states, lured both parties' candidates in the last few years to be
very vague and centralised: no ideology, no real reform, because of
the fear of criticism or loss in one of the many interim by-elections.
Personally, I find it funny that politicians try to avoid issues and
controversies.
I really recommend you to watch C-Span, to learn more about the
upcoming Democratic leadership. http://www.c-span.org/
Other interesting sources:
Washingtonpost.com - Elections 2004 -
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/politics/elections/2004/
The Rat Race: Elections 2004 -
www.thegully.com/essays/US/election_2004/ election_2004_blog.html
Opensecrets.org--Money in politics data - www.opensecrets.org
Politics1- www.politics1.com/ and especially
http://www.politics1.com/p2004.htm - (I would say that there's an
interesting list of possible Democratic candidates there, and not all
of them are united in views, so attacking the "Democrats leadership"
is also a problem in this aspect).
I hope that answered your challenge (I would not call it exactly a
"question"). As always, feel free to answer back, to request for
clarifications and anything else you might think of. |
Request for Answer Clarification by
toughlover-ga
on
31 May 2003 18:30 PDT
Ok Mr. Guru, now that I have counted to ten, and am cool & colected
let me reflect on your arguments. Your cimment on change reminds me
of a time I was reading one of my two year old W.S. Journal, when a
friend chided me for reading stale news, until I asked him about the
out come of a certain important news-outcome that neither he nor I
were aware of. The moral of this story is, there is no stale news
until you know it.
This was my spring-booard to rebuke you on the notion that time
honored conventions need changing to match the times. I am sure that
if you could muster up some TOUGH LOVE, instead of being an apologist
for our venality, you would allow your concience to guide you to the
proverbal offerism: "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". If across the
board tax-cuts worked for JFK and the Gipper then all wisdom say try
it again before switching to another process. Use it until it stops
working, not until the year changes.
The gobbledeguk about Baby-Boomers and foreign relations is not the
butt, of this emergency economy fix. We are not doing a Robinhood
fix, nor a panacea fix, we just want to resusitate after the
Nine-Eleven & Enron itis. And furtrhemore It is not our turn, it the
GOP's tern. If GW believes, even if he had no advisors, that it is
the way to go; and is putting his job on the line to prove it, then
why the hell don't we let him have his turn. We must stop sabataging
our country for the benefit of votes. Dems obstruct GOPs then GOP
obstruct DEMs and on and on... I bet JFK would not have changed until
the process stopped working...
Regarding your take on the Moon-Walk: it is not important to this
discussion, what spurred the trek, nor whether or not NASA is frugal,
or falacious, what I am applauding is the motivation that JFK imparted
to us. I would have been just as happy that we showed the world the
benefits that free societise yeald, much more all the spin-offs that
the ptoject engendered.
Regarding whether or not JFK was a saint, or sinner, I would pick the
sinner-Solomon any day over the pusillanimous-sinner.
You cant equate polititions spending their own money to promote
themselves with obstructing Homeland Security on account of labor
votes, or obstructing remedial tax-cut for fear of loosing votes if it
improves the economy. One cannot buy votes by selling one's self.
There was a recent New Jersey Race that proves that point.
|
