jrtom

I've expressed my dissatisfaction with the US two-party system in the past: among other things, it tends to cause almost any issue to be represented by a false dichotomization of itself.

Recently, though--and I don't claim that this is an original observation--it's occurred to me that there's another aspect to the problem. The short version: much of the political discourse in this country has become almost indistinguishable, from a motivational standpoint, from ad hominem arguments.

Megan and I don't usually consistently assert specific roles in our relationship (although for some reason I'm generally the one that gets things down off the top shelf :> ). However, when we were preparing for our move to Irvine--which neither of us were looking forward to--I noticed that not only was I always pointing out the advantages and Megan the disadvantages, but I was starting to feel as though I _couldn't_ point out any of the disadvantages. Not because I didn't want to be (or admit that I had been) wrong, but because, as the "designated optimist", I felt that anything negative that I said would have a disproportionate impact, and I didn't want Megan to be any unhappier about our move than she already was. Similarly, Megan may have felt that she couldn't point out the advantages because she didn't want me to think that there weren't real problems to be solved. We'd defined our roles, and it seemed to me that we were trapped by them. (We worked it out...but we had to realize that it was happening, first.)

A poll from a couple of days ago said that 46% of the US population approved of Bush's handling of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, and 47% disapproved. This is, at this point, an old story. I suspect that many Democrats believe that Bush has so consistently erred, and so successfully spun the news media to deflect or eliminate the damage and disavow that any errors were made, that they feel that to give him credit for making a good policy decision is (a) too painful to contemplate and (b) too likely to be used as a defense in the context of future errors. (I, myself, find it difficult to avoid assuming that any new Bush policy or appointment is asinine at best, and hazardous or malevolent at worst.) Similarly, I would guess that many Republicans, seeing that Bush has been savagely attacked for almost every decision he's made as President, and feeling that anything that pisses those goddamn liberals off must be a good idea, believe that their only option is to give Bush their unconditional support.

Both of these perspectives are destructive. I tend to agree with the Democrats' general stance on Bush...but with the exception of some of the 2004 Democratic presidential candidates' platforms, the Democrats have generally defined themselves, during the last 5 years, merely by being (a) too spineless to oppose the Bush administration's policies openly and (b) childishly determined to prevent Bush from being able to point to a single accomplishment (insofar as this was possible).

I don't see any way out while this administration lasts. Bush has become one of the most divisive political figures of our time, and the only way that I expect the next administration--whether Republican or Democrat--can climb out of this quagmire is if it is headed by someone that makes a particular point of working with members of both major parties. The sad truth is that John McCain is probably the only likely presidential candidate that I can think of right now that I might be able to stomach voting _for_ in 2008...and having looked at his profile on Project VoteSmart, I know damned well that disagree with him on most major policy points. This should give you an idea of how hungry I am for a candidate that doesn't tear this country apart by his very nature (as, e.g., Hillary Clinton--or Condoleezza Rice, or Bill Frist, or Tom DeLay, or Nancy Pelosi--would).

There's almost always a real need for _someone_ to articulate the potential drawbacks with any plan; this is how we improve our plans. (Or, as David Brin likes to say, CITOKATE: Criticism Is The Only Known Antidote To Error.) But much as I personally enjoy the role of Devil's Advocate, it's equally important to judge peoples' policies on their merits. Or, to put it another way, reflexive rejection is as dangerous and destructive as reflexive acceptance.