Saturday, November 15, 2008

"America is great because America is good. If America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."- Alexis DeTocquevile

These words seem so foreign. Great? Good? These words are more often used to describe the abilities of athletes than a state of existence. Our society has accepted toleration. Toleration's price tag-good great right wrong yes no should shouldn't...IS.

As I look back at the candidates and there platforms I am appalled at the nearsightedness we have adopted. One candidate said "Change" the other said "Country" did either really say anything at all? McCain's "Country First" leads me to believe that if placed in 1776 he would have been wearing red. It was obvious that our Country needed a different direction than the liberal fiscal policies and bloated government that has marked the past eight years, but to not even require that Obama solidify anything more than that he was change is pathetic.

A candidate just won the highest office in the land by imprinting change on every billboard (real and virtual) on the airwaves and on the tube. Perhaps this says something of America. The desire for change comes from dissatisfaction with the present. Dissatisfaction with the present is a result of the present being neither good or great.

3 comments:

pamela on the loose said...

Nice!
The platform of change inspired millions, but did anyone ever ask what specifically would change? Change can be both positive and negative. The economic crisis in itself is a change, but I argue that the American public would not have rallied behind that type of change. (Not even suggesting that Obama had anything to do with the crisis).

Really, change is inevitable. Nothing will stay exactly the same. At the same time, stagnation and resistance to change is an obstacle that is ingrained within our constitution. Obama's promises are immediately hindered by the system within which he must operate. Change will not be as drastic as voters hope for because Obama will be limited by the structure of government. Taxes? We have often seen that candidates will run on specific promises about taxes that they can not fullfill once in office. The reality that taxes should not be cut (possibly raised considering the overwhelming debt) is not a wise campaign strategy.

Polticians operate on the "say anything" principle that rarely offers a glimpse into the genuine reality of our nation. Voters vote on notions. Outcome preferences over-ride the method of achieving that goal. Change...at what price?

Schmidt said...

"The reality that taxes should not be cut (possibly raised considering the overwhelming debt) is not a wise campaign strategy. "

I must say that I disagree. Keep cutting the taxes, but spending cuts are more important than tax freezes or hikes.

pamela on the loose said...

Schmidt.
You would disagree just because I said it. ; )

The problem with your strategy of spending cuts is that the government will not cut the "fluff" that makes them comfortable. They will cut funding for services or funds that supplement state, city, and local entities that have to meet various federal mandates. Without the funding these agents of government would not be in ful compliance with laws involving EPA standards, education, IDEA 97, etc.

Unfortunately, the New Deal made big government a reality. With everyone expecting the federal government to take care of them (in stead of individual responsibility or self- reliance), there is no way to cut spending.

Only when American's take responsibility for themselves would spending cuts be an option.