23 March, 2009

Just a thought

So, we elect a divisive and petty leader who summons to his side a cabal of religious zealots, corporate ne'er-do-wells, and sinister henchmen. Things do not go well and the people are outraged. Eight years later, we elect a great leader, who gathers together the very best thinkers and administrators in all of the land to help him bring prosperity to the country. But things do not go well and the people are still outraged.

It must be that either (a) something is seriously wrong with our system of government that we keep putting such incompetent, plutocratic fools into positions of power, or (b) those who are outraged do not really understand the constraints that policymakers face. I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to determine which one I think is more plausible.

2 comments:

higgy said...

I think this whole thing deals with perception. I lean left. When Bush was elected (twice), I had the false perception that most of the country (read 51%) did support him to some end. More precisely, I had the impression that most of the liberal opposition was just as ill-informed as the Bush supporters, and both were working off of heresay and rumors. Except that when the liberals spoke ill of Bush, it was whining. That's not to say that the liberals weren't correct - it's just that they were often right for the wrong reasons.

Now that Obama is president, I feel a sense of responsibility for his actions. I've become increasingly sensitive to complaints from the right. I no longer perceive the minority party's arguments as whining, and tend to treat them as a serious threat.

This is probably the case for many Obama supporters, although some more than others. I should hope that people like me will see past the naysayers and thoughtless slander from the right-wing, stop worrying about today, and realize that in a few years time we'll all look back on this and be impressed with how it was handled.

Besides, isn't Spain going to indict the Bushies anyway?

spencer said...

There are complaints from the right, to be sure, but many complaints about Obama's economic policies have been coming from the left. In particular, I've heard "Obama was change we could believe in--but not change we could count on." Is it that Obama and Geithner and Summers are just corrupt plutocrats? Or it that the left's expectations of the change that was possible were too high?