Post by Mutanatia on Jul 15, 2009 0:25:43 GMT -5
Okay, I'm going to put this out there. There's a "phenomenon" of sort that I find in Americans (myself included sometimes, just like most people are included sometimes...and some times not) and their political process. I'm going to call it partisan brainwashing. I see it a lot on the forums here.
Basically, it can be seen in the "How much is Bush's fault," whereas all the liberals jump on the Bush-smiting bandwagon, only to be shouted down by the Obama-haters.
I find two problems with this:
1) Those on the Bush-smiting side are too one-sided, wheras Bush can't do anything right. That is simply not true in my opinion. For one thing, he did go after the Taliban in Afghanistan (which to me is the "right" war...but moving on! Pretend I didn't exert my opinion in there), and for another thing he opened ties with Vietnam. Secondly, and I can't believe I'm saying this, but not everything in the economy was Bush's fault. The housing bubble most certainly was not his fault, nor was the stock market crash. Yes, you can argue that certain safeguards could have been put in there, but what most people fail to realize is that no one has ever encountered this situation before, besides the S & L crises and the Great Depression. And stuff like this happens so infrequently, that sometimes the safeguards put in place simply aren't enough. Yes, I think he handled it badly. BUT! I don't believe that he was the root cause. Those on the liberal/Democratic side simply see it one way, and don't give him any slack (read: He's not the devil), while those on the conservative/Republican side see it one way, too, and don't get that maybe some of it (like handling it badly) is his fault (read: He's not an angel, either).
2) On to Obama now. Yes, he passed the stimulus, and no (for the time being) it hasn't worked. I say for the time being because, according to him it was a two-year plan. Give it another year, then get back to me. Then, there's also the issue of his spending. Yes, he's spending a lot, more so than any other President. But if this spending works (and he has 4 years, people!), and he manages to somehow repay the debt, then maybe he's not such a bad president after all. Of course, he could probably do what he's doing in meager moderation. And of course, he probably doesn't need to spend AS MUCH as he is spending right now. But, again, he's about 7 months (give/take) into his four-year term of his presidency, and already people are talking about how bad a President he was? Heck, if that was the basis on which Bush was judged now, he'd be a Saint (he's approval ratings were through the roof after 9/11). Give it time, people! I'm not going to say if he's good or bad until after his 4 years are up! But again, those on the Liberal/Democratic side say "He's an angel." Wake up, people! He is NOT an angel. Those on the Conservative/Republican side say "He's the devil." Wake up, people (Again)! He's not a devil either.
The bottom line is that this phenomenon leads to people seeing things in such a black-or-white area that a guy is either good or bad (in politics, that is). The bottom line is, in my opinion, a guy is a shade of GREY. You take the good with the bad.
Finally, let me show you a typical situation that I'm talking about. On CNN, during the election, John McCain would often say things that he'd later come to regret. CNN would BLAST John McCain ("oh, how dare he say that!") by Democratic observers, while the Republican observers would simply say, "Oh, well, he didn't mean it like that, he meant it like..." And the same thing would happen if Obama misstepped. THe republicans would call him the devil, while the Democrats would say "Oh, he didn't mean it." Hello, people! There may be truth in what McCain/Obama said IF YOU ACTUALLY looked at the tape and played the whole thing.
For instance:
McCain was often quoted as saying he wanted troops in Iraq for "100 years." That was NOT what he said. He said he wanted a limited troop presence there for a number of years, just like we have in Germany and Japan, etc.
Also, the "fundamentals of the economy is strong." He didn't just say that, yet people latched on to this one thing. He said the workers, which to him were "the fundamentals of the economy," were strong.
Finally, I can conceive of an issue wheras CANCER has been cured. THere's only one catch: There needs to be stem cells to cure it. Those on the right would say "hell no," completely ignoring the fact that (to my knowledge) you don't have to abort someone to have those stem cells. You can get them from bone marrow, or so I thought I read. Those on the left would say, "do it," while disregarding human life, even if you'd have to perform an abortion to get it done.
Discuss.
Basically, it can be seen in the "How much is Bush's fault," whereas all the liberals jump on the Bush-smiting bandwagon, only to be shouted down by the Obama-haters.
I find two problems with this:
1) Those on the Bush-smiting side are too one-sided, wheras Bush can't do anything right. That is simply not true in my opinion. For one thing, he did go after the Taliban in Afghanistan (which to me is the "right" war...but moving on! Pretend I didn't exert my opinion in there), and for another thing he opened ties with Vietnam. Secondly, and I can't believe I'm saying this, but not everything in the economy was Bush's fault. The housing bubble most certainly was not his fault, nor was the stock market crash. Yes, you can argue that certain safeguards could have been put in there, but what most people fail to realize is that no one has ever encountered this situation before, besides the S & L crises and the Great Depression. And stuff like this happens so infrequently, that sometimes the safeguards put in place simply aren't enough. Yes, I think he handled it badly. BUT! I don't believe that he was the root cause. Those on the liberal/Democratic side simply see it one way, and don't give him any slack (read: He's not the devil), while those on the conservative/Republican side see it one way, too, and don't get that maybe some of it (like handling it badly) is his fault (read: He's not an angel, either).
2) On to Obama now. Yes, he passed the stimulus, and no (for the time being) it hasn't worked. I say for the time being because, according to him it was a two-year plan. Give it another year, then get back to me. Then, there's also the issue of his spending. Yes, he's spending a lot, more so than any other President. But if this spending works (and he has 4 years, people!), and he manages to somehow repay the debt, then maybe he's not such a bad president after all. Of course, he could probably do what he's doing in meager moderation. And of course, he probably doesn't need to spend AS MUCH as he is spending right now. But, again, he's about 7 months (give/take) into his four-year term of his presidency, and already people are talking about how bad a President he was? Heck, if that was the basis on which Bush was judged now, he'd be a Saint (he's approval ratings were through the roof after 9/11). Give it time, people! I'm not going to say if he's good or bad until after his 4 years are up! But again, those on the Liberal/Democratic side say "He's an angel." Wake up, people! He is NOT an angel. Those on the Conservative/Republican side say "He's the devil." Wake up, people (Again)! He's not a devil either.
The bottom line is that this phenomenon leads to people seeing things in such a black-or-white area that a guy is either good or bad (in politics, that is). The bottom line is, in my opinion, a guy is a shade of GREY. You take the good with the bad.
Finally, let me show you a typical situation that I'm talking about. On CNN, during the election, John McCain would often say things that he'd later come to regret. CNN would BLAST John McCain ("oh, how dare he say that!") by Democratic observers, while the Republican observers would simply say, "Oh, well, he didn't mean it like that, he meant it like..." And the same thing would happen if Obama misstepped. THe republicans would call him the devil, while the Democrats would say "Oh, he didn't mean it." Hello, people! There may be truth in what McCain/Obama said IF YOU ACTUALLY looked at the tape and played the whole thing.
For instance:
McCain was often quoted as saying he wanted troops in Iraq for "100 years." That was NOT what he said. He said he wanted a limited troop presence there for a number of years, just like we have in Germany and Japan, etc.
Also, the "fundamentals of the economy is strong." He didn't just say that, yet people latched on to this one thing. He said the workers, which to him were "the fundamentals of the economy," were strong.
Finally, I can conceive of an issue wheras CANCER has been cured. THere's only one catch: There needs to be stem cells to cure it. Those on the right would say "hell no," completely ignoring the fact that (to my knowledge) you don't have to abort someone to have those stem cells. You can get them from bone marrow, or so I thought I read. Those on the left would say, "do it," while disregarding human life, even if you'd have to perform an abortion to get it done.
Discuss.
