| | This is clearly a dated article... but isn't that often the case when one attempts to predict the next twist or turn in bipartisan politics. And maybe there is a good lesson in that.
James Kilbourne was examining apparent trends in the Democratic party that promised a collapse of historic proportions. He said, "We may be witnessing a reasonably rare event in American political history—the collapse of one of the two major political parties."
And then everything changed. Now, we might be 4 months away from a Democratically controlled congress with Obama as the president.
Events change:
At the time of the article there was stronger support, nation-wide, and even among Libertarians and Objectivists for GWB. 9/11 was fresher in our minds. Iraq hadn't worn on us for as long. We hadn't seen the extent of damage done to the economy with inflation, damage to the dollar internationally, fuel prices through the ceiling, the housing collapse or credit market debacle. And the threats to our political freedom weren't in as sharp a focus as they are now.
Stay focused on principles:
James, in a later post, says, "It is dangerous to think for Ayn Rand, but I think she would have hated Bush on the religion question alone, just as she hated Reagan on the abortion issue alone. She would have been wrong again." Well, here we are three years later, and granted that there is a lot of hind-sight involved, but there are now far more people who would say that she would have been RIGHT.
But this isn't about hind-sight or who was right or wrong on the issues of the time. It is about seeing why Rand was so adamant about not getting into bed with this or that politician or party. (I know that James Kilbourne wasn't 'in bed' with GWB, but there IS a degree of adulation in many of the posts of a number of posters... and that should encourage reflection at this point).
Staying Objectivist:
I suspect that we will always do ourselves a serious dis-service to join either of the political parties or their leaders when they are acting from motives and/or principles so far from the core of Objectivist's beliefs.
If we hop aboard a party wagon because they happen to be on what we see as the right decision in an area - no matter how important that area - we set ourselves up for disaster. The events change, but principles are the real drivers of history. The two parties are still both statists - just wearing different stripes. Perhaps the only real change has been the degree to which they are both now naked of rational principle or integrity.
Those who applauded GWB for a strong response to 9/11 find themselves having to disassociate from him in order be his stanch opponents in bringing religion into government, busting the budget, eroding rights, and overseeing the enormous damage to the economy. Politicians shouldn't be applauded (even when their acts are seen as the right ones) when they don't make them for the right reasons. And it is rational to question their motives and their principles given the track record history holds for us.
|
|
