Politics and Policy
- Thursday, May 14, 2009, 9:03
- Constitution Daily
- 633 views
- 17 comments
We live in a world of over-dramatization led by the 24 hour news sources. We have an attention span of about 15 seconds and without a ticker at the bottom of the screen we fall asleep. Whether it is politics or sports, we’ve come to expect information overload as the norm. I have to admit that I’m a fan of this because my personality drives me to boredom very easily. But there is a major drawback. We begin to crave drama because the normal news is too boring.
This website can serve as a great example. If you look back at any of the author’s articles you will see the ones being critical of or dealing with individuals, not issues, get much more traffic. As a blogger it is almost impossible to ignore this fact. If I write an article on how the Department of Education needs to be abolished to save hundreds of millions of dollars, I may get 200 views. But if that same day I were to write an article on how Republican X failed the conservatives, I could expect over 500 views and 50 comments. I do believe we need to continue to write about candidates and elected officials but we also need to be an educated electorate.
With the Republican Primary Election coming up, we have some major issues to discuss. Do we move toward or away from free market capitalism? How do we get more jobs for our recent graduates? How do we improve education in Iowa? What do we need to do to reestablish marriage between a man and a woman?
The primary election is our time to get our issues out there. And not just in front of Republicans but the entire state of Iowa. Our alternative solutions should be known by all Iowa voters. And I know this website has its limits but we’ve been able to see Krusty make or break candidates for years now – why can’t we make or break issues too? Is it because people only get their political kicks from criticizing politicians not political issues?
Since moving into the minority, we have the upper hand to offer solutions while criticizing bad policy of the Democrats. With Culver, we don’t have to worry about our candidates getting out smarted. But at the same time, we have to offer real, specific solutions. When Democrats talk about labor, our candidates need to talk about tax breaks to incentivize job creation. When they talk about gay rights, our candidates need to talk about family values and traditional marriage. We can’t just be the party of no.
And of course we will always have the conservative verses moderate debate in our own party. By the way, that is just part of being in a group and it is a healthy thing. The Democrats have the same thing going on all the time, too. It only becomes a problem if we allow ourselves to get wrapped up in that internal debate instead of focusing on issues that drive all of us. And if we do that we will be beat…again and again.
So with the gubernatorial race coming up fast, we need to force our candidates to articulate a strong agenda with specific solutions to our state’s problems. If we don’t, we will be giving Culver a free pass to Terrace Hill again. But remember, it is our job to force our candidates to offer the best message to win over Iowans. Sadly, they don’t often do this without our help.
About the Author
Constitution Daily has written 97 stories on this site.
An Iowa based blog with the purpose of giving incentive to those actively engaged in conservative causes. Content will include Iowa and national issues ranging from politics to everyday society, but in every case you will know where Constitution Daily stands. Please feel free to contact me anytime at constitutiondaily@gmail.com.
17 Comments on “Politics and Policy”
Write a Comment
Gravatars are small images that can show your personality. You can get your gravatar for free today!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m with you, the PRIMARY is the time to hash over these issues. Once that is done, move on to the topic at hand for the general election which is defeating the dems and electing Republicans!!!
Con daily, the primary should be the place to hash out differences, but it is obvious from this board alone, if the christian right or social conservatives don’t get their person, they will not go quietly without raising a stink, they won’t unite with the moderates or fiscal conservatives of the party.
Silence
Silence – that can be true for either side of the Republican Party – and it is like that in every election for both Ds and Rs. Nothing new here…move along.
I am one of the odd kind of people who care more about the issues and what kind of government we are going to have than I do about who is in what office or what party they are a member of. More often than not recently Republicans have been more closely aligned to the stances on issues that I believe matter than Democrats but there is no guarantee that will remain the case.
We have seen good and bad from both Republicans and Democrats in Iowa. Gambling came under Bandstand after all and it is hard to forget some of the other things that swirled around at that time which I will not dredge back up. The point is any candidate is imperfect that is the nature of humanity so I have never believed that faith and devotion belongs to the person in the office but rather to the constitution and the laws that protect us from the office.
That is what our issues are about.
It is very obvious that politics have become very much like sports where people are devoted and loyal to their brand almost to a point of fanaticism in some cases. Have you ever noticed how long people keep losing candidates bumper stickers on their cars? Similarly the election can be long over and you still see the winning candidates stickers on cars. How anyone can deface an innocent car with a politicians name is beyond me in the first place but once the election is over and we have decided who will occupy the office why continue to display the sticker? I think it is because people see it almost as a sport where even if their person lost they want to be sure you know they did not vote for that idiot who is in office. If their candidate won they want to be sure you know they are rooting for his/her team.
Repeatedly during the last election I heard people in crowds interviewed who said they were “fans” of this candidate or that candidate. That is very disturbing to me. Maybe some of saw that silly youtube video Demi Moore did pledging allegiance to Obama? If you saw that did it bother you that people would pledge to a man instead of the nation?
This is why you find discussion of people gets more reaction than discussion of ideas or policy. Policy and ideas are dull they take time and rational thought processes to be really good at and often require a lot of critical thinking to discern the truth from the personality and emotion driven treatment they get in the media. Who has time to be a critical thinker or try to be rational about what is right or wrong, yo American Idol is on in like 15 brah…
Con daily, moderates are much more likely to compromise, however, the really danger is losing them to the democratic party for good, I think a lot of moderate republicans I know have had it with the right wing and christian right of the party. It is a critical time for republicans to find leaders that can build bridges in the party, not burn them down, and too many like rush seem gleeful to pour the gas and light the match. It can always be a problem in both parties but right now it is not a big issue with the democrats. Obama is taking a moderate approach and liberal wing is staying in check, for now at least.
Silence
Dean, you make some valid points about following an issue, but if there is one thing to learn from the last election is people inspire, like him not, obama inspired people, mccain did not.
Silence
Silence,
If people could think critically no one would have been inspired by Obama. Yes he has very good oratorical skill but his campaign speeches were lacking in substance. The fact that it worked as well as it did reinforces what I am saying.
I think back to previous campaigns in my lifetime and it would not have been that long ago that such a tactic would not have worked. We have arrived at a time in our nations history when more people are blissfully ignorant of our history, our laws, our form of government and it’s proper role than any other time. A great many people live in a little bubble where all they really know are the things directly around them and grasping larger ideas that require thinking beyond their own experience and especially their own emotions is very difficult if not impossible.
I know people like this who cannot see their role in a larger world. Life for them is about the here and now and how they can get what they want. Empty but very emotionally charged rhetoric works well on that kind of personality because they hear what they want to hear and believe that this person is going to do things for them and cares for them. If you listened to many interviews of true Obama devotees you heard them express exactly that. One of the best examples was the woman at his inauguration who stated she would no longer have to worry about putting gas in her car or paying her mortgage.
Of course the President has never promised any such thing but she believed that is what she would get from him. How is that possible? Was it by design?
I would agree he is very good at delivering speeches but I am concerned that this skill was enough for some people and they never stopped to process what he was actually saying. That actually plays directly into this discussion of cult of personality over substantive discussion on issues.
Dean, I can’t necessarily disagree but Silence definitely has a point. The independents, etc. need a reason to vote FOR Republicans, not just to vote against the other candidate.
Dean, don’t forget the power of the press and the teleprompter.
First dean, I think you vastly underestimate people who voted for obama, there were plenty of people who could think for themselves that voted for obama. I think this is something republicans don’t want to accept. You all want to delude yourselves into thinking that obama just appealled to stupid lemmings. The polls clearly show that people with higher education voted for obama, particularly those with over 4 years of higher education. This group rejected the republican party and their platform. If the republicans choose to think obama voters are just a bunch of lemming idiots, they are undersetimating the voters and what took place in ‘08, and will probably make the same mistakes again in ‘10 Additionally, shrugging off, the “hope and inspiration” aspect of obama is another huge mistake. Why do you think he was able to do that, it wasn’t the press and telepromter as some smuggly would like to think, it was because bush and the republicans had drug this country so far down.
This is very similar to Reagan in ‘80. If you choose to underestimate this, go ahead, it will only hurt the party and keep the democrats in power longer.
silence
Sorry, Silence, Obama voters are morons. Each day proves what a disaster this guy is proving to be. How do you think he’s doing managing the auto industry in this country? It’s not working out too well, is it?
He’s running the banks, the auto industry and wants to take over our health care. Doesn’t this scare the daylights out of you.
This disaster of a president hasn’t done one thing that is a surprise to those who paid attention and didn’t fall for the “Change and Hope” crap.
Please tell us why we should be happy about this “president”.
Deace, it is the people who still have “W” stickers on their vehicles that are the morons, you know the ones who voted for the Texas sized idiot twice. Bush took the banks over, the auto industry was in the tank before obama took over, this is a republican mess, and for you to say obama voters are morons, look in the mirror buddy, you are the one who voted for Bush, not once, but twice. Obama is stuck cleaning it up, and it takes more than 100 days to fix it. He is following the advice of economists that are much smarter than us and did better than pull “C”s because of their last name. The scary thing Deace, you would vote for Bush again, people like you don’t learn.
“He’s running the banks, the auto industry and wants to take over our health care. Doesn’t this scare the daylights out of you.”
He can’t do any worse than the idiots than ran them into the ground, and their republican buddies who sat back allowed it to happen with “deregulation.”
As for Healthcare, I have dealt with insurance companies enough to know that you don’t want them running the system.
Again deace, turn a blind eye on why obama won, and why the democrats have a huge majority on in the congress, and the republicans will continue to be irrelevant well into the future.
Silence
Silence: Bush took over the banks? When did that happen. I’m certainly aware of the bank bailout that was largely a Democrat deal. There were far more Rs who voted against it than Ds.
No one took over the banks. They were given huge sums of money with no accountability. If there’s a bogie man in here, it’s Paulsen.
Now we have feds telling CEOs how much money they can make. This is a dangerous proposition.
Bush took over the auto industry? How?
Do you want health care like Canada or GB? Who do you want in charge of your health care?
How are we going to afford it? You will agree that Medicare/Medicaid and SS are going broke, don’t you?
Do you approve of this march toward socialism?
Silence: Here’s a poll for you. http://loudobbs.tv.cnn.com/
Yes, Deace, Bush started the bank bailout and the “takeover” or “socialism” of the banks. Bush’s qoute during this time was that he wasn’t going to be another hoover. You don’t remember Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley??? AIG??? Then the 700 Billion bailout that bush and paulson asked for from congress??? 350 billion of which can’t be accounted for that was distributed by Paulson??? I think you suffer from selective memory. I don’t care if the feds are telling CEOs how much they can make, because most of them should be fired. I said the auto industry is in the tank, read my post before responding, I said nothing about bush taking the auto industry over.
“The five largest U.S. investment banks, with combined liabilities or debts of $4 trillion, either went bankrupt (Lehman Brothers), were taken over by other companies (Bear Stearns and Merrill Lynch), or were bailed-out by the U.S. government (Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley) during 2008.[178] Government-sponsored enterprises (GSE) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac either directly owed or guaranteed nearly $5 trillion in mortgage obligations, with a similarly weak capital base, when they were placed into receivership in September 2008.[179]For scale, this $9 trillion in obligations concentrated in seven highly leveraged institutions can be compared to the $14 trillion size of the U.S. economy (GDP)[180] or to the total national debt of $10 trillion in September 2008.[181]
Major depository banks around the world had also used financial innovations such as structured investment vehicles to circumvent capital ratio regulations.[182] Notable global failures included Northern Rock, which was nationalized at an estimated cost of £87 billion ($150 billion).[183]In the U.S., Washington Mutual (WaMu) was seized in September 2008 by the USA Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS).[184] Dozens of U.S. banks received funds as part of the TARP or $700 billion bailout.[185]”
First and foremost you can’t have health insurance be a for profit business. next, you need doctors making more decisions on healthcare, not the insurance companies, this will lead to much more “preventive care” instead of “reactionary care”. (cancer screening tests are much cheaper than actually having to treat cancer, same for heart disease) I don’t have the specific numbers, but the AMA has studies that show the preventive care will reduce the cost of healthcare dramatically. computerizing records, will also reduce malpractice which the AMA has said is a significant problem in healthcare costs. It is obscene how much malpractice is committed because of missing records and bad writing. These things will dramatically reduce healthcare costs. I believe we can come up with a much better system than canada and GB. Employers and social services already pay a significant portion of health insurance costs, if you reduce the overall costs of healthcare, the increased costs on taxpayers for universal care will not be dramatic. Small price to pay to save lives, for a party that is so concerned about the lives of the unborn, I would think caring about the lives of the born would be a higher priority.
Silence
I did not see a poll at your link Deace, i have no idea what you are referencing.
Silence
“They were given huge sums of money with no accountability. If there’s a bogie man in here, it’s Paulsen.” This seems to be the trend with bush, he knows nothing of what was going on, so know one can blame him, he was misinformed on Iraq, Katrina, the banking crises, where the funds went. Seems Bush could have used a little more Harry Truman in him.
Silence