January 31, 2009

BIPARTISAN

The first blogger my husband read was Matt Welch, waaay back in the day. Today Matt has a good post up that's kinda related to what irritated me yesterday. Money quote:

The other factor at play here, which Democratic ears seem unable to detect, is that Obama is skillfully turning the meaning of the word "bipartisan" into "the coalition that agrees with my magnanimous self."

Yep, disagree with Obama and you are destroying America and ruining democracy.

Hat tip to my husband, who runs in different blog circles than I do and always manages to find interesting stuff that I wouldn't happen upon. Also he is hot.

Posted by: Sarah at 09:31 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 109 words, total size 1 kb.

1 Bipartisanship is best when both parties agree on a course of action consistent with their respective value systems. Suppose aliens invade Earth while Obama is in office. Republicans would be foolish not to support the president just because he belongs to the "wrong" party. Takeover by aliens is not part of the Republican or Democrat agenda (or so I would hope). A less silly example would be bipartisan support for certain kinds of environmental regulations or for promoting alternative energy sources. Favoring free markets does not entail permitting pollution or clinging to oil. On the other hand, bipartisanship is less attractive when it requires one party to sacrifice its values. Suppose you were a soci@list, and suppose you and your capitalist enemies agree that there is an economic crisis. Are you willing to forge a coalition with the free market fanatics, betraying your principles but maintaining your power? Can you imagine Che or Mao doing a Deng Xiaoping and saying, "不管白猫黑猫,抓住老鼠是好猫。" "I don't care if it's a white cat or a black cat; it's a good cat so long as it catches mice." (Use logic to figure out which character means "cat.") Deng was a pragmatist. Given a choice between pure evil and pragmatism, the latter is better. But given a choice between good and pragmatism, is pragmatism still better? There is NO ONE TRUTH FOR ALL so COMPROMISE and APPEASEMENT are the only ways to do what is RIGHT. ONLY A VICIOUS PRINCIPLED EXTREMIST WOULD CLAIM OTHERWISE! It is POSSIBLE to have opposite ways at the same time; REALISTIC to blend the extremes into a safe, neutral middle; RATIONAL to want it; MORAL to force it on others and GUARANTEED to produce the COMMON GOOD, SOCIAL HARMONY, INTERNATIONAL GOOD WILL and WORLD PEACE. YOU ARE NOT ALL RIGHT so GIVE UP YOUR EXTREMES, YOUR individual mind, independent judgments, logically reasoned arguments, selfish truths and accept a dose of the other side's "EVIL" or POISON. Diluted with YOUR EXTREME, IT CAN'T HURT EITHER OF YOU, BUT IT WILL HELP EVERYONE. - Steve Ditko mocking the "Middle Roader" in The Avenging World (1973)

Posted by: Amritas at January 31, 2009 12:23 PM (y3aIN)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
43kb generated in CPU 0.0118, elapsed 0.0765 seconds.
48 queries taking 0.0694 seconds, 170 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.