As a person who doesn't necessarily fit well into either camp, and who strongly feels that a
homogeneity of thinking is dangerous, I would much prefer that both
sides remain relevant and relatively sane (yeah, I'm talking to you, Bachmann and Wasserman-Schultz) moving onward. For the sake of the country, I'm saying.
There is not much sanity to be found in either the left or right fringe factions. Unfortunaly this seems to be nature of politics and over time has the effect of polarizing America..
ReplyDeleteYes, we need diversity of thought and opinions. What we don't need however is what we see today, an increasing inability to sincerely look for common ground, let alone finding it.
rEpublicans will, IMNHO become less and less relevant. Unfortunate really.
I'm of the opinion that we need to stamp liberalism out. At least that of the far-left variety -- for the sake of the country. Does that mean one side "annihilates" the other? No, I think there is room for some reasonable Democrats. In any case, I don't believe one side "winning" is something that is possible.
ReplyDeleteBut, the national debt being what it is, I certainly think a whole lot more fiscal conservatism is in order.
Does that mean stamping out far right conservatism as well? You know, the kind that leans facist and will destroy liberty in the USA.
DeleteI remember the days when Howard Baker and Bob Michael were the 2 leaders of the Republican Party - serious, statesmanlike, and reasonable men. Man, has the landscape ever altered.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDelete"I would much prefer that both sides remain relevant and relatively sane ..."
Ah yes, the 'both sides do it' trope from an outside observer. Right.
FYI - At the USA national level:
the progressive/liberals are practical, clearly sane, have made themselves relevant, and continue to improve USA for all.
the reactionary conservatives (and I am happy to point this out) are fringe losers, irrelevant, and proven themselves to be failures in governance.
So why is it good for the country to have the wacko RW at the national level table?
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
It isn't. Any more or less so than having the "wacko LW " at the national level table.
DeleteWacko fringe is not exclusive to just conservatism. Perhaps you've overlooked this Ema? Unintentionally I'm sure.
Does that mean stamping out far right conservatism as well? You know, the kind that leans fascist and will destroy liberty in the USA.
ReplyDeleteNo need, as it isn't very prevalent. There is, for example, a Liberal caucus in Congress, but no right-wing fascist caucus.
Congressional caucuses; hundreds- all flavors. The most conservative are the Republican Study Committee, the Liberty Caucus and the Tea Party Caucus.
ReplyDelete..and some that seem on the trivial side...the Unexploded Ordnance Caucus, Shellfish Caucus and the Highway 59 Caucus
Ema said: "the progressive/liberals are practical, clearly sane, have made themselves relevant, and continue to improve USA for all."
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, the reality is that MOST of the progressive/liberal policies are impractical, less than sane, and improve the USA for illegitimate special interests and those with the most power, to the detriment of all.
And Ema asked: "So why is it good for the country to have the wacko RW at the national level table?"
ReplyDeleteIt isn't. Who said it was? It's not a worry though. The whacko fringe is shut out of the national discussion, anyway.
Ema darling, did you not read my post about CA? Those "progressives" out there want to spend BILLIONS of dollars on a project that will end up lowering the earth's atmosphere by .02 degrees Celsius and lower the CO2 level from 413 ppm to 412.9 ppm. Are you honestly going to try and tell me that that's "practical"?......Now, having said that, I will agree with you that there are definitely some crazies on the right as well; Bachmann, Gohmert, Hannity on the boob-tube and radio, etc.. That, and I will not defend them.
ReplyDelete