Sorry Republicans: No Lollipop For You

Presenting the latest chapter in my no-longer-so-moderate adventures! Truth be told, though, if the Democrats were acting this way then my response would be the same to them (and more besides, tinged with fear of an intolerant future and a forever backwards America). But they would never do this, because they're either too naive or world-weary to try it, so there.

I wouldn't be surprised if more and more people started trying to draw parallels between the current administration and that of Lincoln's. It's already been suggested into our heads by the use of his Bible for the inauguration, anyway. But does anyone remember the crisis in 1828, the first precursor to civil war?

At that time, Henry Clay, the Great Compromiser, was able to pull some fragile strands together and keep the South from seceding purely on "economic" lines (get over it, Daughters of the South--your ancestors fought to keep slaves, because it was the only way they could envision King Cotton remaining aloft).

But now--well, the Republicans have retreated into a shell of uncompromising nays, waiting to be coaxed out by a disillusioned electorate. I won't even bother repeating what Obama's said about this, as it's everywhere by now, but how can no one with a conservative bent not be bothered by the way they've decided to turn their faces away from reality, like a bunch of spoiled kids who'll only go out to play if Mommy hands them the sweet lollipop of majority.

How did we come to the point of this even being a viable strategy?

And worse yet, it seems like they're taking advantage of this distance from reality to go further and further into the murky depths of radical conservatism. Remember the farcical sideshow act of the last election? They want to let someone who's hell-bent on tromping down rights and enacting policies that have not stood the test of hard financial times or even her own home into office?

Although, considering the coordination of the Republicans in refusing to act...it's really coordinated for a party that isn't in control. (Remember that, traditionally, the President is what holds the party together; it's what makes the side in charge so much more powerful.) Maybe they've already got their dark horse, and are keeping him (or her) in the shadows instead of doing their best to get this person popular support through the conservative media...are we back to 1972 or something?

I used to believe that the government was best off as long as the other side held at least one of the sides of Congress--but I'm not sure about that anymore.

No comments: