stuck in the past?
until mcain admits that he was wrong in his consistent support of bush policy and explains what recent revelations differentiate him from his voting record, the past seems like a pretty good indicator of the future.
I'm not advocating that our past imprison our ideas and identities. I'm just saying without an explanation of what differentiates mcCain from his voting record, how can he be taken seriously as anything different?
****also, I was shocked that the media didn't make a bigger deal over Palin choosing to recite speaking points instead of answer questions and debate. why are americans so willing to accept leaders who can't answer direct questions?
1 comment:
Good post.
Also, good question about popular American political outlook.
I don't think it's necessarily that Americans don't care that a leader that can answer direct questions, I think it's more that, generally speaking, the criteria by which Americans make political decisions are suspect, or at least, confusing.
I think it's fair to say that there is a culture of anti-intellectualism in the States. Many Americans are suspicious of intellectuals, because they are seen as "elitist". Somehow, the concept of democracy, that is, rule by the people, has been construed into a view that a leader should be just like them. Hence, the attraction to politicians like George Bush and Sarah Palin. So, it's not that Americans don't care about straight-answers, it's that they are attracted to politicians that say what they would say.
Anyway, I'm so disillusioned by American politics, I don't really care what happens. I think the prospect for real change is unrealistic, at least until the American people understand what kind of change is really necessary, which I think, is nothing short of a total revamping of the capitalist economic and political structure.
Post a Comment