The Politics of Hypocrisy

The more things change the more things stay the same. I don't know whether it is lingering resentment over the 2008 Presidential Elections or a lingering effect of the Bush Era attitude of "you're either with us or against us" that is driving so much of a schism between the parties these days. Gone are the days when you could be a moderate. I suppose it means that the battle lines have been drawn and there will no longer be an option of walking through no-man's land. You are either well back on the right or well back on the left and if you're in the middle you'll probably be left behind or marginalized in the grand scheme of things. I think it's a sad thing because not only does this attitude not accomplish anything, but it prevents any positive change from happening as well.

For a while now it's been the healthcare debate but prior to that one of the major issues that affected many in this downturned economy was the decision to extend unemployment insurance. Rather than presenting a unified front which was something that most governmental leaders profess to support they jab the finger at one another over issues that are self-made. What I mean by that is that when the decision to approve the expansion of the insurance was being debated, one side would accuse the other of 'not supporting' the bill. What wasn't being said was that support was being withheld due to the fact that extraneous and unnecessary items were being added to the bills. These included things that have ranged (in other bills at least) pay increases for Congressional leaders or projects that someone believed needed to get tacked onto a bill that was likely to get passed without debate. But all this is hidden from the public (or at least not openly spoken of). Why? Because they (and I include all political leaders in this) want to sieze the opportunity to portray their opponents in a negative light.

Now there are those in power right now who are opposing anything President Obama (or other Democrats) are proposing for no other reason than to show their party (more than their constituents) that they are willing and ready to tow the party line. Why? Because they have more interest in being re-elected than they do in supporting (or in some cases opposing) a bill that they know will affect the public (for good or for bad). At times these same leaders appear to put blinders on to what they tout in public to what they believe their party stands for in public and during elections. Take for example our former President; during his campaigns he consistently talked about the need to streamline government and to return power to the states rather than expanding the Federal Government. Yet after 9/11 one of the first things that was done was the establishment of several new offices including the Department of Homeland Security, the Transportation Security Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

These are three major agencies that have required millions upon millions of dollars to establish and equip. I'm not saying that they aren't necessary to the continued security of our nation and I'm not saying that they were created simply out of some other selfish rationale but what I'm saying is that the Republicans who chastised anyone who didn't support the establishment of these agencies need to admit is that these actions went against what they claimed to stand for in the first place. By creating three major agencies that have federal control are they taking control away from the states or returning it to them? I think the answer is pretty clear. Again; don't misunderstand what I'm saying to mean that I don't support these agencies. I think they're doing a good job in accomplishing what they set out to do but what I don't see polticians doing is admitting to having to bend their political ideology to conform to the needs of the now rather than what they usually stand for. That being the case then I would be more inclined to listen to them. It would be refreshing to hear them spout the truth rather than more CYA type of talk.

The latest forerunner to the Republican poltical landscape is Sarah Palin. Coming in out of nowhere over a year ago she has served to attempt to re-establish the conservative Republican mantra like the religious hymns she professes to sing all the time. It's certainly easier for her to talk about her ideals and the ideals of conservative Republicans now since she's no longer in office as Governor of Alaska. It's like Monday Morning Quarterbacks. They go through a 'woulda-coulda-shoulda' discussion every week (I know... I am a Redskins fan so I've done more than my share this year). Solutions and sticking to your party's base ideology is fine when you're not a politician looking to put it into action. It's harder when you're in office. Ask President Obama. While he's been making good on his promise to withdraw from Iraq he's been forced to seriously consider beefing up US military presence in Afghanistan; something he wasn't exactly for when he was on the campaign trail. I guess things change when you're on the other side of the fence.