Political Confusion

Jim Jeffords? That is so last term.

While I enjoy both devouring the veal-like flesh of the unborn and critiquing the grammar of others, there are bigger fish to fry here. I can count, and am well aware that the Democrats are not in the majority. But for the record, "we" are only democrats with a lower-case "d". I speak for a movement, not a party, not that party anyway. That's really the rub here; and that's our long-term advantage.

The Democrats in Washington have earned your incessant lampooning. You couldn't fictionalize a more vicious intellectual widow maker. They more or less stand for the right things, but only in opposition to you guys. They most assuredly do not speak for the Bush-hating demographic in Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, just for starters. Basically, they suck, the writing's on the wall, and you can't regroup without cutting ties first anyway.

Mark my words, you guys will not sever well from your victory umbilical cord. See, your party's betrayed you too. Probably worse. You can't tell me part of you isn't seriously concerned about that guy, that our doubts aren't just a wee bit justified, no? And let me ask you this: what would've happened if Michael Moore had called for the assassination of Vicente Fox? What if it was 1999 and people in the Clinton Administration slapped him on the wrist with a wink and a nod? Just asking.

But seriously, the Republican Party is a trainwreck waiting to happen. You are trapped in the political parallel of irrational exuberance. The house I grew up in isn't worth $700,000, but it is; the Christian Right isn't right about everything, but it is. My point about the war versus stem cells wasn't about the nature of our particular parliamentary system, although I did appreciate your nod to the inherent messiness of this process. No, I'm talking about justification, not just winning.

It is, on it's face, absurd to declare war (war?!) a less pressing moral problem than stem-cell research. Y'all seemed to think that, if honest internal calculations rendered this war "just", you were entitled to surrender to your bloodlust and enjoy it like a football game. But even with honest internal calculations the only way to justify this war is if the potential long-term benefits outweigh the potential long term risks. Well, if there's a better candidate to pass precisely that moral standard than stem-cell research, I'd like to hear it. Everyone's "supposed" to find war lamentable, while at least 60% of this country thinks stem-cell research is probably a fundamentally good thing. Where do you get off even equalizing our respective outrages, let alone pretending your case has more gravity?

posted by Gabe @ 7:57 PM