Examples of Inconsistency
At any rate, in the course of one the discussion groups someone came up with a set Republican assertions about our intervention in the Balkans/Kosovo/Bosnia. In light of what's happened in Iraq, I found them interesting. I know that somewhere there is a similar collection of Democratic statements about Iraq. I've seen them and I'm sure someone has them handy somewhere. If you want to forward those to me, I'll be happy to post them, too.
The point is that when we are faced with potential conflicts we need a better way to assess the danger of involvement other than if the other side is for intervention then our side is against it. Those of you who've read the book know what I think that better way is.
At any rate, here are the quotes from the discussion group.
Some Republican pre Kosovo war predictions:
"Well, I just think it's a bad idea. What's going to happen is they're going to be over there for 10, 15, maybe 20 years."
--Joe Scarborough (R-FL)
"Explain to the mothers and fathers of American servicemen that may come home in body bags why their son or daughter have to give up their life?"
--Sean Hannity, Fox News, 4/6/99
"[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation's armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy."
--Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA)
"American foreign policy is now one huge big mystery. Simply put, the administration is trying to lead the world with a feel-good foreign policy."
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"If we are going to commit American troops, we must be certain they have a clear mission, an achievable goal and an exit strategy."
--Karen Hughes, speaking on behalf of George W Bush
"I had doubts about the bombing campaign from the beginning . . I didn't think we had done enough in the diplomatic area."
--Senator Trent Lott (R-MS)
"I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today"
--Rep Tom Delay (R-TX)
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is."
--Governor George W. Bush (R-TX)
I see inconsistencies all over our current political landscape.
The one that catches my eye now concerns the Economic Stimulus, or Growth, Plan now in our national legislative branch.
The main idea is to stimulate the economy by pumping spending money into the economy through tax rebates. This was the same exact rationale for tax cuts in 2003, to put more money in the hands of individuals and businesses. Many of the same people who demonized the 2003 tax cuts will advocate and vote for the tax rebates now.
Can't you hear it on the campaign trail? "I was against tax cuts before I was for tax cuts".
Reasonable people can disagree on whether tax cuts work and their overall impact on the national debt. But isn't it ironic, or maybe just political, that elected people vilified the earlier tax cuts and now seem to be going along with what is effectively a tax cut.
And then, if putting money into the hands of the people and business is good for the economy, how can they argue, in effect, to raise taxes by reversing the earlier tax cuts? That logic escapes me.
Maybe the answer is different times, different circumstances, or a different effect on the national debt. Personally, I don't buy any of that.
One more thing about the stimulus package and inconsistencies. We hear the presidential candidates talking about their version of the package and what they would do. For those running for office who also have day jobs, like the U.S. Senate, will they be at work at their job to advocate for their plans when the discussions and voting on the package occurs? Or will their political aspirations be more important? Just wondering and watching.
Reply to this
Jim,
Good thought on more inconsistencies.
What we see at work here is one of the strongest truism of politics: All other things being equal, people will first vote their pocketbooks. If times are good, then people are likely to vote for those in power. If times are bad, then people are likely to vote for change.
Given that power is split between the two parties in the executive and legislative branches, both parties are at risk for being blamed for a bad economy. Those in the legislative branch don't want to be seen as obstructing what the executive branch is proposing. Both feel fairly safe that the American voting public is too uneducated about government finance to appreciate how this short term gain will contribute to our long term pain.
You're right. This will be interesting to watch.
Reply to this