President Bush ran in 2000 as "a uniter, not a divider" and I think the 2004 election proves that he was successful. If you watch the news you'll see a huge number of people who seem to hate his guts and think he's evil and malignant, but I don't think they refute George W. Bush's ability to unite us as a country.
Sure, we're more polarized than ever, and many Democrats think President Bush is the worst thing since Hitler, but the thing to realize is that President Bush is reducing the number of Democrats. He received nine million more votes in 2004 than he did in 2000, and many of those people were Gore voters who decided to switch sides. Our parties may be more polarized than ever, but because of President Bush more Americans are uniting under the Republican banner than ever before.
Congressional Democrats are clamoring for Bush to pay attention to them and negotiate, but why should he? He doesn't have to be "bipartisan" and unite the parties in order to unite the country. He's uniting the country by enticing people away from the opposition and onto his side. Rather than making peace with his opponents, he's turning opponents into friends. That's what real unity is, and he's being more successful than any president I can think of.
His job is made easier every time a Democrat opens his mouth to say something stupid and mean-spirited. If the Democrats care about their party and want to play it smart they should concentrate on reducing attrition rather than stirring up the faithful. However, any Democrat who really wants to play it smart and influence the next 20 years of American policy should be switching to the Republican party ASAP.
MW: "However, any Democrat who really wants to play it smart and influence the next 20 years of American policy should be switching to the Republican party ASAP."
That sentence has the interesting juxtaposition of being both delusional and arrogant.
You think Republicans are going to control the next 20 years of American policy? That's laughable at best.
The big-ticket stuff that Bush wants to accomplish in his second term, Social Security reform for example, is going to require Bush to work with Congressional Democrats.
This house of cards you've built... where Republicans will be in control for 20 years... is still susceptible to the burden of being the dominant party: diversity within the party often leads to division and dissent, giving the minority party more power than they otherwise would have. We're seeing it already with Social Security reform and the budget deficit. Bush may be too much of a big spender for the fiscal conservatives in his own party.
Wait... so nearly half the country thinks he's "evil and malignant," and yet he's a uniter? What? His "I'm a uniter, not a divider" implied that he would somehow "unite America," which is a ridiculous proposition on its face: Getting any sizable majority of Americans to come anything close to having the same views on more than a handful of topics is impossible. Yet you're claiming that because he's brought more people over to the Republican party, therefore he's a uniter? *whistle* Conflation of terms! Five yard penalty!
This directly contradicts the notion that Bush has "united" us in any meaningful sense.
Bush received 50.5 million votes in 2000 and 62 million in 2004. That's 11.5 million more. Wow! However, his opponent received 51 million in 2000, and 59 million in 2004. That's 8 million more. So the net gain is really only 4 million votes. And analysis indicates that a substantial portion of the voters he gained were people who got out to vote on anti-gay marriage bills, and since such people are overwhelmingly likely to vote Republican... I don't doubt that Bush's support increased in raw percentage, but I think you're giving way too much credit to Bush himself, and not enough to other issues involved.
Anyway, you of all people should understand the dangers of a monoculture, be it biological, computerized, or political. You shouldn't want a complete domination of one party over another.
He's turned a tiny percentage of his opponents into friends. That may be "more successful than any president" but it doesn't really mean much overall. He's not "uniting" people in any meaningful sense of the term. You're abusing the language by saying that he is.
This statement implies that Republicans never open their mouths to say something stupid and mean-spirited. Come on, Mike, you're making basic errors here. I know you're smarter than that. Why are you succumbing to this mode of "my party/politician is infallible" propaganda? Bush is only human, so is his team. Can they do no wrong to you?
Mark: Hey man, nothing is certain. I'm just saying that smart Democrats should be considering their options. Do they retain more power individually by staying with the Democrats and keeping their seniority there, or would they benefit by switching to the Republicans and starting to build seniority with what is likely to be the majority party for quite a while?
Matt: My party is definitely not infallible, and there are lots of things I disagree with President Bush about (like illegal immigration and high spending). I think you should agree, however, that recently the Democrats have been saying many more stupid and mean-spirited things that the Republicans have. Don't act as if I'm talking in absolutes when I'm clearly not, and don't try to denigrate my position by spouting "you're too smart to think that!"
How is brining more people into the Republican party not "uniting"? Why do the parties have to be united, rather than the people, by your definition?
And yes, monoculture can be bad, but I hardly think the Republicans are pushing for that. The Dems enforce far more conformity than the Republicans do, usually in the name of "political correctness". It's basically impossible for their party to tolerate any dissent from the party line on a whole range of issues, from abortion to social security, whereas Republicans entertain views across the whole spectrum. The Democrats are the party of uniformity, not the Republicans, and they just harden their line as they lose and lose.
I do want a complete domination by the Republicans, for the time being. I'd love it if the Democrats weren't absurdly out of touch with reality and dangerous to our country and the world, but they aren't. I'd love to have two parties to choose from in the future, and I hope that the beating the Dems have been taking for the past decade will eventually bear fruit and cause some internal reformation. The Dems have wandered from their roots, to the detiment of the whole nation. Would JFK have been a modern Democrat? No way. They need to purge their party of the small number of extremists that are currently running the show. Then we'll talk.
MW: All politicians are always considering their options. Their jobs require it. There are always Democrats considering becoming Republicans or Independents and there's always Republicans considering becoming Democrats or Independents.
Right now, with Social Security reform and the budget deficit, it seems the Democrats aren't the party that's at a high risk of having any senators or representatives switching sides.
Why should I agree? Are there statistics demonstrating that it's the case? Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion?
Hey, I'm glad to see that you're actually capable of admitting that your party isn't made up of infallible geniuses. That puts you leagues ahead of a lot of emotional folks on all sides of political debate. It's just that when I read your blog, and the entries virtually never denigrate a Republican and virtually never compliment a Democrat, what am I supposed to think? Up until now, it sure looked like you believed in that infallibility.
And even when you do denigrate a Republican, it's invariably couched along the lines of, "I disagree, and think you could do better," but when you denigrate a Democrat, it's more like, "You're a dangerous loon and you're completely wrongheaded and quite possibly evil."
Bush's "I'm a uniter, not a divider" speech was about uniting all Americans, and not about bringing more people into the Republican party. He hasn't come within a light-year of uniting all Americans in any meaningful way, which is not his fault; it's an inherently impossible task and is just one of those "sounds good to me" things that politicians say. I wouldn't believe that line from Clinton, JFK, FDR, Ghandi, Zaphod Beeblebrox, or Emperor Palpatine, either.
And who's gonna say, "I'm a divider, not a uniter"? No one. But if we're arguing about whether Bush did what he said he wanted to do, then in this particular instance, he most certainly did not. I wouldn't begin to claim that he hasn't achieved ANY of his goals, but he sure hasn't united the country.
I didn't say they are. In any event, some Republicans would like a monoculture, and some wouldn't. But in your post, the implication was that such a monoculture was a good thing, and something to look forward to. And you actually do repeat that assertion later in your response (covered below).
Nonsense. There are both voters and politicans with a wide range of views on all topics in both parties.
The funny thing is, this same sentiment has been thrown out by countless folks in both parties since time immemorial. The other party is always a bunch of dangerous crazies who will bring ruination and doom to our country if they are in power. And yet, somehow, we've avoided ruination and doom for decades, no matter who was in power (though results have varied...). Somehow I think that America would get along quite well if the balance was switched between Democrats and Republicans.
So have the Republicans, which used to be the party of reform and social progress, up into the 1910s. Took about 20 years before they more or less switched places with the (formerly status-quo-hugging) Democrats, when FDR and the New Deal came along. Maybe by the next election, the Democrats will go all big-business, pandering to the religious right, and in 20 years, we'll have another Great Depression and the Republicans will be welcomed as our new socially-progressive overlords :)
I don't think any president from before about 25-30 years ago would have held a preponderance of the same views that his titular party holds now. Lincoln certainly wouldn't have been a modern Republican; his views and actions don't really match either the D or R parties today. What is this line supposed to demonstrate, aside from the unbacked (and, might I add, divisive) assertion that Democrats have lost their minds?
If you have a family of nine kids where four kids on each of two sides hate each other's guts but the ninth child is undecided as to which side to take at first but then chooses up, you then have a family where there is a 5-4 majority, but that hardly means the family is uniting. It could just as easily turn into a permanent 5-4 split that would settle into ongoing bitterness and acrimony.
Dr. Rice will be the next person to step down from the political scene.
Unity? Why have so many of bush's political allies ditched office to "spend more time with the family"?
Good one! You couldn't be more wrong. How many billions are we going to spend in Iraq this year and to what end?
Matt: Many Democrats seem to agree that their party is crazy.
joe: Dude, Dr. Rice was just confirmed by the Senate 85-13! Do you really think she's going to step down soon?