Tuesday, January 10, 2012

A little bit of optimism dawned on me

I was just in the car listening to Romney's speech in New Hampshire - figuring it highly likely that he'll be the nominee - and I realized that IMO at least there's reason to be optimistic politically. I know lots of you may not agree with me, but hey - it's my blog.

I realized that as I see things, if Romney gets the nomination we will have had three presidential slates in a row that successively improve each time. Bush-Kerry was awful on the Republican side and pretty disappointing on the Democratic side. Obama-McCain was only marginally better on the Republican side (unless, God forbid, McCain died and it would have been considerably worse) and quite good on the Democratic side. And now it looks like we're going to have a good Democrat and a Republican that I could actually end up liking (particularly if a recovery takes hold). You never get a perfect choice, but this isn't bad. If the economy really starts picking up by November and we look like we'll need a post-depression president I might even have to read up a little on Romney and consider him more seriously! The point is - things aren't always as atrocious as the punditry like to suggest.

Granted, the Congress has been erratic over that period and who knows where that'll go. But it could be a lot worse.

OK, now Gene can chime in and tell me that we're barrelling into war with Iran and the rest of you can try to deny the obvious fact that a Paul administration would be horrendously bad for the country. But for the next five minutes I'll keep enjoying my "eh - this could be a lot worse" mood.

UPDATE: I focused on Romney here because I think it's pretty clear he's going to get the nomination at this point. At least he's the best bet for it. This is not to say Romney is the best of the Republican field, although he is near the top for me. I agree with Ryan Murphy that Huntsman offers the best Republican option for me (I'm not sure if Ryan is agreeing on that), if we were dealing with that question. My point here is just that Obama = Obama > Kerry, and Romney > McCain > Bush. By convexity and transitivity, that means 2012 > 2008 > 2004.

11 comments:

  1. I'm optmistic, but not because of some Presidential election (or a Congressional election cycle either).

    "...and the rest of you can try to deny the obvious fact that a Paul administration would be horrendously bad for the country."

    So your position is that the institutions of the U.S. are so rickety that they could not survive a Paul Presidency? People say the same stuff about every candidate they dislike. You're no different.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You can deny the obvious fact that another Obama Presidency, or a Romney Presidency, would be catastrophically bad for the country.

    You can deny the obvious fact that a Paul Presidency would be the only hope of turning back away from the cliff that were barreling straight towards.

    I'm optimistic because Paul's message is resonating with more and more people, especially the new generation, and that means the ancient, destructive and inhumane ethical values of which you adhere are going to again be on the retreat, exactly like they were during the founding of this great country, and which is responsible for everything you have and every freedom you exercise.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can't imagine that continued federal involvement in the drug war could be more desirable than bad monetary policy.

    You might consider your bias here. The picture on the header of your blog is a bit blurry, but I just can't imagine you as a young black male, or a Mexican gangster. The drug war doesn't hurt you much. But I could spend all day chronicling the destruction it causes to Americans, Mexicans, and people all around the world.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Your pretty evil to disagree with David about this Daniel.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Stravinsky,

    You make a very good point regarding the awful human toll of the drug war (The Wire anyone?). That being said, I'm not exactly sure what a Paul presidency would mean to the drug war. Off the top of my head, the most direct policy change would be the decision to not prosecute medical marijuana cases. More radical departures could be met by impeachment proceedings unless Paul could provide a cogent constitutional argument for refusing to enforce the laws promulgated by Congress. Moreover, individual states are also active participants in the drug war with their own laws and policies proscribing drug use and sale. A Paul presidency will have little impact in this regard. This is especially true because I do not believe a Paul presidency will radically alter the ethos of the voting public in relation to the decriminalization of drugs. I recognize that the voting public's aversion to pot is decreasing, but this does not transmit to the harder drugs, such as cocaine, crack, and heroin. And it is here that the effects of the drug war are most severe, especially on minorities.

    These are just off-the-cuff remarks. If you have a better understanding of what a president could reasonably accomplish re: scaling down the drug war, I am all ears.

    ReplyDelete
  6. LV -
    re: "I'm optmistic, but not because of some Presidential election (or a Congressional election cycle either)."

    Oh yes - if you want optimism one of the last places to look is politics. But within that realm, I think it's a lot better than it could be. Within politics I realized last night we have reason to be optimistic (relatively speaking). Outside of politics I've always been quite an optimist.

    re: "So your position is that the institutions of the U.S. are so rickety that they could not survive a Paul Presidency? People say the same stuff about every candidate they dislike. You're no different."

    I don't recall saying that. I do think a veto authority, an executive authority, and a guy like Paul can be disruptive, though.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ah yes David - I'm inhumane and have turned my back on the founders. Gotcha.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hume makes excellent points. I love how on all the bad stuff people insist Paul couldn't really accomplish all that much, but on the one really good thing he's got they think he'll work miracles even though he's already shown he's more than willing to play law-and-order-guy on other issues with a lot of traction for social conservatives, like abortion and immigration. I'm not saying he'll crack down, but I agree with Hume that it's probably going to be a pot legalization and then a declaration of victory. That would be great (and honestly that alone would take care of most of what's wrong with the drug war), but that's coming our way inevitably anyway. I don't feel like a vote for Ron Paul is well spent on that. It's going to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Sounds like to me "horrendously bad" is a non-survival or near non-survival situation. Now, the difference between "horrendously bad" and "disruptive" are significant to me. Perhaps if you were more specific. And by specific I mean something more than "I don't like his view of monetary policy." Really, I think you are over-estimating things here significantly if you keep on going with the "horrendously bad" view.

    "...but that's coming our way inevitably anyway."

    That's been said for decades now. It isn't "inevitable" until some people make it "inevitable" because there are too many vested interests in making sure the drug war continues.

    Hume,

    He would have two years to push through a change in the drug laws; that would be the extent of things. Which is better by leaps and bounds beter than what either an Obama or a Romney Presidency has to offer on the matter.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wow, everything is in bold.

    ReplyDelete

All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.