Back To The Future, Part II

The refrain has gotten nauseating: "The Republican Party/Conservative Movement needs a new leadership to take them/us back to what they/we used to be. They/We need a new, charismatic, inspirational figure, a new Ronald Reagan."

"Just Say NO" might have been a tactic devised by the Reagan White House in dealing with rising drug crime statistics, but the supposed inheritors of that legacy have made it their mantra and modus operandi in dealing with the current reality; appropo then, that this band of not-so-cheerful idiots is determined to meet the new challenges of of tomorrow by regressing, by looking backwards and trying to reach new horizons with their eyes locked steadfastly on the past. Am I painting with too broad a brush mayhaps?


Obviously. That's part of my point; not every person marching under the heraldic Elephant is going to fit under that umbrella and frankly we should be glad. Unfortunately, those persons best positioned to right (pun intended) the party from its current lurching, hobbling gait are being shouted down, villainized and excoriated by their "colleagues" while simultaneously being overshadowed by them. You will not here Arnold, Olympia or Collin calling for a new Reagan and a return to the policies of that Era; they are busy trying to deal with the realities of today and tomorrow, trying to craft a way forward, rather than backward. Instinctively, I think most Americans recognize this on a subconcious level; even the arch-conservatives among my fellow truck drivers ("real Americans" one and all) admit that right now, they mostly like to talk about Reagan in terms of leadership ability, not policy. Even these staunch Commie-Haters recognize that times have changed and that maybe, just maybe, they weren't completely right about everything, all the time.

Unfortunately, this view is embraced by only a tiny minority of party leaders at the moment. These few openly moderate Republicans are undoubtedly gnashing their teeth, unable to challenge the extreme obstructionists without appearing ideologically unreliable which, in a time when every right-wing pol is preparing to fight for political life and the need for campaign funding, in the face of a devastating Democratic advantage, is forcing the RNC and its affiliates to cut off candidates with dicey odds or questionable credentials. The result? A politcal movement that is very visibly trying to back into the future, able only to see its past through rose colored glasses and remaining completely oblivious to the oncoming facts of a changing world.

Perhaps the most frustrating part of all this is the current stream of "we have been wronged" tripe coming from the likes of Boehner and McConnell. They claim to be getting shouted down by the Democrats while "offering common sense, conservative solutions" to the current set of problems besetting the nation. Yet, even when citing this very claim (USA Today, Oct 21, 2009) they never quite seem to get around to describing these supposed "alternatives". Instead, McConnell runs of at the mouth about "political Olympics" while Boehner whines and whinges about how much everything costs. Not one cited solution offered, only paragraphs of complaint, self-pity, jealousy and more of the now characteristic obstructionist prattle. may I remind the gentleman from Kentucky that one does not get to claim offense when patently bad policy is rejected; one "proposal" from the right on the issue of health care proposed that insurance premiums be the target of reform efforts, rather than the going over all expense. Several other proposals all consisted of patchwork "reforms" of select policies without a coherent, systemic plan. one is almost inclined to think the idea was to leave the insurors as many loopholes and vague "requirements" as possible. Given that the entire objective of reform is to change the status quo, rather than enable it, how can these people genuinely expect such proposals to be adopted?

I know I've covered this before, but reforms that do no reforming...are not reforms. We need substance, gentlemen, not semblence.