I’m registered as an independent voter, either because I’m lazy or because I’m greedy. I want the best of both worlds, and I want to make fun of the worst in both worlds. It’s easy, and it’s fun, just like the Internet was supposed to be, before everyone found out it was difficult and not fun. All you have to do is be honest with yourself and realize (whichever side you’re on) that your side is stupid too, sometimes. Come on! Just admit it. If you can’t… well… Anyone who’s so far gone on one side or another that they can’t see their own side’s faults is probably too far gone for this. Just click back to my website and look at some of my pictures. They’re pretty good.
But if you’re able to be honest about politics, etc. Read on.
For two weeks now, political conservatives have been doggedly defending the Bush administration’s handling of the Katrina response, all the while scrambling to make it better, weed out the error-makers and the bureaucrats. During that time, those on the liberal side were crying out for someone to take responsibility, and for someone to get it fixed.
Now that Bush has said, “I take responsibility,” I wonder what they’re going to complain about next.
(CNN: ” ‘Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government and to the extent the federal government didn’t fully do its job right, I take responsibility,’ Bush said during a news conference.”)
(Alternate source for the quote, added Nov. 8, 2013)
But I’m sure they’ll find something. He does make an easy target. But, as Saturday Night Live has proved over and over again, ANY president makes an easy target. I think it’s because each president was a human being, attempting to do a superhuman job. Just you try it. No, I’m serious. Do you know what it entails? I don’t either.
Anyway, my prediction is that the most diehard of liberals will soon forget (or never acknowledge) that Bush publicly accepted the blame for what happened. Or else they’ll claim he’s just politicking. Another prediction is that conservatives will believe Bush only did so to stop the “blame game” and get on with the response.
What I don’t understand is how people on either side can honestly think that they’re right all the time. But that’s what it seems like, to me, sitting here smack dab in the middle. I see the Republican voters making Bush out to be a beleaguered martyr… they say he’s doing his best, he can’t do what needs to be done with all the liberal opposition, he represents the true moral values of American voters, blah, blah, blah. And on the other side, I see the Democrats blaming him for everything from Global Warming (yes, I read a news article yesterday where a German politician actually said Bush was responsible for the hurricane) to unemployment, from Stock Market woes to Athlete’s Foot.
I’m sorry, but it just gets old after a while. Late last week, Bush’s “approval rating” dropped to a “record low.” But if you listened carefully to the news report, it dropped to 38 percent, which is a record low for Bush’s administration. It’s not an all-time record low. The last time a president had an approval rating this low was… you guessed it: when Bill Clinton was president. Remember? Does anyone remember? Every president during my lifetime has had his good moments and his bad moments.
The liberals would have you believe that Clinton’s low approval ratings were misguided, arising from what conservatives mistakenly perceived as an error in moral judgment. The conservatives would have you believe that Bush’s low approval ratings are a concerted effort on the part of liberals who are struggling to get back into power and will do anything toward that end.
What’s really going on? BOTH SIDES ARE DOING IT! That’s right. It doesn’t matter which political party wields the power; the other one will blame them for all the problems, and attribute the successes to a previous president. During Clinton’s administration, the conservatives said the good economy was an after-effect of Reagan’s policies. Then, when the economy began to fail under Bush, they said it was an after-effect of Clinton’s policies. And the liberals do the same thing.
I just can’t buy into an idea that says “the other side is always wrong.” So, it’s no wonder my favorite color is purple. (See what I did there? I thought it was pretty clever.)
Truth is, I hate talking about politics. Just read my last ten blog posts. Or twenty. How often do I speak of politics? Not very. But I get so frustrated, hearing how Bush failed to react quickly to Katrina because he’s prejudiced against black people. It doesn’t make any sense. Or how he sent our troops to Iraq to get the oil. What the f—? We’re not getting any more oil than we were before, people. And he had to have known that, going in. To me, that’s as silly as saying the only reason Clinton ran for president was to avoid the prosecution that was already beginning in Arkansas, when he was governor. And yes, I heard those accusations, and others just as brilliant, from conservatives who obviously had their heads poked up where the light isn’t so bright.
But since I brought up the race issue… Let’s envision a scenario here. Let’s say that I, Wil C. Fry, am President of the United States of America. And let’s say, for fictional purposes of this scenario, that I hate all black people, no matter their educational or financial status. Just for fun, let’s say I hate all people of Latin descent, too, and Jews, and everyone who isn’t pretty much of white, European descent. Okay. In the middle of my hate, there’s a horrible natural disaster, which seems to mostly affect one of those ethnic groups. Would I say, “Ah! Now is my chance to wreak vengeance upon that group that I hate so much! So, my fellow haters, let us delay our response.” Would that be a smart thing for me to say, as President? Of course not. In fact, simply because there is a lingering doubt about who I hate/dislike, I would react even faster to help that particular group, in order to win over public opinion.
This is what I meant when I said it just doesn’t make sense for racial prejudice to be a reason that the response was slow. So I know, you’re just slightly curious as to what my opinion is about why the response was slow. No? Then you shouldn’t have read this far.
The response was slow for the same reason it’s ALWAYS slow: the government is a large conglomeration of agencies, people, offices, paperwork, rules, guidelines, and money, all tied together with an organizational chart that would make any self-respecting corporation blush. It’s not efficient, and hasn’t been for a long time. Do you remember reading in history how it took something like seven years for the U.S. to respond to World War II? And even once war was declared, it took two full years to bring the military up to strength? This is just what happens in a large, bureaucratic organization. It’s the same world over. One way to avoid would be to live in a dictatorship, but we don’t want that, do we? So let’s just get over the fact that it took 48 hours to mobilize the federal government’s response.
How ’bout them Yankees?