Bill Kristol wrote an interesting piece in the New York Times today. In it he espouses an analogy connecting Rudyard Kipling (as understood by George Orwell) to the modern democratic and republican parties. (read the full article here if you have a chance) Kipling was often perceived as morally insensitive and some even accused him of being racist. According to Orwell, Kipling "identified himself with the ruling power and not with the opposition...in a gifted writer this seems to us strange and even disgusting, but it did have the advantage of giving Kipling a certain grip on reality."
The opposition is not forced to face reality in the same way that the ruling power does. The opposition can deal simply in theory, and can even acquire a significant audience as long as the theory promises vast improvement and displays prima facie tenability. The ruling power must actually make decisions. Each decision bring consequences, some good and other not. These consequences are constantly providing fodder for passing judgment on each decision. Ideas from the opposition can never be proved wrong, because so long as the opposition is not ruling their ideas will remain in the abstract.
Kristol brings this around to modern politics:
"Having controlled the executive branch for 28 of the last 40 years, Republicans tend to think of themselves as the governing party — with some of the arrogance and narrowness that implies, but also with a sense of real-world responsibility. Many Democrats, on the other hand, no longer even try to imagine what action and responsibility are like. They do, however, enjoy the support of many refined people who snigger at the sometimes inept and ungraceful ways of the Republicans."
I tend to agree with Kristol's point here. I think that the republican party is off the mark on its priorities and the more power it gets the more corruption exists (though I do not think that is limited to any one party). However, I also believe that the republican party has a better grip on reality than the democrats. I actually think that fact will work against them in the coming election, but this post is long enough already.
There is much more to say on the topic. I'd like to know if others think Kristol is on point and where else you see this dynamic surfacing in politics.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
If this election does mark the beginning of a major shift in power from the Republicans to the Democrats, I wonder if the GOP will then become the Fantasyland party. And if they do, what will it look like? I don't think it will be the pulling-money-from-the-sky idealism of the Dems; I think it will be something along the lines of stubbornly insisting that things were better in the past and working to force legislation that may err on the side of irrelevant for the era. In any case, it would be nice to see some idealism on the part of the Republicans. They're kinda stodgy and boring. :)
I hadn't thought of it in the terms Kristol describes, but it makes sense. Democrats are in good shape because they get to be on the offensive. They can point to Republican failures as evidence that "change" is needed. The only counter Republicans have, in that sense, is to try to prove that the Democratic ideas (when they actually propose any) wouldn't work. To a society that needs to see things to believe them, that's a much harder case to make.
What bugs me is that we've become so polarized and partisan in the political arena, it seems like there's little chance of any cooperative attempts at improving our country any more. We had a brief spell of bipartisan unity shortly after September 11, but that only resulted in finger-pointing when the inevitable blame game started. Can we ever get back to having a political climate that isn't dominated by the whole "us vs. them" mentality?
- Jason
Good point, Jason (Adler). That WOULD be the ideal; however, I'm not certain our country's going to get over its "Republican Clubhouse, No Dems Allowed" attitude (and vice versa) any time soon. At the same time, the main problem with bipartisanship seems to be (at least in my mind) the fact that on a lot of political issues, we're dealing with morality... and I can't think of many issues I feel strongly about that I'd be willing to compromise on in the name of unity.
This is Sara Carter, by the way. :)
Post a Comment