Politics Over Christmas Ham

Shane asks an interesting question, or at least relays an interesting one from his Dad. Since politics has become, at essence, the heart of adopting positions that get you elected to office, and then trying to implement policies that ensure your reelection, how do you gauge the sincerity of someone's beliefs from their rhetoric? In other words, how do you know that they aren't just saying what they are in order to get elected, with no particular intention to fight very hard for anything controversial?

I think this is a good point (leading me to ask, why isn't Shane smart, like his dad?) and worth thinking about. To me, it's probably the strongest argument in favor of Edwards in the Dem primary. At least on domestic policy issues, he is the most progressive/liberal, and also the most willing to, well, be angry about it.

To that extent, I think anger could serve as a useful proxy towards the concept Shane labels 'honor'. For instance, does anyone doubt that if, through some sort of horrible set of circumstances, Giuliani is actually elected President, we will start bombing more people in more places, regardless of the opinions of a) the Congress, b) the judiciary or even c) the American populace?

Of course not. He's aggressive and angry when he talks about Islamic fascism, and he is going to do something about it.

Similarly, when Edwards talks about, say, free trade, you can tell that he really believes in the rhetoric he is using. I have no doubts that he would go to the mat for such things as universal health care, defending the rights of American workers, etc.

The reason I support Obama is that I like to think that, maybe, just maybe, he can reduce the need for such fights. If he can defuse tensions, maybe he can pass some halfway measures, such as a health care plan that gives people the option of keeping their own plans or buying into a socialized one, which would really be the right experiment, if implemented correctly.

But, if you want someone who is really going to fight for what you believe in, then I think publicly palpable anger probably isn't the worst measure of such beliefs.

Incidentally, I think Republicans are probably even worse on this measure than Democrats are. For instance, the Republicans count as valuable members of their coalition out-and-out racists. So when they go to Southern strongholds (see last month's bloviating debate about Reagan kicking off his 1980 campaign in Philadelphia, MS), they speak about "State's Rights." This is supposed to be code for 'I hate black people like you, so you should vote for me'. And, of course, it mostly works.

The only (well, not the only, but one) problem is, the Republicans aren't idiots. They know they are both morally and electorally in the wrong if they try to, say, repeal the Voting Rights Act. So they never try.

You see similar dynamics with regards to abortion (how many anti-choice laws passed when the Republicans held both houses of Congress, the White House, and a majority on the Supreme Court, again?), gay issues (whatever happened to that Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman, anyhow? You know, that one that became such a big deal right before the '04 Election? Kind of evaporated as an issue, didn't it?), and others.

So, I do agree that it's an important question to think about, but it also has to be acknowledged that it's a problem for everyone, on both sides of the aisle, and I'm not sure that you have much, other than past performance, to help you predict future results. Unless, of course, you just want to pick the candidate who wins the 'anger primary'.