Friday, November 16, 2007

there's a difference between strategic and lazy

And it's mostly in whether the advantage is seized or if the party in question sits on their collective asses waiting to see what will happen next, Mulaskey being the case in point. Is it really a good idea to trade something your opponent wants for something your opponent wants, sacrificing your own goals in the process?

A year and some change ago, after the 2006 elections, I sat down to have a drink with one of my best friends. Her boyfriend, a campaign manager for the local Democratic party, happened to be with us, and I ended up asking him, swept away by what felt like the first real breath of fresh air in a long time, what he thought the party would be up to now that they had the House and Senate. I wanted the troops back, I was flirting with impeachment and waiting for funding to be restored to social aid programs and the gulf area, where my grandmother's house was flooded and trashed.

Sound familiar to anyone? All those hopes, the feeling, at least for a few months, that things would be okay and that people had finally got into key positions that could be trusted. God, I miss those feelings.

He told me that the party would have to be conservative, to closely shepherd their new political clout. I reluctantly bought it, predicated on what I thought were the extreme partisan difference between the parties' goals. I bought that it would be an uphill battle on Washington avenue between sides of the aisle and in public opinion with all the war supporters.

I had no idea.

So here's the deal. I think a lot of us would like to buy that there is a careful, painstaking effort to bring the troops back, to fix the disintegration of the Constitution and economy.

But I sure as shit ain't seeing it.

To capitalize on a strategic advantage requires waiting for a weakness or a position of advantage. Exactly how much more advantageous does it need to get, Pelosi? The prez's approval rating is at everything from the mid-twenties to the mid-thirties, depending on whose poll you're looking at. The economy is taking a shit; the dollar is worth equal value to a Canadian dollar and half of a British pound with no end in sight. Countries are getting rid of their assets in US dollars. We have no clue when the war will end and that is bothering people. I mean, everything's there but an engraved invitation to the party.

If it helps, I will pay to go get some printed.

What's currently happening, to my reading, is that either the Dems think it's too much trouble to bother, which I interpret as lazy, or they think that they can't do it, which is also lazy. Both are also contemptuous. Both take the voting public as a dumb block, too misinformed or perhaps easily distracted to notice the past or plan for the future. I'll remove my finger from my nose and wave the short bus away before I say any more.

Just in case anyone's thinking of it, the record low savings in this country are not a predictor of carelessness. They're a sign of increased POVERTY. Let me say it again: we're not dumb, WE'RE POOR. Despite the prevailing 'American Dream' rhetoric, poor does not mean stupid, god-forsaken or short-sighted. We may not be able to contribute as much as a company in one chunk, but we voters (the majority of us that are neither rich nor particularly personally influential) can contribute and should have more of a say. After all, despite the fact that the Constitution's 'We the people' meant we the property owning white men, it now means we the everything from grunts to millionaires.

And as a grunt, albeit a voting one, I'm pissed.

No comments: