O'Dowd Politics

A call for pragmatism in politics.

Archive for the tag “republican”

15 Nov 2012
2 Comments

Thoughts on the Republican Party

Today I was listening to NPR on the way to work.  I know, I’m not supposed to tune in to tainted liberal news sources but what can I say?  I happen to like the wide variety of content that is featured on their programs and with my keen senses and discernment, I think I am capable of protecting my conservative values from impairment.  Regardless, as I listened there was a story about how the Republican Governors Association is meeting in Las Vegas.  Apparently they have had a number of forums discussing the health of the party to see if any deductions can be made for the loss in 2012.  NPR reported that there was much optimism and that many of the representatives were convinced that the lack of enthusiasm for Republicans is simply due to the tone of the party.  “Tone?” you ask with incredulity.  I share your skepticism.

Here’s the issue; Republicans have given the Democrats the following issues to control: Women’s rights, the environment, healthcare, immigration reform, welfare, food stamps, economic reform, love and kindness.  Republicans with their generosity have allowed themselves to be portrayed as protecting the following issues: the rights of white people, the rights of rich people, moral issues, and big business.  Granted, this is a narrow view of the issue and perhaps I will have the opportunity in the future to elaborate, but many Americans have this view of the party ideology.

My solution is simple:  Republicans need to be outspoken on every issue.  I don’t believe they should sacrifice our values, I think they need to better articulate how a conservative view does have solutions to every problem.  Healthcare?  Provide a clear, concise plan for how every American can become covered under a conservative healthcare system.  The environment?  Demonstrate how conservation of our resources is critical for the sustainability of the earth.  Crack down on industries and impacts that are not achieving an appropriate balance of impacts and benefits.  Women’s rights?  Reveal to women across this great country that their lives are about more than birth control and abortion and demonstrate a true heart-felt concern for their well-being.  Welfare and social programs?  Show the poor and downtrodden that this great America provides incredible opportunity and provide a “hand-up” process whereby generous assistance is provided if appropriate efforts are being made to better themselves.

I could go on all day.  Each one of these needs significant thought and careful articulation but the answer is not simply in tone.  Tone=pandering.  Americans want answers.  My solution to this electoral crisis?  The Republican Party can remain silent on no issues for the Democrats to monopolize.  We must provide real solutions the problems that plague our nation. I mean real solutions.  Yes, I know it’s a breathtaking idea and perhaps in fifty years we will look in the Yale Book of Quotations and find the following entry:

“My solution to this electoral crisis?  The Republican Party can remain silent on no issues for the Democrats to monopolize.  We must provide real solutions the problems that plague our nation.”    ~O’Dowd, November 15, 2012

Just remember you read it here first.

Give me a comment or a like people!

O’Dowd

Posted in Parties, Politics, Pragmatism, To my Republican friends and tagged , , , ,
14 Nov 2012

Do you ever feel that you’re the hostage in political division? I do.

Posted in Parties, Politics, Pragmatism and tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment
10 Nov 2012

The path ahead?

Does this political cartoon represent your views of the next four years?

image

Posted in Parties, Politics and tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment
09 Nov 2012

If I were to run for president I wouldn’t pander for votes.

Pandering is for losers.  Voters can tell if a candidate is only taking a position for votes–right?  Take this last election as an example:  President Obama developed the deferred action policy to gain the Hispanic vote and “evolved” his position on gay marriage just to help appease two segments of the electorate that were less than enthusiastic about his performance on the issues that were so important to them.  How about Mitt Romney?  Did he claim to support policies that were clearly different from his past record in the public eye all while never offering a plausible explanation as to why is position had changed?  This may a little more difficult to determine as Romney didn’t have the power to implement new policies during the election like his opponent did, but one could make the argument that it was a little disingenuous to both hate Obamacare and defend his actions on socialized medicine while he was the governor of Massachusetts.  Not to mention his public statements about putting coal companies out of business while he was governor–contrasting sharply with his “friend of coal” lovefests while pounding the pavement in Pennsylvania during the heat of the election.  One thing is for certain; pandering is an unavoidable evil in politics today as both sides work to gain a few extra votes with demographics that are less than ecstatic about their success at gaining public office.

We all hate pandering and most of us can see through it knowing that a sudden change to a position that we have hoped to see for so long is most likely just a quick fling to take our vote and run—not unlike the flaky friend we had in college that would invite us to a party just so we would bring our cute friend along with us.  Even so, we still fall for it sometimes, especially when the new position is exactly what we have been hoping and praying for.  Now it’s there, right in front of us—like a mirage in the desert to satisfy our thirst right before we expire from lack of water.  In the moment of bliss we forget that four years ago somebody offered us the same thing and then got “so busy” with the economy or the war in Afghanistan, or working on alternative energy issues that he completely forgot to do anything until he needed our vote.  Oh well, you think, perhaps it will be different this time and besides, what do I have to lose since the other guy hasn’t even offered to help.  You just got pandered!

If I were to run for president I wouldn’t pander.  Period.  Politicians have to take artificial positions simply because they’ve already made enemies when it wasn’t necessary, or they have poor communication skills to articulate complex views.  Obama already had the support of the LGBT community; he didn’t need to come out for gay marriage, especially when he had pandered for the christian black vote four years earlier by standing against homosexual unions.  Romney was out of line when he spoke out against coal plants as a governor.  He made enemies when it wasn’t necessary and had to backtrack during his campaign by attacking the other guy rather than admitting he was wrong in the past.  Nope, I won’t pander.  I’ll be man enough to stand on principles that fit my belief system and humble enough to admit when I’m wrong, apologize, and move on.  Sure, I might lose a few votes from some groups that don’t particularly benefit from my policies, but at least everyone will know where I stand and I won’t have to pretend to be something I’m not.

Mark it down, put it in your time capsule, chisel it into stone—when O’Dowd runs for president he will tell you the truth, have carefully articulated views on policy for every demographic and issue, and will be willing to admit he’s wrong when he’s boneheaded enough to say something dumb.  (Writing in third person: not good!)  Here’s the bottom line:  pandering is for losers, it’s disingenuous, artificial, and as obvious as a three headed dog.  If I run for president I’ll be honest, fair, nice, and modify my position if I realize I was wrong and can articulate why my position has changed.  Flip-flop maybe; pander never.

O’Dowd

Posted in If I were to run for president., Parties, Politics and tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
08 Nov 2012
3 Comments

The American 2 Party System is for Dummies

Since the dawn of the United States there has been partisan bickering been two primary parties–a trend that has never really changed.  This division in politics was likely a remnant of the old British system of rule and the conflict that existed between the Tories and the Whigs in Revolutionary times.  Regardless of the history which is no doubt long and tedious, (and way too complex for this blogger) since as far back as the first Congress in 1789 there were two primary parties (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_divisions_of_United_States_Congresses).  At that time these parties were the Anti-Administration and Pro-Administration parties (they weren’t all that clever with names back then) which then became the Democratic-Republicans and Federalists in the 4th Congress (1795, remember each Congress takes up 2 calendar years).  From there it was the Democrats and National Republicans (1825), Democrats and Whigs (1837), and finally Democrats and Republicans starting in 1855.  In fact, since 1855 the seats in the House and Senate have been filled with either a Democrat or a Republican 99.06% of the time and the presidency has never been filled by a third party.

Image

You might wonder why we have two parties but don’t strain your mind–it’s actually not that hard to figure out.  The fact is we have two of a lot of things for a very good reason: it’s easier.  Think Coke and Pepsi, Apple and Android, Pampers and Huggies; the fact is the human brain likes to make decisions based on comparisons and it’s really hard to evaluate three or more items.  I know it sounds simplistic but I think it’s just that easy: Americans are too lazy to do a lot of research so they prefer either/or decisions–Republican or Democrat is way easier than deciding Joe Smith, John Doe, Suzy Salamander, or Willis Winkleman.

My assertion in the title that the two-party system is for dummies is not intended to be an editorial judgement on the merits of our political process–I actually like it that way as it makes it easier to assign responsibility to the group that is messing things up in the country.  I just happen to think that the American electorate pays little attention to the individual views and positions of the candidates and we find it easier to make decisions based on a generic title.  Like it or not the two-party system is here to stay so if you want to feel represented, make your choice and if you’re not too picky on policy it can be just as easy as a flip of a penny; heads for a Lincoln Republican or tails for . . . the other guys.

O’Dowd

Posted in Parties, Politics and tagged , , , , , ,
07 Nov 2012

O’Dowd for Political Pragmatism

Welcome to O’Dowd Politics where we will dive deep into the inner workings of the political environment of the United States of America.  Though I am a Republican, and make no apologies about it; I hope to keep a critical eye on both parties, using their key principles to evaluate their moves and postures, hoping to discern whether Washington is keeping us as a “city on a hill”–an example of freedom and liberty to the world.

“For we must consider that we shall be a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we shall deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken, and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword through the world.” — John Winthrop

In this blog we will look closely at the key principles of the U.S., consider the motivations of each political party, and focus on whether politicians are providing real, pragmatic solutions, or simply pandering for votes.  I hope you will stay tuned for a wild ride into the darkest, dingiest, and deepest crevasses of politics to see if there is a way forward through the political morass that binds our country.

Happy reading!

O’Dowd

Posted in Politics and tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Post Navigation

Newer Entries →