When George Bush the Younger was first elected, and the republicans controlled congress, here’s what I thought:
—-
I’m happy that all the government is on the same page. Now they can actually accomplish something, even if it’s not something that I want. At least they can do something. If it makes the country better, then that’s great. If not, then we’ll know that their way isn’t necessarily the best way.
—-
I feel the same way now. Obama’s administration has made some real changes, whether you like them or not. A selection:
Healthcare, obviously
Changes to NASA
Nuclear reduction
Changes to Equity compliance (Thanks, Dorie)
Lower taxes for most people
—
So let’s see how the country is in a few years. It will probably be somewhere different from where it is today.
That sort of thinking will never get you a 2 minute interview on cable news.
I hold the opposite position: the nation is safest when the Federal Government gets nothing done. Almost everything the Feds do makes things worse. I’m just glad I don’t get all the government I pay for; with gridlock, that goes further.
Well, I’m not saying that things are better in the country when government can move. I think things were much worse after Bush’s few years with Republicans in congress.
I’m just sick of everyone claiming that their way is better. I like to see them do what they say will fix things, then assess whether they were right.
When there’s gridlock, it’s a just a bunch of unsubstantiated talk.
Unfortunately, the worst decisions don’t seem to get reversed. For example, Obama was one of the few who loudly opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. Now that he’s in power, with a Democrat Congress to back him up, he’s…oh wait, he *isn’t* getting us out quickly. When the Republicans held power under Reagan, GHW Bush, and GW Bush, they actually increased spending on “entitlements”. The list goes on. Government serves to increase the power and size of government, not to improve the condition of the nation.