|
RB, I'm surprised you don't see the vitriol on your side of the aisle, so to speak. I find myself posting less and less in politics-related forums because I increasingly find that my interlocutors (of any stripe) are unable to understand that there is such a thing as a legitimate alternative point of view that isn't immoral/stupid/bought/evil/[insert epithet here]. The level of discourse is increasingly at the level of "you guys are poopyheads, yay for my team" - without noticing or even acknowledging that the things the alleged poopyheads are doing are also being done by the speaker's ideological allies.
I see no reason to subject myself to vilification over my political views, most of which I think are pretty reasonable, well-thought-out, and often unacceptable to many members of either of our political parties (being suspicious of those who want or have authority and power can do that, you know). I have no desire to be regularly called anarchist or authoritarian (yes, I have been called both, though never by the same person - yet). But one thing this experience does leave me with is the knowledge that there is more than enough nastiness out there to go around. (and you might be surprised to learn that my impression is that lefties are nastier, and with less provocation, but it's only by degrees.)
As for Ted Kennedy, well, let's face it, he did manage to get into the position he was in, and got away with things he shouldn't have gotten away with, merely because of his family. I don't find that immoral - you take your opportunities in life, that's how things are. The lying and sanctimony were annoying, but again, he's a politician, so I'm not sure we should expect all that much different. And we should give him his due: over the years he became very very good at his job -- all the evidence is that he knew how to be a Senator, including all the dealmaking and constituent service, as well as or better than anyone else. If you tell me he was well-regarded by friends and family I'll take your word for it, but that's not terribly informative of how to evaluate his public life, is it? I mean, I'm sure Leonid Brezhnev and Augusto Pinochet both had loving families and adoring friends, but we wouldn't evaluate them based on that, would we? The adulation is quite over the top, though. Maybe we idealize the Websters and Clays because of the glow of history, but it seems to me that Ted Kennedy just wasn't in that category.
Personally, I thought the two best presidents of my lifetime were Clinton and Reagan. But that's a subject for another post.
|