There’s Something to be Said for Consistency, but…

There’s Something to be Said for Consistency, but….

It’s not the hypocrisy of (anti/pro) war (Republican/Democratic) party hacks that I mind. For at least that means they are on the right side 50% of the time, which is better than being on the wrong side 100% of the time. No, what I hate is when this hypocrisy goes unnoticed, unexposed, and unchallenged. During Obama’s first term, the hypocrisy was that of the suddenly pro-war Democrats. And for his second term, it is that of the suddenly anti-war Republicans. How hard is it to simply have a standard? One that does not depend on the context of what letter happens to be next to the name of the puppet pretending to wield power for a period of 4 to 8 years. I am personally grateful for the amount of people on both sides of the aisle who don’t think it necessary or just to waltz (whether to bombard or to occupy) into Syria on a moment’s notice. But watch most of these anti-anything-Obama-does Republicans turn on a dime when it’s Iran’s turn to face our wrath. Then watch the Democrats squirm as they try to figure out their own position.

What are your thoughts? Would it be better if people just stuck to their position, even if it was awful, or if they waffled and on occasion did something right? Both in general and as it relates to the two parties and military intervention.


4 thoughts on “There’s Something to be Said for Consistency, but…

  1. I think your asking a lot of the demagogues in Washington to actually have and hold a coherent, principled view. The nature of the democratic political process from their mindset is to do anything it takes to be reelected. That’s why their views will continue to turn on a dime when it suits the situation and the popularity polls. I am obviously painting with a broad brush, but that is the root of the problem I believe. The system rewards the silver-tongued, not those who hold fast to principles even when it is unpopular.
    So to answer your question, I don’t think that, for the most part, the politicians views on the intervention have to do with their votes. The Republicans are partly getting behind the popularity of the anti war leanings of Rand Paul, seeing the popularity there, and partly they want to be anti Obama.
    The democrats are just toeing the party line.
    The end result is that the policies of each party manifest themselves in the same way.

    • Yes, the politicians are simply doing what they do. Responding to incentives. But I was also referring to pundits and activists and voters. Everyday people supposedly as far away from power’s corrupting influence as you or I and yet who still can’t seem to abide by a coherent set of principles.

  2. I’d rather have a representative who had consistent views, whether or not I liked their views or not. I’d much rather have to deal with awful views than flip flopping. For example, someone like Rick Santorum. I respect him a lot more than someone like Romney because even though I disagree with him often, at least I know where he stands and what to expect from him. People who ride the fence or can’t make up their mind are unpredictable and annoy me.

Any thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s