Political Blind Taste Test: Let’s Judge the Policies for What They Are, Not Which Party Enacted Them


The political divide is so great these days that even though a strong portion of Americans want both parties to work together to solve our major problems, a majority of the population voted in some of the more radical candidates into office whose sole vocalized goal for the next Congress is to make Barack Obama a one-term president.

Oftentimes I wish we could present items to people without coming from a particular source in general so that people wouldn’t be able to immediately associate those concepts or stats as being instantly biased and therefore immediately pass judgment on them.

I feel like people may surprise themselves by their feelings toward individual policies or concepts or ideas in general when not associated with one party or the other.  Kind of like a political blind taste test. Gasp! I thought I was a Coca-Cola guy Republican but then why do I like Pepsi better most of the components of the health care plan?

Andrew Sullivan imagines…

If a black Republican president had come in, helped turn around the banking and auto industries (at a small profit!), insured millions through the private sector while cutting Medicare, overseen a sharp decline in illegal immigration, ramped up the war in Afghanistan, reinstituted pay-as-you go in the Congress, set up a debt commission to offer hard choices for future debt reduction, and seen private sector job growth outstrip the public sector’s in a slow but dogged recovery, somehow I don’t think that Republican would be regarded as a socialist.

I agree with him.  Nearly everyone has a predisposition to knee-jerk disagree with the opinions and policies of the opposing party, when in fact the policies themselves might not be so incompatible with your own principles.

I’m tired of the partisan crap.  Not the fact that the parties won’t work together — that’s a given considering the agenda of the GOP.  I’m talking about people just standing on one side of the divide and agreeing with everything their party says even if parts of their agenda completely contradicts itself.

For example, Sen. Jim DeMint on cutting spending:

First of all, we just need to return to pre-Obama levels of spending in 2008. We need to cut earmarks so people will quit focusing on taking home the bacon. We need to defund Obamacare. And then we need to look at the entitlement programs, such as– the way Paul Ryan has done in the House with his road map to America’s future. To fix our tax code, to fix Social Security and Medicare, and to cut the cost over time…

And then, later in the same conversation from Meet The Press which you can read in its entirety:

And we don’t need to cut Medicare. Like– like the Democrats did in this big Obamacare bill. We can restore sanity in Washington without cutting any benefits to seniors or veterans.

(My emphasis.)

Just to re-cap: DeMint, a Republican and champion of cutting spending and fiscal conservatism, wants to balance the budget by cutting spending, namely getting rid of the Affordable Care Act, which itself cut spending.  He wants to look at Medicare reform, but then says just afterward that we don’t need to cut Medicare (psst: Medicare is massive government spending, by the way).

He also wants to cut earmarks — actually, that’s the very first thing he mentions that he wants to cut – which account for roughly 1-2 percent of governmental spending.  (Not exactly going to gets us back into the black.) And then there’s DeMint’s ultimate goal of getting us back to pre-Obama governmental spending — which included unfunded tax cuts, unfunded Medicare spending, and two unfunded wars (two of them) — as if that was some holy grail of fiscal austerity.

Not only are Republican voters not crying foul on this phony, they elected him to another term in office!

Only in our current political climate could cutting spending (in the case of the Medicare cuts in the health care reform law) be branded a bad thing to the party that campaigned and won the House on cutting spending.

(H/T The New Republic and The Daily Dish)



  1. I’ve always had a problem with partisan politics, but I’ve just learned to accept it. Once we can get rid of this black or white two party system, we would see that there is a lot of gray area that we agree on.

    Then, elected officials could vote for what they believe in, instead of obeying party peer pressure, and third party or independent candidates would actually have a chance in large elections.

    • I agree. It’s just so polarizing now. People just pick one camp to be in and then just blindly follow.

      It’d be great if there were a party that catered to the fiscally conservative/socially liberal group out there, which I think we’d find would be a huge swath of Americans. There are a lot of people who claim to want fiscal conservatism (as long as we don’t touch Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, defense, of course) who would also be cool with extending freedoms to gays to marry and serve in the military, etc.

      Or if there just were no parties. Just run on what you believe. I wonder if that’d be melee.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: