Sunday, October 3, 2010

Let's face it, both political parties are to blame

It's election year, so obviously all is going to be about one side blaming the other. Naturally, the pundits and the die hard party loyalists will believe the tales. Truth of the matter, though, is that both parties are to blame. As is the American populace. For all I hear of the 'Decade of Greed' that was the 1980s, with culpability placed firmly at the feet of Ronald Reagan, I don't remember Reagan putting a gun to our heads and making us indulge in rampant consumerism. I do remember the growing debt concerns in the 1990s, but they were often smacked down as part of the 'Vast Right Wing Conspiracy', lest Americans decide the economy wasn't good enough to validate jettisoning notions of morality, ethics, truth and character for a philandering and perjuring executive. And of course the economy was already slipping by the end of the 1990s.

That doesn't mean I don't think that GW Bush didn't take over and immediately spend like a drunken sailor, with no clear plan on how to pay for things, and no particular concern for long term strategies. I think Bush was a poor president, as I believe Clinton was a poor president. Both were reelected, giving us sixteen years of poor leadership. But it wasn't just them. I'm sure economists and others could, if they would take their partisan hats off, admit to many factors behind our current economic mess.

I guess what I'm saying is, America would do well to admit both parties were to blame, as most Americans were as well. The greed, consumerism, materialism - all of these were straight from a population founded on narcissism and selfishness, hedonism and materialism. Of course other facts played a part. But on the whole, if we refused to admit to what caused the problems, there's a strong chance we will never learn enough to solve the problems.


  1. Try studying history instead of watcing Faux news sometime

  2. Since one of his interests is History maybe you should look at his profile before you accuse someone of not studying history. And what do you consider "Faux" news. Since he clearly pulls information from a variety of sources. "Fair and Balanced" is something that no news source really is, so I personally try to get my information from several sources as well. Reality is not always the way we want to see it, but it is something we have to live with. And by the way I am sure that Dave G. lived through the times he is referring to in this article so it is from personal experience and not "studying history" that he is speaking. History books have a way of distorting the reality of what reality was to the people who lived through it.


Let me know your thoughts