Power Rotates. That’s Good.


Power Rotates. That’s Good.

My take on Charles Krauthammer’s latest. His column was published in the Washington Post.

Summary: Once parties rotate from opposition to governing, their sense of responsibility changes. They must face realities.

Quote:

In this case, the antiwar party has followed the Bush endgame to a T in Iraq and has doubled down in Afghanistan. And there is no general restiveness (at least over this).

My Views: Macaulay in his History of England talks about this. When a party gains power, its perspective changes. Realities that it had previously dismissed, now have to be faced. Assumptions that some things could be dealt with in some kind of dismissive manner, now have to be faced realistically. For example, they cannot just make a speech about making nice and expect adversaries to reciprocate. When the adversaries do not (think Iran), the guys new to power must face facts.

Then there’s the stigma of failure. Failure not to just pass bills but failure for one’s own policies to achieve the expected results. In short, the party that previously opposed now must face the areas where they were wrong.

This was true for Jefferson when he ousted the Federalists; it is true for Obama today. Tomorrow, it will be true for the Republicans, too.


Charles Krauthammer is a more establishment columnist. He came to punditry by way of psychiatry (at Massachusetts General Hospital) via the New Republic Magazine. He appears on TV where you never see his wheelchair. Here’s his Wiki bio.

He wrote a book which is pictured at the right. I am drawn by the substance and the thinking than any particular writing flair.


Category:

RSS feed

3 Comments Leave a comment

I read the column

Right Reason (Diary) Saturday, March 13th at 10:56AM EST (link)

It had good parts, but it was a little “inside the Beltway” for me. His assertion that the party out of power opposes because “that’s what they do”, to me, is not necessarily a positive. The Democrats opposed Bush at almost every turn in the war on terror, not because of principle, though there were the true believers in the group, but because he was a Republican and they thought they could get some political mileage out of it. Subsequently, they make almost no noise regarding Obama’s use of the same policies, not because they have sobered to the realities of holding power, but because Obama is one of their own. Krauthammer takes this as a proper result of our two party system. I think, at least, this is another example of the drawbacks to an entrenched party system, at worst, it’s borderline treason.

Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.

- Winston Churchill

That's why career politicians have to go. America hangs in the balance. nt

Common_Cents (Diary) Saturday, March 13th at 11:11AM EST (link)

Obama=Golfer in Chief, Leading from, behind, the Back Nine.
Leaders don’t create movements. Movements create leaders. Get involved. Your future depends on it.
Govt “invests” YOUR tax money for POLITICAL return rather than economic return.

 
 

History of this

Jack Le Moine (Diary) Sunday, March 14th at 1:44AM EST (link)

Thanks for the comments. I was just thinking of other periods in American history. For example, Jefferson got pretty wierd in his years out of power, too.

I agree that Obama and the Democrats were wildly irresponsible during their years out of power and that still affects them and the trouble they’re in today.

Jack Le Moine
http://poljournal.blogspot.com/