Politics, Actually

I'm wondering this morning about politics, Bush. About our Arnold. Is his declining popularity an indication that people--Californians, at least--are slowly coming to realize that there's more to the state's much-maligned government than simply cutting taxes and taking easy pot shots at "special interests"? Nurses, teachers, firemen… these are now the dreaded enemies of the people, whose promised demise brought Schwarzenegger to the Governor's office, not too long ago? Californians eager to avoid tax increases and cut government spending are now at last discovering that it may be hard to find the "fat" to cut out of the budget, and that some of the lean is essential not only to their declining educational system, but also to their basic health and safety.

How much longer, then, before Americans begin to discover this same hard truth at the national level? How much longer before more of us begin to recognize your tax cuts and your social security schemes for what they are--an attempt to strangle government out of business? And your cuts in Medicare and social services? How much disruption of the country's social structure will we need to watch before we begin to grasp the fact that good government is essential to manage the interests we share--in education, health, security, the administration of justice, the maintenance of a viable infrastructure, and so on? And don't go ranting on to me about "waste". I won't deny it's there, but there's not enough of it to blame for this whole budgetary mess.

Talking of politics, I've been keeping an eye on the British general election from a distance, mostly through snatches of reports on BBC-TV. I can't help but notice that there are assumptions about the value of good government that all parties share, and that the tone of the debate--perhaps for that reason--is less acrimonious than over here. The divisions are not between black and white (or rather, maybe, red and blue) so much as between various shades of gray. There may be accusations that the other man is misguided, or even that he lied, but I don't hear suggestions that he's evil. I don’t hear character assassination along the lines of the infamous Swift Boat Veterans. It all seems very innocent, in that regard. Very polite. I realize there are those who will scoff at the very idea of politeness in political debate, but regard for the other man, along with the ability to actually listen to what he says, do open up the possibility for thoughtful dialogue. American politics seems to have devolved to the level of mindless promotion of one's own agenda, regardless of rationality or good sense.

Anyway, I hope Blair wins, despite his having enlisted the British in your war. I do think that his decision was made in some good faith, and I'm afraid I can't say the same, Bush, for you. I think your mind was made up long before the evidence was invented to support your position. You were deluded by what you demanded to be given by way of intelligence. Blair, as I see it--though misguided by wrong information--was a genuine believer in the moral necessity of war. From the start, there was clearly no political gain for him. The same cannot be said for you.

Ah, well, this may all be convoluted argument to support what is basically a gut feeling: I like the guy. I don't like that he allowed himself to be dragged into your war, but he inspires my instinctive trust. (Did you see the movie, "Love Actually," by the way? With Hugh Grant playing a good hearted Tony Blair PM type, to Billy Bob Thornton's bully American President? No reference to actual living persons, I'm sure!) So here's rooting for Tony, Bush. In spite of everything.