To some it will spell hypocrisy, to others, practicality. We can spin any subject or comment or position in our own philosophical direction. It is common at elections, for the right in particular, or those not for a certain candidate, to find a contradiction, large or small, and then proclaim they are all alike. Usually this ends up to be a platform to doubt all one says or stands for, a politically expedient but not necessarily truthful conclusion.
Unfortunately, because we are trapped into a corporate echo chamber of issues, and the big money required to get them into position to overwhelm your opponents attacks or positions, we can expect a certain likeness will tend to dominate the presentation of ideas. Those who appeal to populism should be held accountable for what they do or do not deliver on their promises.
We could argue that election manipulation and terror manipulations kept the Bush administration from being held accountable to many conservatives and their prior proclamations of compassionate conservatism. If anything, “compassionate conservatism” by this administration was a ploy and a concept much more retarded than assumed. They ended up being compassionate to the most wealthy of conservative power interest, and not the assumed truly disadvantaged who were so often left to drown in the bathtub.
However. We can now see how the failings of the populist voice of the Bush administration, no matter how phony it now seems, that failure is generating the demise of the right wing take over machinery of the Republican Party, (and then of America), who attempted to restructure government to exclude contrary ideas, political parties and opinions. If we are still capable of carrying out an honest election, that concept perhaps being an oxymoron, we will likely see the rebound from the damage caused to the the Great American Commons. Unfortunately, due to corporate dominance of so many aspects of society, that rebound to common sense might take long, be consistently attacked, and be made to seem to make little sense at all.
For the Obama fund raising issue being turned into a watershed revelation by interest concerned with existentialising the debate. Here is a link to a fairly balanced perspective, though certainly some will not hold that view.
Unless elections are both equal and fair in their limitations and abilities, having optional public funding is a political gimmick. A pretense that we can have fair elections if we were really interested, but any obvious disequilibrium will cause an opting out. Democracy, however, is dependent on a fair playing field. The way it is now, elections are still at the mercy of money and media access; they control democracy’s fate to a great extent. What you hear about who and for what reason, has become a business decision. Now how fair, and to what philosophical perspective is that bias likely to favor?
Apr 22, 2007 … Although Obama took no money from Exelon’s Washington lobbyists, he accepted …. from corporate donors should be required to wear a jacket …