Originally posted by Flatbar
IMO, a majority of Americans have experienced what total power in the hands of madmen can reap, they won't go down that dark hole again in the near future.
This is exactly the problem. When people say frankly idiotic things like this, it does nothing but halt real discussion, sharing of GOOD ideas, and remove any possibility of politicians being able to do anything for the good of the country. Whether or not you actually believe an entire political party is made up of mentally ill religious warmonger nutjobs, it's partisan crap-flinging at it's worst. This is what has completely polarized the nation's political process, the refusal to even attempt to rationally discuss policy. Every policy discussion gets turned into how the other party is pushing everyone into some dark hole of madness and insanity. The media's role in all this seems to be to ignore the rational discussion in favor of repeated broadcasts of alarmist statements such as the one I've quoted, and the general public laps it up and begs for more.
How about this instead:
Even if he's wrong (and he probably is), a rational examination of the President's statements and actions would show that rather than being clinically insane, he has deliberately chosen a course of action that is entirely consistent with his job (protecting the nation), his global strategy of refusing to wait until we're attacked, and numerous historical lessons learned from previous isolationist administrations. President Bush, far from being a madman, is simply the most recent President who has actually acted on the prevailing liberal international policy school of thought which clearly believes that democratic nations are inherently peaceful, and that it is in the world's best interests if we actively encourage and assist other nations in becoming free democracies. He is not the first to act on the beliefs behind this school of international political thought, and he will not be the last.
Yes, the idea that strong democratic nations should spread democracy and world peace is "liberal" in the same way that it is "liberal" to think it is a good idea to re-distribute wealth by taxing rich people and giving the money to poor people in the form of either cash or various other social services. Both are "liberal" schools of thought, and they clearly have both benefits and drawbacks. Stating that actually following such a policy is the act of a madman obscures the underlying theories by focusing on whether the implementation details and results are as expected. Failing at a task doesn't necessarily mean the task itself is bad. It might, but it also might mean that the specific technique in use isn't right. Being wrong does not equal being insane.
Not only has this been a difficult path to follow, the President's role as the leader of his political party has led to the villification of almost all republicans, regardless of their stance on the President's policy decisions or their positions on other matters of national and international policy.
As you say, it is clear that there will be a backlash, however a more clear statement might involve a discussion on the real implications of a return to democrat political rule, including the very real possibility that the US may return to the hollow international isolationism that resulted in WWI and WWII, economic policies that resulted in the depression, and a general lean towards the arguably socialist economic and social policies that are the bread and butter of the liberal democrat political agenda.
It might also be stated in a rational discussion, that the republican party will likely also return to it's traditionally conservative positions in favor of a smaller, less intrusive government, since President Bush has deviated quite far from traditional conservative republican positions on a number of issues. Further, although the 2008 elections will likely be a reflection on public opinion of the current President, the 2010 elections will probably represent a return to traditional policy politics with each party attempting to present themselves as being FOR various policies instead of merely being united against whatever it is the President happens to be doing.
So how about a real discussion without the extremism?
