I just thought about this the other day and found it to be quite interesting. Many in the media like to utilize hyperbole to exaggerate a point and draw attention to both it and themselves. Since Obama has been in office, many pundits on both sides of the aisle have been prone to proclaiming that President Obama is either too in-line with former President George W. Bush's terror policies or his policies are too drastically different from the former president's. Of course, the answer lies somewhere in the middle of the two extremes. While I think there have been some slight differences with this administration's terror policies than the previous one, it's been disappointingly too similar for many self-described liberals such as myself.
Taking all of that into consideration, though, why is it that many Republicans were in favor of the policies when George W. Bush was in office and not now, and why is it that many Democrats weren't supportive of then President Bush's policies, but are now supportive of them under President Obama? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, from just a policy standpoint, for a person to disagree with it under one president but agree with it under another.
I think the biggest factor in this is trust. For whatever reason, Republicans tended to trust George W. Bush in the Oval Office and even if the policies are similar, they don't trust Barack Obama. On the flip-side, Democrats trust Obama with these similar policies when they didn't trust Bush.
I can understand that reasoning to an extent. If my father had a couple drinks in him and was driving, I'd instantly trust him more than I would a stranger with a similar quantity of alcohol consumption. This wouldn't be wise on my part. It'd just be a certain blind trust I have with family and friends, and perhaps that's how things are to many when it comes to party affiliation. However, if I were to stand back and think about things a bit further, I could see that whether my father or a complete stranger was driving, they shouldn't with the amount of drinking they did, and I shouldn't trust either of them under those conditions. Also, while I may like Barack Obama more as a president than George W. Bush, when I stand back a bit to garner some perspective, I can see that it ultimately doesn't make a whole lot of sense for me to disagree so strongly with President Bush's signing and enacting the U.S. Patriot Act, and to not be displeased with President Obama compromising on the bill in order to get it extended. Granted, I have been outspoken against both presidents on that very issue from the start, yet have noticed that many on both sides of the aisle tend to illustrate contradictory behavior on such matters.
Taking all of that into consideration, though, why is it that many Republicans were in favor of the policies when George W. Bush was in office and not now, and why is it that many Democrats weren't supportive of then President Bush's policies, but are now supportive of them under President Obama? It doesn't make a whole lot of sense, from just a policy standpoint, for a person to disagree with it under one president but agree with it under another.
I think the biggest factor in this is trust. For whatever reason, Republicans tended to trust George W. Bush in the Oval Office and even if the policies are similar, they don't trust Barack Obama. On the flip-side, Democrats trust Obama with these similar policies when they didn't trust Bush.
I can understand that reasoning to an extent. If my father had a couple drinks in him and was driving, I'd instantly trust him more than I would a stranger with a similar quantity of alcohol consumption. This wouldn't be wise on my part. It'd just be a certain blind trust I have with family and friends, and perhaps that's how things are to many when it comes to party affiliation. However, if I were to stand back and think about things a bit further, I could see that whether my father or a complete stranger was driving, they shouldn't with the amount of drinking they did, and I shouldn't trust either of them under those conditions. Also, while I may like Barack Obama more as a president than George W. Bush, when I stand back a bit to garner some perspective, I can see that it ultimately doesn't make a whole lot of sense for me to disagree so strongly with President Bush's signing and enacting the U.S. Patriot Act, and to not be displeased with President Obama compromising on the bill in order to get it extended. Granted, I have been outspoken against both presidents on that very issue from the start, yet have noticed that many on both sides of the aisle tend to illustrate contradictory behavior on such matters.
Comments
Post a Comment