We all have our laundry list of complaints and criticisms about the Bush Administration and its policies--both domestic and foreign. Being a consummate liberal, I also feel that much of the criticism leveled against this administration is not entirely undeserving. I also concede that there is a strong element of bias in my view, so much so that anytime a republican opens his mouth these days; I am constantly looking for opportunities to criticize them rather than listen to them.
For the past few months, I have been thinking about the core underlying reasons and characteristics of this administration that has made it extremely difficult for people to engage in any form of civil, honest debate about issues facing our nation. Why has the atmosphere in our capital and the rest of the country, become so intensely partisan?
Corruption, and Cronyism aside, I feel that one major reason for such rancor is the extremely insular nature of this administration when it comes to designing, implementing and defending its domestic and international policies. Take for example the recent onslaught of criticism by Cheney against liberals questioning whether this administration deliberately misled the country into war, has been in front of a very partisan crowd. The town-hall meetings that this administration has used to announce and/or defend its policies have all been extremely partisan in nature. There is no dissenting opinion. Cheney regularly calls Rush Limbaugh radio show, or the key actors of this administration only appear on Fox News or the Rush Limbaugh Show.
The question then is can this nation EVER afford an administration that only people belonging a particular base, philosophy or cabal have access to? Don't get me wrong...I am not looking for a utopian solution here. I understand the need to frame and defend policies that shore up your base. And, I also understand, as John McCain so succinctly stated that "Elections have Consequences". That is basic politics and I have no complaints.
But can we at least have a semblance of a balance. Is it too much to ask for town hall meetings to be more inclusive rather than insular? Ideally 60-40. Even 80-20 would do. But 100-0...should be unacceptable. Is it too much to ask the Vice President to defend his pre-war positions in a neutral setting with an opposing view-point?
For you history buffs, has there ever been an administration in the history of this country that has been more insular than this administration? And, to all those committed to making America a free and open society, are there any laws that can be passed to make it mandatory for the executive branch to be more accessible to people of all walks of life. Shouldn't leaders be mandated to hold 12 press conferences and 6 debates a year on the state of the nation? Shouldn't that be a fundamental requirement of any free and fair democracy?