| May 2012 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | ||
| 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 |
| 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 |
| 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | ||
In early November, I posted:
Conservatives are supposed to be the stick-in-the-muds, the ones who just want to keep everything the way it is; Liberals are supposed to be the ones who want to change with the times.
Id just like to point out, that somewhere along the way, our two leading political parties have traded places in this regard.
They call themselves the party for change, but the only change Liberals seek is to vote themselves into office. Other than that, they offer few strategies for improving the country. Theyre the party of wanting to stop everything. Theyre the anti partyagainst the war on terrorists; against missile defense; against the making of profits by business. What are they for?
Today Joe Klein makes a similar point in Time Magazine:
The day after the President’s speech, the party’s congressional leaders gathered at the Franklin D. Roosevelt memorial to carp. How 70 years ago! “Progressive” Dems – and I use the term advisedly, since liberals seem more interested in preserving the past than in discovering the future – are right to admire Roosevelt. But the Roosevelt they worship is a bronze sculpture, frozen in time. The real F.D.R. was a gutsy innovator. The current Democrats resemble nothing so much as the Republicans during the 25 years after Roosevelt’s deathnegative, defensive, intellectually feeble, a permanent minority. There are reasons to oppose this President – arrogance abroad, crony capitalism at home – but undifferentiated opposition is obtuse and most likely counterproductive.
(via WizBang. )
