Sour Americans hungry for change as election approaches

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

Sour Americans hungry for change as election approaches
Steven Thomma | McClatchy Newspapers
last updated: September 02, 2007

DES MOINES, Iowa ?- A year before they choose a new government for the post-Bush era, Americans are desperate to change the country's course.

According to opinion polls and interviews with political experts and voters, the U.S. population is more liberal than at any time in a generation, hungering to end the Iraq war, turn inward and use the federal government to solve problems at home.

Still, polling indicates, some want to turn farther right, demanding that the country fence off its Southern border, expel illegal immigrants and rein in a federal government grown fat under a Republican government they now dismiss as incompetent.

The surveys point to one thing almost all Americans tend to agree on: They're deeply unhappy with the way things are going in the United States and eager to move on. There's virtually no appetite to extend the Bush era, as there was at the end of Ronald Reagan's presidency in 1988 or Bill Clinton's in 2000.

Just 1 in 5 Americans think the country is going in the right direction, the worst outlook since the Reagan-Bush era ended in 1992.

Less than one-third of Americans like the way the current President Bush is handling his job, among the lowest ratings in half a century. The people had similarly dismal opinions just before they ended the Jimmy Carter era in 1980, the Kennedy-Johnson years in 1968 and the Roosevelt-Truman era in 1952.

The ranks of people who want the government to help the poor have risen sharply since the early 1990s ?- dramatically among independents, but even among Republicans.

The public mood is evident in Iowa, the heartland state that votes first for major-party presidential nominees and a pivotal swing state in the last two presidential elections.

"People are very unhappy, very unsettled,'' said Megan Phillips, a teacher from Centerville, a town of about 6,000 in southern Iowa.

Phillips once considered herself a proud Republican. Small-town. Anti-abortion. Pro-gun.

But she soured on Bush's landmark education overhaul, the No Child Left Behind Act. And she turned against the war ?- and Bush ?- with a passion that underscores how deeply the national unity that rose up after 9-11 has given way to cynicism.

"People don't trust anything coming out of Washington,'' she said. "When Bush says we're winning the war in Iraq, I say, 'Oh really?' The weapons of mass destruction weren't there. Why are we still there? We want our people to come home. There are so many things at home that need to be taken care of."

Her husband, Matt, works two jobs, one in a power plant in town, the other raising cattle on their farm. He's also a Republican, but is starting to question the war and wonder whether the country should turn its focus homeward.

"Maybe we shouldn't be there. Maybe we should get out,'' he said. "I would never vote for a Democrat, and certainly not for Hillary Clinton. ... But ?- and I hate to say it ?- but maybe a Democrat is more apt to get things done at home.''

As the cost of the war continues to rise, that's one big common refrain: Stop spending money in Iraq, and spend it at home. It's feeding a resurgence of support for liberal notions of using the federal government in ways that had been in decline for more than a decade.

"We need to fix things,'' said Mary Howell, an independent from the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale. "We need to fix health care. We can spend billions in Iraq. But we have people at home who need help.''

Even with a healthy economy ?- a new census report this week showed the poverty rate declining for the first time this decade ?- a lot of people feel squeezed by gas prices, health-care costs and college tuition.

That doesn't drive everyone to seek help from Washington, but most want something different.

"Things are a mess,'' said George Wagner, an auto mechanic from Homestead, west of Iowa City. "Manufacturing jobs are disappearing. Big business is running Washington. The little guy gets left behind."

Wagner, a libertarian, also wants the country to look homeward.

"We're not the policeman of the world. We should make friends with the people overseas we can do business with, secure the borders and take care of the people at home. Take care of the infrastructure. Older folks, medical stuff. If we stop spending so much overseas, we could give that money to churches to take care of people."

Of course, there are those who feel good about the economy, who don't want to return to spending federal tax dollars to help the needy, who support the war.

"Things are in pretty good shape," said Jim Granzow, a farmer and a Republican from Hubbard, Iowa.

Even among most Republicans, however, there's disappointment in Bush and a restlessness for change. Stop illegal immigration. Curb runaway federal spending. Win in Iraq.

Bill Hileman, a furniture salesman from Honey Creek, a small town near the Nebraska border, is a Republican who wouldn't want a third term for Bush.

"I'd look for another Republican,'' Hileman said.

His main complaint? He thinks Bush let illegal immigration run amok. "There are too many illegals, even here. It's hurting our economy and draining our resources."

Chad Kluver, a pharmaceutical sales rep from the Des Moines suburb of Ankeny, voted for Bush but now wants someone who'll win the Iraq war.

"I'm more jaded than anything else," he said. "We were misled. But it would be ridiculous to back out now. We need to finish what we started. If we back out now, it was all in vain. ... I want a candidate who can get it done as soon as possible and get the troops home."

In a recent poll, 65 percent of Iowa Republicans said it was important to find a 2008 presidential candidate in the conservative mold of Reagan. Asked whether Bush fit that role, 8 percent said yes and 78 percent said no.

The survey also found that 51 percent of Iowa Republicans want to withdraw U.S. troops from Iraq within six months.

"It's a sour mood," said David Johnson, a former aide to Kansas Republican Bob Dole's 1996 presidential campaign. His public relations firm, Strategic Vision, conducted the poll for corporate clients.

"There's a feeling that things are not going well. There are concerns about the economy, concerns about Iraq. ... They don't want a third term for Bush, not even Republicans. Among Democrats, I've never seen anything like it. And independents just want to be done with him."

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 288 • Replies: 5

No top replies

TEll me,
What "problems" can the federal govt solve here in the US?

Have they solved poverty yet?
Have they solved the drug problem yet?
Have they solved the crime problem yet?
Have they solved the problem with racism yet?

Exactly what problems has the fed govt solved or totally eliminated here at home, and why do you imagine they can?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

TEll me,
What "problems" can the federal govt solve here in the US?

Have they solved poverty yet?
Have they solved the drug problem yet?
Have they solved the crime problem yet?
Have they solved the problem with racism yet?

Exactly what problems has the fed govt solved or totally eliminated here at home, and why do you imagine they can?

just wait until you lose your job to the mexican trucking industry and see how fast you demand washington take action.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
TEll me,
What "problems" can the federal govt solve here in the US?

Have they solved poverty yet?
Have they solved the drug problem yet?
Have they solved the crime problem yet?
Have they solved the problem with racism yet?

Exactly what problems has the fed govt solved or totally eliminated here at home, and why do you imagine they can?

just wait until you lose your job to the mexican trucking industry and see how fast you demand washington take action.

I wont lose my job to the Mexican trucking industry, for several reasons.

First off, I drive locally only.
The Mexican trucking industry cant run locally in the US.

Second, even if I was still running over the road,my job would be safe from the Mexican trucking industry.
Mexican drivers are under the same restrictions as Canadian drivers.

They will be able to bring freight from Mexico into the US,and they can take freight from the US to Mexico.
They cannot haul freight from one point inside the US to another point inside the US.

But you didnt answer my original questions.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

TEll me,
What "problems" can the federal govt solve here in the US?

Have they solved poverty yet?
Have they solved the drug problem yet?
Have they solved the crime problem yet?
Have they solved the problem with racism yet?

Exactly what problems has the fed govt solved or totally eliminated here at home, and why do you imagine they can?

But you didnt answer my original questions.

Oh, looky a trick question!

Yours is typical "libertarian speak" where such political philosophy disregards objective reality and where most libertarians look at government as a destroyer of liberty. However, the fact is that government is essential to create liberty.

But, in reply to your questions, no to each, the US Federal Government hasn't, "solved" the social problems listed. But likely that isn't enough for you. You want them solved, i.e., wiped out?

Is that actually your contention? That government should "solve" social problems? How liberal an outlook.

I do too, but I recognize that it will take a long time to do so, that's called being realistic. You? Typically, you want fast-food, adolescent, instant gratification. But, has any government on Earth ever "solved" poverty, crime, and racial problems?

No, none have in the history of humanity. So your question was really meaningless other than to illustrate your true attitude towards collective action, i.e., government itself.

So what are you actually complaining about is how the United States government has been unable to do what no government in human history has been able to do?

Hello, MacFly? Am I answering an intelligent man here?

So, since it hasn't done so, it's a bad government in your eyes or are all its programs to solve social problems useless? Is that your claim?

Government actions, even of the United States certainly have ameliorated the aforementioned social problems and in doing so reduced the pain and suffering of their citizens.

Classical political thought says that the purpose of government is to do justice for its citizens. Part of this obligation is to foster conditions in which wealth is produced. The obligation is not met by substituting the wealth-producer for the government. But that is the intellectual foundation of the Right-Wing Libertarian/Conservative today.

In order to have a properly functioning democratic government you must believe in the inherent underpinnings of liberty and justice and to work toward the greater goal of equal and even-handed application of the law.

Individuals don't prosper all by themselves, and the myth of American "rugged individualism" is just that, a myth. They owe their success to the other people that help them, and to the government that provides them with opportunities, reduces risks, and provides public goods.

This is not socialism; it is called self-governing by the people, i.e., collective democracy.

The thing which both the GOP and the Democrats agree on in part, and at times in full measure is that they concur with the classical description of what should be the relationship between private enterprise and government, derived more from John Locke and Adam Smith than Thomas Hobbes, or even the gods of libertarianism such as Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick, and even F.A Huyek, viz., that the normal and proper aim of the corporate community is to make money for its managers and for the owners of business and the better if its members also contribute to the general prosperity, and that the very purpose of government is to do justice for its citizens.

On most issues, Republicans want the market to rule, while Democrats think the market should be tempered -- by regulation, by lawsuit and by social insurance and modest economic redistribution.

Fortunately, we are a democracy, and the voters usually rebel against pure market outcomes when they think such outcomes are shortchanging their interests or things they value

Below is a list of the things that both political parties tend to agree with in general, if not in the particulars, and which most average citizens and even those bogeymen of media control also tend to think are important functions of government. These are not socialist, except to those out there where the buses (or your delivery trucks) don't run.

Infrastructure, viz., roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, seaports.
Public safety and defense, viz., police, fire depts. armed forces.
Courts
Education.
Protection from abuses of the market.
Environmental regulation.
Welfare
Social Security.
Economic stabilization:
National health.
Disaster recovery.

I reject comments that a belief in government having a roll in these things is a feature of socialist or leftist thought.

The claim by some conservatives of interpreting all state action as mere "interference," as if a popularly elected government was merely a protections racket, is intellectually fraudulent. I see from such people little rational discussion on where to draw the lines between government and everything else that arises from a society and its fundamental belief systems.

The term "limited government" is a baseless canard, as if anyone defends "unlimited government," and as repugnant is the use of the term "government" that does not recognize differences between the popular will of the people via democracy and other less legitimate forms of government.

Thus, by refusing to see the distinction or blatantly blurring it as conservatives often do it renders democracy null and void and legitimizes a mindset that rejects social contracts between people for the common benefit.

What surely follows is the law of the jungle.

I can only assume that is the plan of most of the Right-Wingers who believe that they are the strong and will rule the jungle. It is not in any sense a political philosophy, rather one of a method of achieving power.

0 Replies

kuvasz wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
TEll me,
What "problems" can the federal govt solve here in the US?

Have they solved poverty yet?
Have they solved the drug problem yet?
Have they solved the crime problem yet?
Have they solved the problem with racism yet?

Exactly what problems has the fed govt solved or totally eliminated here at home, and why do you imagine they can?

But you didnt answer my original questions.

Oh, looky a trick question!

Yours is typical "libertarian speak" where such political philosophy disregards objective reality and where most libertarians look at government as a destroyer of liberty. However, the fact is that government is essential to create liberty.

But, in reply to your questions, no to each, the US Federal Government hasn't, "solved" the social problems listed. But likely that isn't enough for you. You want them solved, i.e., wiped out?

Is that actually your contention? That government should "solve" social problems? How liberal an outlook.

I do too, but I recognize that it will take a long time to do so, that's called being realistic. You? Typically, you want fast-food, adolescent, instant gratification. But, has any government on Earth ever "solved" poverty, crime, and racial problems?

No, none have in the history of humanity. So your question was really meaningless other than to illustrate your true attitude towards collective action, i.e., government itself.

So what are you actually complaining about is how the United States government has been unable to do what no government in human history has been able to do?

Hello, MacFly? Am I answering an intelligent man here?

So, since it hasn't done so, it's a bad government in your eyes or are all its programs to solve social problems useless? Is that your claim?

Government actions, even of the United States certainly have ameliorated the aforementioned social problems and in doing so reduced the pain and suffering of their citizens.

Classical political thought says that the purpose of government is to do justice for its citizens. Part of this obligation is to foster conditions in which wealth is produced. The obligation is not met by substituting the wealth-producer for the government. But that is the intellectual foundation of the Right-Wing Libertarian/Conservative today.

In order to have a properly functioning democratic government you must believe in the inherent underpinnings of liberty and justice and to work toward the greater goal of equal and even-handed application of the law.

Individuals don't prosper all by themselves, and the myth of American "rugged individualism" is just that, a myth. They owe their success to the other people that help them, and to the government that provides them with opportunities, reduces risks, and provides public goods.

This is not socialism; it is called self-governing by the people, i.e., collective democracy.

The thing which both the GOP and the Democrats agree on in part, and at times in full measure is that they concur with the classical description of what should be the relationship between private enterprise and government, derived more from John Locke and Adam Smith than Thomas Hobbes, or even the gods of libertarianism such as Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick, and even F.A Huyek, viz., that the normal and proper aim of the corporate community is to make money for its managers and for the owners of business and the better if its members also contribute to the general prosperity, and that the very purpose of government is to do justice for its citizens.

On most issues, Republicans want the market to rule, while Democrats think the market should be tempered -- by regulation, by lawsuit and by social insurance and modest economic redistribution.

Fortunately, we are a democracy, and the voters usually rebel against pure market outcomes when they think such outcomes are shortchanging their interests or things they value

Below is a list of the things that both political parties tend to agree with in general, if not in the particulars, and which most average citizens and even those bogeymen of media control also tend to think are important functions of government. These are not socialist, except to those out there where the buses (or your delivery trucks) don't run.

Infrastructure, viz., roads, bridges, tunnels, airports, seaports.
Public safety and defense, viz., police, fire depts. armed forces.
Courts
Education.
Protection from abuses of the market.
Environmental regulation.
Welfare
Social Security.
Economic stabilization:
National health.
Disaster recovery.

I reject comments that a belief in government having a roll in these things is a feature of socialist or leftist thought.

The claim by some conservatives of interpreting all state action as mere "interference," as if a popularly elected government was merely a protections racket, is intellectually fraudulent. I see from such people little rational discussion on where to draw the lines between government and everything else that arises from a society and its fundamental belief systems.

The term "limited government" is a baseless canard, as if anyone defends "unlimited government," and as repugnant is the use of the term "government" that does not recognize differences between the popular will of the people via democracy and other less legitimate forms of government.

Thus, by refusing to see the distinction or blatantly blurring it as conservatives often do it renders democracy null and void and legitimizes a mindset that rejects social contracts between people for the common benefit.

What surely follows is the law of the jungle.

I can only assume that is the plan of most of the Right-Wingers who believe that they are the strong and will rule the jungle. It is not in any sense a political philosophy, rather one of a method of achieving power.

You are reading into what I wrote.

The second paragraph of the article you posted states this...

Quote:

According to opinion polls and interviews with political experts and voters, the U.S. population is more liberal than at any time in a generation, hungering to end the Iraq war, turn inward and use the federal government to solve problems at home.

So,I asked what problems have the federal govt already solved?
If people want the govt to solve problems,then they must have a history of doing that.
Where is that history?

I listed a few things that need solving,and asked what govt has done to solve those problems.

Do I think those problems will ever be solved?
Yes,but not in yours or my lifetimes.

0 Replies

Sour Americans hungry for change as election approaches

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know