Skip to content

A Tale of Two Governers

June 28, 2011

Neoconservatarian Note – This is posted by me because of some reasons preventing Socialistocrat from posting that are quite frankly none of your business. Anyways, ignore my fake animosity and enjoy this article (not written by me) and the awesome alliteration (which is, meta-ly, an awesome alliteration) of the segment title of this italicized part.

 

So I’m in D.C. this summer being an unpaid intern for a super liberal nonprofit
(is anyone surprised) but a lot of my job is blogging. Unfortunately, because I’m
blogging for an organization, I can’t just blindly write my opinion like I do here.
Anyway, I was thrilled on Friday night when the NY State Legislature passed same-
sex marriage. In my opinion this is great, marriage equality is a civil rights issue
and it is embarrassing where we stand as a society on LGBT issues. That said, more
interesting to me was the politics of this whole thing. There was a great article in
the New York Times (a liberal who loves the Times, what are the odds?) about how
Governor Andrew Cuomo muscled the bill through the legislature. This was an
impressive exhibition of political maneuvering and prowess and one that is getting
Cuomo talked about for a potential presidential contender in 2016 (until that sex
scandal happens…you heard in here first). I bring this up because the articles that
mention him as a contender also tend to mention my “great” governor Martin
O’Malley. The thing with O’Malley is I have no substantive policy differences with
him, he’s a good dem and I’m a good partisan. I just always feel like he is an empty
suit. His whole career is made of power climbing and political calculations, and not
the bold calculations like Cuomo just showed. O’Malley is also the catholic governor
of a liberal state that had a chance to pass same-sex marriage legislation. However,
rather than strong arm legislators in the General Assemby, O’Malley took a hands off
approach that, while politically safer, meant the bill failed to get enough support in
the house. I’m not saying he could have passed it, but the governors weight would
have meant a lot and the final shenanigans several delegate pulled to get attention
for their own issues would not have stood if the gov had been breathing down their
necks (can you tell I’m still bitter?).
The point I’m making is read the times piece…

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/
26/nyregion/the-road-to-gay-marriage-in-new-york.html?hp

…and compare these two governors who are very similar on paper but took very
different actions under nearly identical circumstances. God, it feels great to blog my
mindless opinion and not have to be politically correct.

P.S. I keep getting told to be super careful what I post to the internet so I just
want to make a clarification that my nom de plume is meant as a joke in response
to “neoconservatarian.” Not since I’ve had any intellectual thought have I considered
myself anything close to a socialist (except for maybe the Bernie Sanders kind, but
even then, he hates the Fed too much, but I digress…). Just wanted to make it clear.
I am a moderate democrat who goes by the name socialistocrat because I think its
mildly amusing. Just saying…

Advertisements
3 Comments leave one →
  1. June 28, 2011 5:17 pm

    Surprisingly enough, I find myself agreeing with most of your points. While I don’t know much about O’Malley or Cuomo, I do know that the kind of gubernatorial activity you’re endorsing has led to some positive outcomes past a finicky legislature. Anecdotal evidence I can think of my fractured mental database of US politics includes Sarah Palin’s leadership in handling Alaska’s budget before the crisis and the efforts of Governors Christie and Walker in public sector rollbacks in their respective states. I’m also fully aware that the position of governor can fall to corruption just as easily as any other, but it’s refreshing to see good leadership in a country decidedly lacking it.

    Regarding the New York bill in particular, it’s interesting to note that the conservative blogosphere underwent a brief flutter of activity shortly after its passage, discussing the four Republicans who crossed over to pass the bill and the donors who supported them. Comments were made—I forget to what end—regarding the fact that it was passed in a Republican-controlled branch of the legislature in part by Republican votes. Personally, I think they’re just stroking themselves (although I do think the donors were the extra push needed to get the bill passed), but the event provides a very interesting dynamic for Democrats to exploit regarding social issues, namely the libertarian presence in the Republican party. If wealthy libertarian support can be garnered for issues that traditionalism or obstinacy are preventing most Republicans from voting for, the more libertarian-minded among them might feel comfortable crossing the aisle in numbers sufficient to make a difference. This could be a valuable strategy not only to advance social issues (in terms of individual rights, not handouts) but to give more spotlight to the libertarians and get their ideas out in the open.

    P.S. Here’s a sample piece regarding the donors:
    http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/06/you_can_thank_a_few_rich_liber.html

    • socialistocrat permalink
      July 3, 2011 1:26 am

      Look at the two of us agreeing at last. I think embracing (and maybe co-opting) the libertarian support for hands off government in realms such as marriage and drug policy for example is good for both Democrats and Republicans. But it doesn’t seem to be the way the Republican party is trending. While the tea party extolls libertarian values, the actions are more often than not big government conservatism and invasiveness. I had hoped that the libertarian strain in the party would put an end to the anti-choice belief being so strong in the party, alas, no such luck.

  2. aptronym238 permalink
    July 18, 2011 4:48 pm

    If you’re talking about the actual politicians currently in power, then by and large you would be right. Hopefully that’s changing as debate shifts more towards the economy and the debt crisis, an arena where it’s much easier to provide a united front without getting into the business of legislating morality or personal choice. The Tea Party itself has done an excellent job of staying on-topic and continuing to push for fiscal restraint and responsibility. Anything else simply doesn’t matter right now, and the Tea Party’s message is pragmatic enough to draw even Democrats to join its ranks (the number standing at about 10%, from what I’ve read).

    As for abortion, the number I’d like to find is the percentage of Americans who are both pro-life and pro-choice, by the definitions of advocating minimal use of abortion and supporting the right to have an abortion, respectively. This view sums up my stance in a nutshell and can be encapsulated by the slogan/bumper sticker “Choose Life.” It would be interesting to learn how many others share my view.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: