Today I came across an article that I really enjoyed as it was from The Christian Science Monitor concerning the split between both congress and the President with what should be done about the Islamic State.
The article itself started off the way I had expected it too, painting President Obama in a negative light while seeming to favor the Republican platform. However the article wonderfully spins around and points out that, save for some differences, Obama's and other Republican canidates' positions (primarily, more bombings on the Islamic State) are the exact same.
This specific quote that was presented in the article particularly stands out to me, " “A Republican president right now would probably be doing the same things that Obama is doing, but maybe with a little more stronger strategic messaging..." ”
I find it interesting how both sides of the political spectrum seem to have similar positions on things, yet try to appear as if they were totally apart. Like the quote says, the Republican base is looking for more or less the same thing, but with stronger messaging.
The article then goes on to show a divide not between Left and Right parties, but between various political figures on how to handle the Syrian Civil War. They go on to explain the Hilary Clinton is in favor of a no-fly-zone over Syria, while Obama administration has opposed such a policy. And who of course is in favor of Hilary's position? According to the article, many Republicans are. Not that they'd necessarily admit it. I think here what we could be seeing is various groups trying to distance themselves from how the Syrian Civil War has so far been handled. Which in my opinion is a reasonable thing to do, because, once again in my opinion, I do no think the Civil War has been handled very well.
I find it interesting how both sides of the political spectrum seem to have similar positions on things, yet try to appear as if they were totally apart. Like the quote says, the Republican base is looking for more or less the same thing, but with stronger messaging.
The article then goes on to show a divide not between Left and Right parties, but between various political figures on how to handle the Syrian Civil War. They go on to explain the Hilary Clinton is in favor of a no-fly-zone over Syria, while Obama administration has opposed such a policy. And who of course is in favor of Hilary's position? According to the article, many Republicans are. Not that they'd necessarily admit it. I think here what we could be seeing is various groups trying to distance themselves from how the Syrian Civil War has so far been handled. Which in my opinion is a reasonable thing to do, because, once again in my opinion, I do no think the Civil War has been handled very well.
At this point the article says that more and more Democrats are looking for a "forward leaning strategy", and still riding of the anger of what happened in Paris, that is not to unsurprising of an opinion.
The two main issues that still are a part of traditional left/right divide seem to be the question of putting "boots on the ground" and the Syrian Regugee Crisis. Although I wouldn't be surprised if we see more and more Republicans and Democrats begin to pull from positions traditionally held by the other.
No comments:
Post a Comment