Isn't the biggest issue here the difference between the rather arrogant projection and actual jobs? Would the backlash be as big if the boasting hadn't created a yardstick? Attaching a quantifiable number to job growth is political suicide. But I'm not so naive as to believe a president can single-handedly turn around a job outlook. The factors contributing to the job erosion are complex, and certainly aren't all White House strategy or policy-dictated. Yet in a world where perception is everything, the philosophy from the conservative base in power -- tax reduction imbalanced toward top earners, corporation benefitting deregulation, no movement on health care insurance crises -- creates the impression of indifference toward the "little people."
These numbers came out on the day of Martha's verdict. Some juror was particulary interested in "sending a message" re Martha's arrogance. Looking at all the news as part of a bigger picture ... I wonder if there's been a sea change. No matter what Bush does, he is perceived to be part of an elitest mindset that's at best oblivious to the hardships of the struggling lower middle class. As a Democrat who wants him gone, I'm not defending this man -- but from a sociological perspective, I think the backlash is bigger than the divisive politics. The culture is losing its patience with the chasm between have and have nots (don't have stats available, but I read recently that the diff is bigger than ever). That chasm isn't easily fixed by either party, but in a world where perception rules, the "compassion" seems too lacking among this band of conservatives. And when you add Greenspan's remarks about SS -- only a week ago -- though only one opinion, there's a scary perception that this flavor of compassion may very well run out all together in the future.
"I'm a comedian, but in my spare time, things bother me." Garry Shandling
Updated On: 3/6/04 at 12:34 PM
.jpg?format=auto&width=365)
