Esta_PG
American
Did you enjoy living as a guinea pig during the Bush experiments?
Every change in policy and every change in law is a leap of faith, chum.
Which experiments would those be? I'm not a homeowner (because I had difficulty understanding why on earth three banks were telling me I was approved when clearly I shouldn't have been) and I am a firm supporter of No Child Left Behind. Generally speaking, Bush's domestic policy (i.e. what affects me on a daily basis) has been incredibly to my liking. Would I prefer greater environmental advocacy? Sure. Gay rights? Of course. Stem-cell research? In some cases, yes. But the issues that have impacted me on a daily basis (as a teacher and as a tax-payer) have been smooth sailing and extremely positive.
Foreign policy matters have not impacted my ability to make a living. I didn't approve of going into Iraq on false pretenses (which at this point is fairly safe to say) but it isn't changing my ability to bicycle to the grocery store or work or write or afford food, etc.
Foreign policy was an experiment, partially of necessity and partially of stupidity, and one that has been pretty detrimental to America, but all the things I listed in my quotation are domestic matters, and domestic policy wasn't an experiment under Bush. It was a treatment plan that helped a great number of working class Americans improve their quality of life. And it's a serious mistake to blame the sub-prime mortgage crisis and financial collapse in America on "experimentation". Years of bad banking strategy overlooked because things were going alright? Sure. But it's naive to think any individual bears responsibility for all our economic woes for thinking "Hey! Here's an idea! Let's see how it works in the largest sociology laboratory in the country."
And I disagree. It isn't a leap of faith to trust that a president with serious experience on economic policy isn't going to screw things up even worse. That's why I'm nervous about Barack Obama. I have little faith in any politician's ability to address all our problems, but a highly inexperienced partisan politician (NOT executive) who has appointed (or suggested) a great many people to economic positions who are in many ways partially responsible for our lowly state at the moment receives even less faith than normal. Dealing with "housing, unemployment, healthcare [sic.],...deficit, economy problems" is a dangerous job for a theorist. It's a job for somebody practical, and there is a dearth of practicality in the President Elect's 'team'.
On an unrelated note: 'team'??? What is this, middle school basketball? You're going to be running the country in two months; a little gravitas would be appreciated.