Im finally listening to the Drinking Liberally podcasts. The first one has me thinking about two things:

Republicans and Democrats

It strikes me that the two parties differ in two ways, which have to do with the members of each party.

Both parties have ideological groups, often called "wings". Democrats have the Latte Liberals, the Utopians who see Nirvana in freedom, the pot-smoking hippies that push for the "left" without mercy. Similarly, the Republicans have the Religious Right, the abortion-clinic warriors, the Utopians who see Nirvana in rules from Heaven that push for the "right" without mercy. Both parties seem to struggle with these groups because they are too extreme for the center of the party, the majority of voters.

We hear a lot about these ideological groups but the more interesting difference between the parties is one I never hear about in any meaningful way. If you follow the money, the two parties differ in how their members support themselves and their families and our source of money completely shapes our world view.

Democrats are the workers. They work for a boss who pays them a salary. They depend on jobs from a boss and they live paycheck to paycheck. They are used to working hard, to good times and bad luck. They give money to charity and dont mind paying their fair share. They may have savings but they dont have experience or training with capital or investing.

Republicans are the bosses. They have the capital and they own the businesses. They put their own money at risk to provide the jobs companies offer. They obsess about things like the tax rates and the long-term impact of inflation on their assets.

We often describe these two groups as the rich and the poor (or working poor), which may be true but my MBA experience has made me aware of just how different these two groups see the world. Their mechanism of survival and the way things operate are so totally different, it is little wonder there is conflict. Stocks go up when companies fire people -- The two systems are just so separate and there is so little understanding of each side by the other.

the definition of failure

The guests started to talk about failure and what a collosal failure the Bush administration is. I have said the same thing but hearing others say it got me to thinking. With Clinton, we debated the definition of 'is' and with Bush I think we need to discuss the definition of failure.

If my goal is get straight A's and I get D's and F's, then I am a failure. If my goal is to party and drink and piss off my father, then D's and F's makes me a success. Failure totally depends on one's goals.

When it comes to the President, we can all see his results but what we cannot see are his goals. His administration tells us things but do they really mean any of it? Is Bush really a failure or was his agenda just so different from mine to begin with, I misjudge him?

The price of gas is reaching $3/gal again. Are the oil companies hurting? Nope - they are loving it. The war in Iraq rages on and we are spending Billions. Are defense companies hurting? Nope - they are loving it. Global warming? Car companies and coal companies alike have nothing to complain about in Bush.

The average citizen is going to pay the price, whether you are Republican or Democrat, but if Bush never considered us to begin with then its not really accurate to call him a failure. He has failed us but he may never have cared about us to begin with in which case, we failed ourselves at the voting both. Twice.