Sally Field, Alan Greenspan Weigh In On War, Politics. Who's More Right?

One short weekend, two more high-level protestations from former centrists against the Bush Administration and politics in general. First came former Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan, who is basically every dude's last remaining excuse for voting Republican, whose new memoir in bookstores today excoriates the Republican Party for abandoning its rational self-interest, small-government principles, in pursuit of power. And last night came Sally Field, whose censored comment about if mothers ran the country, there would be no damn wars essentially advanced the argument that if everyone had to shove a watermelon-sized being through their nether-regions they'd have too much respect for human life to ruthlessly sacrifice so much of it for power. In both cases, though, "power" is the big enemy, with Alan taking the position that politicians need to understand that human nature is governed by pursuit of cash — even as he, as a lifelong civil servant, wasn't — and Sally taking the position that human nature is governed by lovey-dovey hormonal shit — even though she, portraying a bipolar mom on ER, obviously deluded herself into thinking it was more than complex than that. So who's right?

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.