HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
May 10, 2006 I find myself thinking it needful to explain my political views at this point: I am a habitual Democrat, though not a good voter, and shame on me for both. I am neither right nor left, though not centrist either, I prefer to be called a radical. I agree with most of what libertarians say, but have a knee-jerk tendency to propose legislative solutions when something p!sses me off. I'm not sure whether this eclectic political view makes me a standout or a normal American. Oh, and I grew up reading about our founding fathers, which gives me a constitutionalists viewpoint in many matters. Now for the actual article: I was reading an editorial today which quoted a political analyst as saying that 40% of our population were automatic democrats, and 40% were automatic republicans. By Automatic, I mean that they would vote for the party candidate unless party leaders told them not to. The same article suggested that only 7% of the population were still completely independent. I truly wish that more people realized how horrifying that is. George Washington refused to join a political party, and predicted that they would make politics too divisive and ruin the unity of the fragile republic. The man may have been a lousy general, but I think he was proved correct in that prediction. The federalists won the next election. 4 years later, Jefferson began a 24 year sweep of office for the Democrat-Republicans (modern Democrats). Back then, the Democrat-Republicans stood for a weak central government (how Monroe justified that position and the Monroe Doctrine I don't know), and voting for all white males. The Federalists opposed allowing non-landowners to vote, and wanted a strong central government. So the Dr's supported a large, small government, and the Feds supported a small, large government. Hence the saying that politics makes for strange bedfellows. Today, we have two equally self-contradictory parties, each of which opposes government interference with their important constituents, while supporting government oversight of the other parties holy cows. Dem's kill fetuses, Reps kill convicts, Dem's tax and spend, Reps borrow and spend, Dem's give money to welfare moms, Reps give money to big corps (well, Dem's do too, but different corps and for different reasons, of course). I could take this opportunity to profess my support for the bill of rights, or to oppose some government policy, or even to advocate enlightened selfishness, but I will do that later (evil laugh). There is something more important to say. We as a nation have become politically impotent, and I mean that in an erectile dysfunction way. Almost half the population believes strongly in one set of views, and almost half believes in the opposite views, which leaves our nation staggering back and forth like a blind, drunk giant. We have the most powerful military in the world, and nations rightfully fear us, but when we can't hold a consistent policy for more than 4 years, there is no point in listening to us, because no matter how strong we are, we remain schizophrenic. A nation which bends over backwards to do what Bush wants could find that it has earned Hillary's permanent enmity. And why are our views so contrary? Several reasons, all related: 1. Elections, every candidate has to "stand for something," even in elections for sheriff or district attorney now, it is not enough to promise wise stewardship of the public good, you have to "fix," what your predecessor "did wrong." That is why we stopped getting statesmen and started getting politicians. 2. Showboating, our politicians are small men who need to have their ego stroked to get off. If a politician spent 2 or 4 or 6 years voting for moderate spending on responsible programs, and did little else, he would have no "legacy." Likewise, such a statesman, while probably the best solution for our problems, would not be reelected, because his or her foes would argue (nearsightedly) that he had done "nothing," in office. 3. The zero sum mentality. This is a tricky one, and is a weakness of our very culture (perhaps even of the whole western Greco-Roman mindset). Every office has a "winner," and a loser, every vote is passed or "failed." Worse, every issue now has only two sides, two viewpoints, and every piece of legislation is either supporting or opposing one side. Now it has crept into our foreign policy, with foreign aid being based on a group's teaching or beliefs on birth control, abortion, faith, or political leaning.
Nations like China and Japan, Iran and Turkey, Germany
and Sweden, have prospered on the discovery of the
third side to the story, the fact that the
political opponent is another human being like you
are, the idea of working together for mutually
acceptable compromise. Sometimes those
compromises are better for both sides than either
group's original position. Compromise doesn't have to
mean defeat, or dishonor. Sometimes the most
honorable path for the warrior is dropping his blade
and talking.
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
