Is it me, or are the campaign ads for those running for public office not just ridiculous and nauseating, but full of meaningless attacks on the person running against the person whose campaign paid for the ad?
At their core, all the ads are the same-they are personal attacks on an oppenent, based on actions they took in the past, or on ideological positions they hold-regardless of who the ad is targeting, there really isn't a difference; and all that these ads do is highlight the fact that has helped to create a silent majority within our country: that those who aspire to run for public office, or those already holding that public office, are, in some way, corrupt, corrupted or corruptable.
In the end all these ads do is turn off the majority of people from voting, and tell us nothing about the candidate who paid for the ad....
Wouldn't it be nice if one day, we all woke up to find that these ads disappeared, to be replaced by ads stating the positions the candidats held on the most important issues of the time?
Wouldn't it be nice if the people who ran for public office actually held the capacity to directly answer a question when in a debate?...
In physics, it can be mathematicaly proved that anything is possible...I can only hope that that includes politics and politicians, because then, maybe, we have some hope.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Saturday, October 9, 2010
American political ideologies-Conclusion: finding common ground.
For the most of the last 20 years, ever since my passion for such things was born, I began silently keeping track of what the typical, average American wants in an elected official at the Federal level. I began doing this during the Bush/Clinton/Perot Presidential race in 1992 after reading a poll a few weeks before the election showing Bush as the leader. This poll made no sense to me given that the vast majority of people I knew-regardless of age-were going to vote for Perot. Granted, I only had a relatively small sample of people to go on, but it was a pretty diverse sample and amongst that sample 2/3 of the people were planning on voting for Perot. This disparity, between what the media said and the truth about the world around me, motivated me to find out for myself, at election times, who, and what, people really supported. Over the years, this has evolved into a general understanding of what it is that most Americans expect, and want, in their nationally elected leaders...
Given the convoluted, and diluted, political ideologies in America, where is the middle ground? Where are the things that all, or a clear majority, of Americans can agree on? Not too long ago, these questions had answers, but I'm not so sure anymore.
Commonalities as a culture and society must start in the home and our educational institutions, today both of these institutions are ethically bankrupt: the family unit has disintegrated due to a high divorce rate and the improper use of liberality in the home, and America's primary educational institutions have, over the decades, taken away the focus on what makes all Americans, Americans, and what it took to make our form of government the best the planet.
America's primary educational institutions are divided into so-called "public" and "private" schools. Public schools are union run, and, though it varies some by state, the union dictation of our educational system has lead to it being more about job protection, than educating our youth. The private school system in America is primarily theologically based and, on the surface, caters to what the general public considers "the elite class". Neither of these educational institutions have American history and culture as a core theme throughout their curriculum; true, they teach American history, but it is a diluted history of simple facts and focuses on the wars and military actions of our nation, as opposed to the cultural upheavals, technological advancements and great thinkers and inventors that made our country the greatest in the world for most of the 19th and 20th centuries.
The family unit issues in America are a topic to be addressed separately, but with so much distress and dysfunction in the home, how can we expect any reinforcement at home of the principles which make up the fabric of American culture, much less a solid, humanly based moral and ethical code?
The bottom line is that modern Americans lack any sense of national pride, we lack any attachment to our "roots", much less to each other through the cultural ties which bound us all during the formation and growth of our country. We have forgotten what it means to be American. Between modern liberals (socialists) interpreting the Constitution to fit their own needs, Conservatives (Theocrats) attempting to force their own theologically based morality on the country, and the majority of Americans sitting on the sidelines, unwilling to participate in their own future while complaining about it, is it any surprise that America is so divided that we cannot even unite long enough to find a solution to any problem facing us today?
As a nation, we have to get back to the basics of the Constitution-the Constitution, and the rights that it guarantees us, are the back bone of American culture and society, and we have gotten away from it.
We have to stop letting modern liberals and conservatives try to force their interpretations, of how things should be run in our country, on us. We must all remember, every election cycle, that they serve the people, not themselves, and that it is to us-the people who make up the United States of America-whom they are responsible too.
The middle ground for all Americans, hasn't been lost-it has simply been buried in the illogical bureaucracy created and supported by the extreme fringes of the ideological left and right, and the greed of a select few who consciously take advantage of Capitalism at the expense of our society because most of us fail to actively participate in it by simply voting every chance we get. That middle ground is in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and in the free market principles that our particular form of Capitalism gives all Americans-principles which give all in America the opportunity to succeed through hard work, dedication and determination. All we have to do to bring that middle ground back into the forefront of our state and national legislative practices, is for Americans to get involved and care again: care about ourselves, our country and community, and the future that we are leaving for the generations after us...
Twenty years worth of research has lead me to these conclusions about the American people as it concerns the ideology they would like to see represented at the Federal level: adhering to the Constitution (though many don't fully understand it, they still support it) and the Bill of Rights as they are written; social liberality-meaning the Federal Government has no role in legislating issues of personal choice (i.e. homosexual marriage, right to die, drug laws, health care standards, religious and moral preferences, etc...); and simple common sense and simplicity in our laws. This, by asking 1000's of people throughout my life, is what I have learned that most Americans ideologically support, but this will never be reflected by those we elect so long as a majority of us continue to sit idly by, and not take an active role in the formation of the laws of our nation, by voting for those who are supposed to represent us when creating them.
Commonalities as a culture and society must start in the home and our educational institutions, today both of these institutions are ethically bankrupt: the family unit has disintegrated due to a high divorce rate and the improper use of liberality in the home, and America's primary educational institutions have, over the decades, taken away the focus on what makes all Americans, Americans, and what it took to make our form of government the best the planet.
America's primary educational institutions are divided into so-called "public" and "private" schools. Public schools are union run, and, though it varies some by state, the union dictation of our educational system has lead to it being more about job protection, than educating our youth. The private school system in America is primarily theologically based and, on the surface, caters to what the general public considers "the elite class". Neither of these educational institutions have American history and culture as a core theme throughout their curriculum; true, they teach American history, but it is a diluted history of simple facts and focuses on the wars and military actions of our nation, as opposed to the cultural upheavals, technological advancements and great thinkers and inventors that made our country the greatest in the world for most of the 19th and 20th centuries.
The family unit issues in America are a topic to be addressed separately, but with so much distress and dysfunction in the home, how can we expect any reinforcement at home of the principles which make up the fabric of American culture, much less a solid, humanly based moral and ethical code?
The bottom line is that modern Americans lack any sense of national pride, we lack any attachment to our "roots", much less to each other through the cultural ties which bound us all during the formation and growth of our country. We have forgotten what it means to be American. Between modern liberals (socialists) interpreting the Constitution to fit their own needs, Conservatives (Theocrats) attempting to force their own theologically based morality on the country, and the majority of Americans sitting on the sidelines, unwilling to participate in their own future while complaining about it, is it any surprise that America is so divided that we cannot even unite long enough to find a solution to any problem facing us today?
As a nation, we have to get back to the basics of the Constitution-the Constitution, and the rights that it guarantees us, are the back bone of American culture and society, and we have gotten away from it.
We have to stop letting modern liberals and conservatives try to force their interpretations, of how things should be run in our country, on us. We must all remember, every election cycle, that they serve the people, not themselves, and that it is to us-the people who make up the United States of America-whom they are responsible too.
The middle ground for all Americans, hasn't been lost-it has simply been buried in the illogical bureaucracy created and supported by the extreme fringes of the ideological left and right, and the greed of a select few who consciously take advantage of Capitalism at the expense of our society because most of us fail to actively participate in it by simply voting every chance we get. That middle ground is in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and in the free market principles that our particular form of Capitalism gives all Americans-principles which give all in America the opportunity to succeed through hard work, dedication and determination. All we have to do to bring that middle ground back into the forefront of our state and national legislative practices, is for Americans to get involved and care again: care about ourselves, our country and community, and the future that we are leaving for the generations after us...
Twenty years worth of research has lead me to these conclusions about the American people as it concerns the ideology they would like to see represented at the Federal level: adhering to the Constitution (though many don't fully understand it, they still support it) and the Bill of Rights as they are written; social liberality-meaning the Federal Government has no role in legislating issues of personal choice (i.e. homosexual marriage, right to die, drug laws, health care standards, religious and moral preferences, etc...); and simple common sense and simplicity in our laws. This, by asking 1000's of people throughout my life, is what I have learned that most Americans ideologically support, but this will never be reflected by those we elect so long as a majority of us continue to sit idly by, and not take an active role in the formation of the laws of our nation, by voting for those who are supposed to represent us when creating them.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Rubio, Christ and Meeks-let the war for the Florida Senate seat begin.
Citizens of Florida got to witness a debate tonight between the 3 candidates running to represent our state in the Senate, and as is the norm for such debates, we saw a lot of fluff and no substance-from any of the candidates.
What we witnessed in this debate was a battle of 3 entrenched politicians-one of which is supported by a group who is vociferously against the status quo politician in this country. To be fair to Mr. Rubio, he spoke a very good game and obviously did his homework, but all he could honestly do was partake in the game of one upmanship displayed by all 3 parties during this debate. From 2 of the 3, we constantly heard about how broken D.C. is and how it needs to be fixed but; and as usual, we heard not one solution-viable or otherwise-from either of them.
Of the 3, Meeks obviously stands for nothing but the status quo-between his ignorant support of "Obamacare" and his insistence the he stands for the "working man"-a person he seemed incapable of actually defining, it was obvious that his only real position is that of an"anti conservative" and basher of the elite...Of the 3, he is the most obvious "politician" of the 3, and, in my view, definitely represents most of what is wrong with politics in Washington today.
Rubio, the Tea Party poster boy, spoke well, but supports positions which are anti individual-positions which are blatantly hypocritical to his general position on the Constitution. He gets credit for understanding economic theory and why the current tax cuts placed into law by Bush work(ed), but he failed to do little else but place personal attacks on his main rival, Charlie Crist, throughout much of the debate. Rubio, in my opinion, failed to prove any of his positions beyond a reasonable doubt and failed to prove (to me) that he would do what was in the best interests of the state of Florida.
Crist, the "npa" candidate who left the Republican party due to ideological differences, was the only one, at any time, who provided any actual solutions to any question at all. It was only one time-when speaking about how to shore up Social Security-and I disagreed with his answer, but he at least provided something of an idea to one of the problems facing our society today. Placed between such extremes, all Crist really had to do to win this debate running away, was avoid falling into the typical bickering that happens during all such debates-something he either couldn't, or refused, to do...
Personally, I saw nothing out of these 3 candidates, in this format, which gives me any hope that any of them could do the job of a Senator properly. But, if I had to grade the 3 on a pass/fail system, only one would pass-Crist.
Why? Because the position of Senator has nothing to do with the people of this country. The position of Senator has to do with the states, and states rights, in our country. 97 years ago, the 17th amendment went a long way to stripping the individual states of our country of their states rights-which is one of the primary reasons why our national political scene is in the mess it is today; and throughout this debate, the moderators continuously made the mistake of asking these men questions which had nothing to do with states rights. They continuously asked questions trying to pull at the heart strings of people and all 3 continuously fell into the trap-showing that they really have no clue what the position they are essentially applying for is supposed to represent...I digress; Crist wins because, of the 3, as a (soon to be former?) governor he is the only one truly capable of understanding what "states rights" really means-whether he was given a chance to show that in this debate or not...
Before this debate, I was certain of who I was going to vote for to represent Florida in the Senate, after this debacle, I'm not so sure anymore. I did, however, learn one thing from this debate that my more conservative friends won't like seeing me say: when you get down to it, Rubio really isn't any better than Meeks. The only difference between the 2 is that, too Meeks, the Federal Government is a God capable of solving all our nations problems; and to Rubio, God is an intangible entity defined by the religion of his choice, and should lead our government in the direction of solving all our nations problems. Both of these ideologies become anti individual when "push comes to shove", and therefore I cannot support either of them...
What we witnessed in this debate was a battle of 3 entrenched politicians-one of which is supported by a group who is vociferously against the status quo politician in this country. To be fair to Mr. Rubio, he spoke a very good game and obviously did his homework, but all he could honestly do was partake in the game of one upmanship displayed by all 3 parties during this debate. From 2 of the 3, we constantly heard about how broken D.C. is and how it needs to be fixed but; and as usual, we heard not one solution-viable or otherwise-from either of them.
Of the 3, Meeks obviously stands for nothing but the status quo-between his ignorant support of "Obamacare" and his insistence the he stands for the "working man"-a person he seemed incapable of actually defining, it was obvious that his only real position is that of an"anti conservative" and basher of the elite...Of the 3, he is the most obvious "politician" of the 3, and, in my view, definitely represents most of what is wrong with politics in Washington today.
Rubio, the Tea Party poster boy, spoke well, but supports positions which are anti individual-positions which are blatantly hypocritical to his general position on the Constitution. He gets credit for understanding economic theory and why the current tax cuts placed into law by Bush work(ed), but he failed to do little else but place personal attacks on his main rival, Charlie Crist, throughout much of the debate. Rubio, in my opinion, failed to prove any of his positions beyond a reasonable doubt and failed to prove (to me) that he would do what was in the best interests of the state of Florida.
Crist, the "npa" candidate who left the Republican party due to ideological differences, was the only one, at any time, who provided any actual solutions to any question at all. It was only one time-when speaking about how to shore up Social Security-and I disagreed with his answer, but he at least provided something of an idea to one of the problems facing our society today. Placed between such extremes, all Crist really had to do to win this debate running away, was avoid falling into the typical bickering that happens during all such debates-something he either couldn't, or refused, to do...
Personally, I saw nothing out of these 3 candidates, in this format, which gives me any hope that any of them could do the job of a Senator properly. But, if I had to grade the 3 on a pass/fail system, only one would pass-Crist.
Why? Because the position of Senator has nothing to do with the people of this country. The position of Senator has to do with the states, and states rights, in our country. 97 years ago, the 17th amendment went a long way to stripping the individual states of our country of their states rights-which is one of the primary reasons why our national political scene is in the mess it is today; and throughout this debate, the moderators continuously made the mistake of asking these men questions which had nothing to do with states rights. They continuously asked questions trying to pull at the heart strings of people and all 3 continuously fell into the trap-showing that they really have no clue what the position they are essentially applying for is supposed to represent...I digress; Crist wins because, of the 3, as a (soon to be former?) governor he is the only one truly capable of understanding what "states rights" really means-whether he was given a chance to show that in this debate or not...
Before this debate, I was certain of who I was going to vote for to represent Florida in the Senate, after this debacle, I'm not so sure anymore. I did, however, learn one thing from this debate that my more conservative friends won't like seeing me say: when you get down to it, Rubio really isn't any better than Meeks. The only difference between the 2 is that, too Meeks, the Federal Government is a God capable of solving all our nations problems; and to Rubio, God is an intangible entity defined by the religion of his choice, and should lead our government in the direction of solving all our nations problems. Both of these ideologies become anti individual when "push comes to shove", and therefore I cannot support either of them...
Monday, October 4, 2010
American political ideologies part 5: the melting pot boiling over
Of all of the political and social ideologies in America today, the 2 we hear most about are Liberalism and Conservatism. Though these 2 ideologies, in their modern form, represent, at most, 30% of our populace, there is little question that they are responsible for the direction of all legislative policy at the Federal and state levels in our country. Worse, is that this 30% is comprised of the most wealthy of our country, and therefore stand the most to gain, or lose, within any legislation.
The direction that this segment of our society tends to lead us in is as extreme a direction-on either side of the political spectrum-as it is representative of our society: whether it be the utilization of our military for "police actions" in a distant foreign nation, or the financial bail out of corporations deemed "to big to fail", our Federal and state legislative bodies have increasing written, and passed, legislation within the last decade that is disagreed with by a majority of the general public-whether they are registered voters or not. This direction is a direct result of all the aforementioned political ideologies colluding together to create chaos within our society, and providing corporate entities and special interests the "perfect storm" through which they can dictate legislative policy at the Federal and state levels: With a majority of Americans sitting on the side lines of each election cycle and the majority of those who actually participate not being associated with any strong central leadership or ideology; and Liberals and Conservatives now in control of their respective political parties, Corporations and special interest groups, lead by their lobbying arms, have taken control of our Federal and state legislative bodies with nothing more than money and the threat of pulling their support of one candidate or another.
The result is something that is obvious to most social and political observers: the American body politic boiling over with anger at career politicians who are chipping away at personal freedoms and their wallets; who are catering to corporate demands; and who are embarrassing our nation internationally as they rapidly spend America into bankruptcy while making themselves rich at the expense of the general public.
It has taken 30 or so years, but this anger has finally manifested itself into at least one popular movement-the Tea Party.
The Tea Party is widely considered a Conservative movement due to it being created and based around Conservatives who had had enough of their fellow Republicans spending habits, support of big government, and coziness with corporate special interests in D.C. Despite their obvious theological undertones, it is unfair to call the movement "conservative"-given what they support.
Conservative, at least in part, would imply some sense of preserving the status quo, which would be maintaining the system as it is being used today-with massive corporate influence and corruption at the Federal and state level. This, however, is not what the Tea Party wants: they want change, and not the socialistic change that Barack Obama has brought to the White House, and Congress, since his election. The change they want is one back to the original Constitutional principles-principles which create a small Federal government beholden to the general public. They want career politicians out of the office; they spending at the Federal level curbed dramatically; and, unfortunately, they want their religion, that of Christianity, to be the lead of all social ideals-legislatively and ethically. These beliefs could be considered more radical (and theocratic) than they are conservative, given the distance that current Federal legislative policy has strayed from the Constitutional principles our nation is supposed to be based on.
Outside of the obvious theological flaw, the Tea Party suffers from one other weakness: competition. There is none.
Since their creation a little over 2 years ago, the Tea Party has gained, and been hurt by, a lack of any counter movement against them. People have tried to rally support for a counter movement to the Tea Party, but the reality is that, to the vast majority of Americans, the Tea Party is right on many points. The only thing preventing the Tea Party from being a run away train, capable of taking back national politics for all Americans, is their insistence on believing that they are right, not because of their logic, but because of their faith, as well as their desire to make their faith the basis for all domestic social policy in America. (This contradicts their general position on the Constitution-which promotes a distinct separation of church and state. This contradiction, or hypocrisy as some would say, is obvious to many and turns them off to the movement).
Despite the Tea Party's current popularity, the bulk of Americans remain restless and angry. Seeing no eminent change in legislative ideology on the horizon, and viewing the Tea Party as little more than a band of rich elitists trying to take control of the the Federal Government away from Liberals for their own interests, to them, their vote either "still doesn't count", or remains "the lesser of 2 evils". This anger is still building, and with no outlet, and the political establishment not willing to listen or change for the better, it is destined to implode our society: America, the once great "melting pot", is boiling over...
The direction that this segment of our society tends to lead us in is as extreme a direction-on either side of the political spectrum-as it is representative of our society: whether it be the utilization of our military for "police actions" in a distant foreign nation, or the financial bail out of corporations deemed "to big to fail", our Federal and state legislative bodies have increasing written, and passed, legislation within the last decade that is disagreed with by a majority of the general public-whether they are registered voters or not. This direction is a direct result of all the aforementioned political ideologies colluding together to create chaos within our society, and providing corporate entities and special interests the "perfect storm" through which they can dictate legislative policy at the Federal and state levels: With a majority of Americans sitting on the side lines of each election cycle and the majority of those who actually participate not being associated with any strong central leadership or ideology; and Liberals and Conservatives now in control of their respective political parties, Corporations and special interest groups, lead by their lobbying arms, have taken control of our Federal and state legislative bodies with nothing more than money and the threat of pulling their support of one candidate or another.
The result is something that is obvious to most social and political observers: the American body politic boiling over with anger at career politicians who are chipping away at personal freedoms and their wallets; who are catering to corporate demands; and who are embarrassing our nation internationally as they rapidly spend America into bankruptcy while making themselves rich at the expense of the general public.
It has taken 30 or so years, but this anger has finally manifested itself into at least one popular movement-the Tea Party.
The Tea Party is widely considered a Conservative movement due to it being created and based around Conservatives who had had enough of their fellow Republicans spending habits, support of big government, and coziness with corporate special interests in D.C. Despite their obvious theological undertones, it is unfair to call the movement "conservative"-given what they support.
Conservative, at least in part, would imply some sense of preserving the status quo, which would be maintaining the system as it is being used today-with massive corporate influence and corruption at the Federal and state level. This, however, is not what the Tea Party wants: they want change, and not the socialistic change that Barack Obama has brought to the White House, and Congress, since his election. The change they want is one back to the original Constitutional principles-principles which create a small Federal government beholden to the general public. They want career politicians out of the office; they spending at the Federal level curbed dramatically; and, unfortunately, they want their religion, that of Christianity, to be the lead of all social ideals-legislatively and ethically. These beliefs could be considered more radical (and theocratic) than they are conservative, given the distance that current Federal legislative policy has strayed from the Constitutional principles our nation is supposed to be based on.
Outside of the obvious theological flaw, the Tea Party suffers from one other weakness: competition. There is none.
Since their creation a little over 2 years ago, the Tea Party has gained, and been hurt by, a lack of any counter movement against them. People have tried to rally support for a counter movement to the Tea Party, but the reality is that, to the vast majority of Americans, the Tea Party is right on many points. The only thing preventing the Tea Party from being a run away train, capable of taking back national politics for all Americans, is their insistence on believing that they are right, not because of their logic, but because of their faith, as well as their desire to make their faith the basis for all domestic social policy in America. (This contradicts their general position on the Constitution-which promotes a distinct separation of church and state. This contradiction, or hypocrisy as some would say, is obvious to many and turns them off to the movement).
Despite the Tea Party's current popularity, the bulk of Americans remain restless and angry. Seeing no eminent change in legislative ideology on the horizon, and viewing the Tea Party as little more than a band of rich elitists trying to take control of the the Federal Government away from Liberals for their own interests, to them, their vote either "still doesn't count", or remains "the lesser of 2 evils". This anger is still building, and with no outlet, and the political establishment not willing to listen or change for the better, it is destined to implode our society: America, the once great "melting pot", is boiling over...
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Parents insuring their kids till they are 26? A bad message to send.
Last week, the first aspects of Obamacare went into effect. Most of America, including myself, is dreading the day, a couple years from now, when the bulk of the bill actually goes into affect (assuming it passes the Constitutionality test it faces in the Supreme Court), but the "patients bill of rights", as it is called, aspect of the legislation, which is what went into effect last Thursday, is the only part of the legislation I actually liked-except for children being allowed to stay on their parents health insurance until the age of 26...
I am a Gen X'er, and, as I was taught, one of the early steps that I had to take in becoming an adult, was in getting a job which provided me with my own health insurance. It was at this point that "mommy and daddy" no longer had to "take care of me" and that I could not only provide money for myself, but was self sufficient enough that I could also provide for my own health when needed. What concerns me is the message we are sending to our future generations by saying they don't have to worry about health insurance until well into adulthood.
Becoming an adult is all about personal responsibility and achieving independence, and a big part of that is being able to provide for your own health. Human nature tends towards laziness (unless nurtured otherwise at an early age); by giving the option to not need health insurance until 26 years of age, we are nurturing that part of humanity that is detrimental to a healthy, vibrant and successful society; and, in a small way, we are telling children that adulthood can wait. This in turn could breed a much broader lack of responsibility regarding personal choices like drug use, sex, and money management.
It may also cause social conflict within children once they reach the age of 18-when law considers them an adult: we have seen for decades the conflict that 18-20 year olds have when they consider they are old enough to vote and die for our country in combat, but not old enough to enjoy a beer and burger with their friends and family. What are they to think about their place in life when all need to be independent at the "legal" age of being an adult is removed? Are we to expect them to be ready for the responsibility of raising a family, owning and taking care of a home, and managing a household and career, when all the little steps at being prepared for such things are removed or pushed later and later into adulthood?...
We can hope that this legislation, 20 years from now, will not lead to such social and personal strife and inevitable economic stresses; then again, we were told in the mid 20th century that Welfare wouldn't produce an entire segment of society dependent on government hand outs for their existence.
I am a Gen X'er, and, as I was taught, one of the early steps that I had to take in becoming an adult, was in getting a job which provided me with my own health insurance. It was at this point that "mommy and daddy" no longer had to "take care of me" and that I could not only provide money for myself, but was self sufficient enough that I could also provide for my own health when needed. What concerns me is the message we are sending to our future generations by saying they don't have to worry about health insurance until well into adulthood.
Becoming an adult is all about personal responsibility and achieving independence, and a big part of that is being able to provide for your own health. Human nature tends towards laziness (unless nurtured otherwise at an early age); by giving the option to not need health insurance until 26 years of age, we are nurturing that part of humanity that is detrimental to a healthy, vibrant and successful society; and, in a small way, we are telling children that adulthood can wait. This in turn could breed a much broader lack of responsibility regarding personal choices like drug use, sex, and money management.
It may also cause social conflict within children once they reach the age of 18-when law considers them an adult: we have seen for decades the conflict that 18-20 year olds have when they consider they are old enough to vote and die for our country in combat, but not old enough to enjoy a beer and burger with their friends and family. What are they to think about their place in life when all need to be independent at the "legal" age of being an adult is removed? Are we to expect them to be ready for the responsibility of raising a family, owning and taking care of a home, and managing a household and career, when all the little steps at being prepared for such things are removed or pushed later and later into adulthood?...
We can hope that this legislation, 20 years from now, will not lead to such social and personal strife and inevitable economic stresses; then again, we were told in the mid 20th century that Welfare wouldn't produce an entire segment of society dependent on government hand outs for their existence.
Monday, September 27, 2010
American political ideologies Part 4: Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians.
Today, the core ideologies which were once the basis for the Democrat and Republican parties, have been high jacked by Liberalism and Conservatism, respectively. This high jacking of ideologies which nearly all Americans could identify with, has lead them to be forced into taking back seats to Liberalism and Conservatism. They still exist, but only as shadows of their former selves....
It may surprise many to learn that the Democrat and Republican parties were both born of the Anti Federalist party, which lasted into the first quarter of the 19th century. Essentially, the Anti Federalists were those who opposed the Constitution on the grounds that it would create an Aristocracy within the national legislature (particularly in the Senate), which would shut out state and individual rights, eventually leading to a large, corrupt and tyrannical central government comprised of an elite class of businessmen and industrialists-something not very far from where our national government is today.
Of greater irony, is what the Democratic party used to stand for: states rights, following the Constitution to the letter (after it was amended in 1791 with the Bill of Rights, many of the fears the Anti Federalists had concerning the original document were laid to rest), and they opposed a national-or central-bank to go along with their dislike and distrust of the wealthy.
Compare their original beliefs and policies to what they are today, and the only similarity is their apparent dislike of the wealthy: controlled by the Liberal extremists of their party, Democrats have all but given away states rights and attempt to subvert the Constitution and the Bill of Rights every chance they get, by loosely interpreting the Constitution through the "necessary and proper" clause as decided in Maryland vs. McCullough in the early 19th century...
The Republican Party was formed in the mid 19th century, just prior to the outbreak of the Civil War. Formed of Anti Slavery activists and disenchanted members of the Whig Party, the core ideals mirrored those of the Democrats: a support of states rights and a strict following of the Constitution. It strayed from the Democrats at the issues of a central bank, favoring the wealthy in legislation, and, the obvious, anti slavery position they held.
Like the Democrats, the Republicans have strayed far from their original beliefs due to its so called 'conservative base': giving up on states rights and attempting to interpret the Constitution along its theological doctrine, despite the Constitution being explicit about a separation of church and state...
Unlike today, where most of the electorate see their presidential and congressional choices as a decision between "the lesser of 2 evils", the Democratic and Republican parties had real legislative ideological platforms to stand on. Historically, politics and politicians have always come at a price to society relative to how they are viewed by the general populace, but for most of our first 150 years of existence, neither party, or the ideologies they were born of, would consider taking national positions on obvious social issues-issues our Constitution clearly and distinctly leaves to the States to legislate; but over the last 75 years, both parties have allowed themselves to be taken over by the fringes of their ideologies-Liberals and Conservatives-which have progressively screamed louder that it is, in fact, the job of the Federal Government to legislate social policy and limit the personal decisions which individuals have a right to make; they have allowed them to dictate the direction of their respective parties ideologies-directions which have on constitutional grounds, despite what the average American may think.
As a result of this high-jacking of their political platforms by Liberals and Conservatives, the main stream Democratic and Republican political ideologies-those which represented the vast majority of Americans and dominated our political landscape for generations-are all but dead in America, not because of societal or ideological evolution, but, more seemingly, out of the desire for power over the people, at the expense of the people.
Today, the Democratic and Republican parties survive in name only-mere shadows of themselves, with neither being truly representative of the principles which they were originally founded on, and neither truly having the best interests of our nation, or our people, at heart...
It may surprise many to learn that the Democrat and Republican parties were both born of the Anti Federalist party, which lasted into the first quarter of the 19th century. Essentially, the Anti Federalists were those who opposed the Constitution on the grounds that it would create an Aristocracy within the national legislature (particularly in the Senate), which would shut out state and individual rights, eventually leading to a large, corrupt and tyrannical central government comprised of an elite class of businessmen and industrialists-something not very far from where our national government is today.
Of greater irony, is what the Democratic party used to stand for: states rights, following the Constitution to the letter (after it was amended in 1791 with the Bill of Rights, many of the fears the Anti Federalists had concerning the original document were laid to rest), and they opposed a national-or central-bank to go along with their dislike and distrust of the wealthy.
Compare their original beliefs and policies to what they are today, and the only similarity is their apparent dislike of the wealthy: controlled by the Liberal extremists of their party, Democrats have all but given away states rights and attempt to subvert the Constitution and the Bill of Rights every chance they get, by loosely interpreting the Constitution through the "necessary and proper" clause as decided in Maryland vs. McCullough in the early 19th century...
The Republican Party was formed in the mid 19th century, just prior to the outbreak of the Civil War. Formed of Anti Slavery activists and disenchanted members of the Whig Party, the core ideals mirrored those of the Democrats: a support of states rights and a strict following of the Constitution. It strayed from the Democrats at the issues of a central bank, favoring the wealthy in legislation, and, the obvious, anti slavery position they held.
Like the Democrats, the Republicans have strayed far from their original beliefs due to its so called 'conservative base': giving up on states rights and attempting to interpret the Constitution along its theological doctrine, despite the Constitution being explicit about a separation of church and state...
Unlike today, where most of the electorate see their presidential and congressional choices as a decision between "the lesser of 2 evils", the Democratic and Republican parties had real legislative ideological platforms to stand on. Historically, politics and politicians have always come at a price to society relative to how they are viewed by the general populace, but for most of our first 150 years of existence, neither party, or the ideologies they were born of, would consider taking national positions on obvious social issues-issues our Constitution clearly and distinctly leaves to the States to legislate; but over the last 75 years, both parties have allowed themselves to be taken over by the fringes of their ideologies-Liberals and Conservatives-which have progressively screamed louder that it is, in fact, the job of the Federal Government to legislate social policy and limit the personal decisions which individuals have a right to make; they have allowed them to dictate the direction of their respective parties ideologies-directions which have on constitutional grounds, despite what the average American may think.
As a result of this high-jacking of their political platforms by Liberals and Conservatives, the main stream Democratic and Republican political ideologies-those which represented the vast majority of Americans and dominated our political landscape for generations-are all but dead in America, not because of societal or ideological evolution, but, more seemingly, out of the desire for power over the people, at the expense of the people.
Today, the Democratic and Republican parties survive in name only-mere shadows of themselves, with neither being truly representative of the principles which they were originally founded on, and neither truly having the best interests of our nation, or our people, at heart...
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
American political ideologies part 3: Independents, Moderates, and the Silent Majority
Independents, Moderates and the (so called) Silent Majority all share a similar attitude towards politics, and politicians, in general: all view the political establishment as being corrupt and not to be trusted. All 3 also share many of the same basic ideologies, relative to the legislation that the Federal and State levels of government should be involved in. Their primary differences lie in their actions, and not in their beliefs...
When you get down to it, there is not much difference between a Moderate and Independent, but just 25 years ago, so called "independents" didn't exist in America as a political ideology. That all changed in the presidential election of 1992 when billionaire businessman Ross Perot decided to run for president with no party affiliation. Needing to get on the ballot of every state in the union, the "Independent" party quickly formed around Perot. But, possessing no real political agenda, or platform, other than an anti establishment attitude, the "party" has never been able to gain any real political power despite it being representative of the vast majority of Americans beliefs and political attitudes.
Independents and Moderates tend to believe in a persons right to choice on all issue's; they prefer the small central government that the founding fathers intended by the creation of our Constitution; the strict following of our Bill of Rights-particularly that of the separation of church and state (the primary reason why most stay away from joining the Republican party); and in their right to keep what they are capable of earning. Because this ideology represents aspects of Liberalism and Conservatism the term "Moderate" is applied to this ideology, as it is seen as an attempt to moderate and pacify both sides of the political spectrum. The term seems to strike a cord of weakness with the post Vietnam generations, which is what allowed for the term "Independent" to be coined in the early 90's-a term which implies the strength of a person to stand on their own, with their own beliefs and to make their own, sometimes educated, decision's regarding issues that affect the greater society around us. It seems that the primary difference between Moderates and Independents is that Independents lack any central platform or unity-each takes pride in their "independence" on issues, where as Moderates are willing to adopt some form of a combination of the current platforms of Democrats and Republicans, as a basis for their political decision making.
For Independents, the lack of unity results in them having little, to any, influence in the actual process of legislation because so few people who run as Independents are able to make it to a State or National office. For Moderates, the indecisiveness leads to the perception of being "wishy washy" on the various social issues that take precedence during any given campaign cycle, making them look weak to those who would otherwise see their general platform as being logical...
The Silent Majority refers to that segment of Americans which do not exercise their right to vote. Generally speaking, it is a rarity when more than 50% of eligible Americans turn out to vote in any Presidential election year-hence the term "silent" majority. (Even in years where more than half of Americans turn out to vote, once that number is divided between the 2 political parties and Independents, by percentages, those who didn't vote outnumber those who did when taken as a group). With almost always more than half of Americans not turning out to vote, and thereby expressing their opinions on matters of public interest, elected officials can easily ignore the wishes of almost half of our country. This in turn allows for the mass corruption that appears rampant in all levels of public office.
By and large, the Silent Majority have many of the same beliefs as Moderates and Independents do, the difference is that they have been disenfranchised by the "establishment": they believe their vote doesn't count and that they are powerless to effect any change to a governmental system which they feel is not truly representative of them, due, in large part, to the influence of corporate America and special interest groups-which they see as possessing all the political power and influence in America (at the same time, many of these people are the very same who scream the loudest, and quickest to blame politicians for their financial troubles-a hypocrisy which rivals those of Liberals and Conservatives). Unfortunately, the politicians in power all over our country have done little, if anything at all, to help alleviate the feelings of the Silent Majority: between the voting scandals of both of George W Bush's elections, the obvious corruption of Congress by foreign and domestic corporations, and a seating president whose citizenship has yet to be properly validated, the Silent Majority have more reasons than ever to stay "silent".
The primary difference between the Silent Majority and Moderates/Independents seems to be education: most of the silent majority have no formal education outside of high school, where as Independents and Moderates possess some type of education beyond that of a high school diploma, whether it be some collegiate level courses, or the completion of trade schooling of some kind. This apparent difference points to the importance of being further educated after the completion high school: as citizens of any society, one of the most important things we all do, relative to each other, is our cumulative participation in electing those public officials who will legislate our society...
When you get down to it, there is not much difference between a Moderate and Independent, but just 25 years ago, so called "independents" didn't exist in America as a political ideology. That all changed in the presidential election of 1992 when billionaire businessman Ross Perot decided to run for president with no party affiliation. Needing to get on the ballot of every state in the union, the "Independent" party quickly formed around Perot. But, possessing no real political agenda, or platform, other than an anti establishment attitude, the "party" has never been able to gain any real political power despite it being representative of the vast majority of Americans beliefs and political attitudes.
Independents and Moderates tend to believe in a persons right to choice on all issue's; they prefer the small central government that the founding fathers intended by the creation of our Constitution; the strict following of our Bill of Rights-particularly that of the separation of church and state (the primary reason why most stay away from joining the Republican party); and in their right to keep what they are capable of earning. Because this ideology represents aspects of Liberalism and Conservatism the term "Moderate" is applied to this ideology, as it is seen as an attempt to moderate and pacify both sides of the political spectrum. The term seems to strike a cord of weakness with the post Vietnam generations, which is what allowed for the term "Independent" to be coined in the early 90's-a term which implies the strength of a person to stand on their own, with their own beliefs and to make their own, sometimes educated, decision's regarding issues that affect the greater society around us. It seems that the primary difference between Moderates and Independents is that Independents lack any central platform or unity-each takes pride in their "independence" on issues, where as Moderates are willing to adopt some form of a combination of the current platforms of Democrats and Republicans, as a basis for their political decision making.
For Independents, the lack of unity results in them having little, to any, influence in the actual process of legislation because so few people who run as Independents are able to make it to a State or National office. For Moderates, the indecisiveness leads to the perception of being "wishy washy" on the various social issues that take precedence during any given campaign cycle, making them look weak to those who would otherwise see their general platform as being logical...
The Silent Majority refers to that segment of Americans which do not exercise their right to vote. Generally speaking, it is a rarity when more than 50% of eligible Americans turn out to vote in any Presidential election year-hence the term "silent" majority. (Even in years where more than half of Americans turn out to vote, once that number is divided between the 2 political parties and Independents, by percentages, those who didn't vote outnumber those who did when taken as a group). With almost always more than half of Americans not turning out to vote, and thereby expressing their opinions on matters of public interest, elected officials can easily ignore the wishes of almost half of our country. This in turn allows for the mass corruption that appears rampant in all levels of public office.
By and large, the Silent Majority have many of the same beliefs as Moderates and Independents do, the difference is that they have been disenfranchised by the "establishment": they believe their vote doesn't count and that they are powerless to effect any change to a governmental system which they feel is not truly representative of them, due, in large part, to the influence of corporate America and special interest groups-which they see as possessing all the political power and influence in America (at the same time, many of these people are the very same who scream the loudest, and quickest to blame politicians for their financial troubles-a hypocrisy which rivals those of Liberals and Conservatives). Unfortunately, the politicians in power all over our country have done little, if anything at all, to help alleviate the feelings of the Silent Majority: between the voting scandals of both of George W Bush's elections, the obvious corruption of Congress by foreign and domestic corporations, and a seating president whose citizenship has yet to be properly validated, the Silent Majority have more reasons than ever to stay "silent".
The primary difference between the Silent Majority and Moderates/Independents seems to be education: most of the silent majority have no formal education outside of high school, where as Independents and Moderates possess some type of education beyond that of a high school diploma, whether it be some collegiate level courses, or the completion of trade schooling of some kind. This apparent difference points to the importance of being further educated after the completion high school: as citizens of any society, one of the most important things we all do, relative to each other, is our cumulative participation in electing those public officials who will legislate our society...
Saturday, September 18, 2010
American political ideologies part 2: Conservativism and the Tea Party
As with modern Liberalism, Conservatism in America also suffers from an identity crisis of sorts. In short, to conserve something means to preserve what exists or what used to exist. Certain aspects of American Conservatism fit this simple definition, others, however, do not, and can be said to be just as radical-if not more so-than those of modern liberalism...
As near as can be deciphered, what Americans call Conservatism today was born during the early Vietnam war era as a counter to the hippie generation's "free love" movement. So called "conservatives", wanted to protect and preserve the family unit and religious beliefs which they saw as being under attack by the hippie generation's attitudes towards sex, drugs, relationships and their general laissez fair attitude toward life. Though initially evolved under good intentions, and with the best interests of all at heart, Conservatives quickly infiltrated the Republican party, taking over their political platform and using their influence as the "older" generation to install a theocratic political agenda within a party whose original basis was the protection of the government which our Constitution created and the free market capitalistic economy which gives all of those who live and work in America the chance to be financially successful.
However, Conservatism suffers from 2 fatal flaws, which turn off the vast majority of people in America: It's insistence on basing all of its social ideology on the Christian moral code and the hypocrisy which this causes with its positions regarding the Constitution and Capitalism.
Religion, of any type, is little more than a subversive form of collectivism. Under any religious doctrine, the main goal is obedience to its "teachings" through the fear that not doing so will lead to a painful life and-especially-afterlife. Due to its collectivist end game, and that it takes force-of some kind-to convince people to obey the teachings, all religions are anti humanistic at their core: i.e. it is human nature to seek liberty, independence, and to find its own individuality-not only from other people and governments, but from anything which seeks to "control" or shape it in an image that is not of its own design.
Under the Christian religious doctrine, individuality-which is supported and encouraged, by design, in both our Constitution and economic system-is, in many ways, prohibited. Things like making choices for yourself, which others may find morally reprehensible, are strictly forbidden: a persons right to do what they want with their body (abortion, tattoo's, piercings, drug usage), the use of non manufactured drugs, homosexual relationships, controlling how you die, should you be in a situation to do so, and many more issues that are personal in nature, are all frowned upon or strictly prohibited-not because these decisions are physically, mentally, or emotionally unhealthy, but because they say they are. The Conservative desire to influence decisions at the personal level is so strong (because their beliefs are right and yours is wrong) that they allow it too dictate their national domestic policy: favoring national legislation which prevents all Americans from being allowed to even have the option of making such personal decisions for themselves.
This theocratic, Napoleon like complex to "do things our way or no way at all", is as radical a belief system as can be found and is in direct conflict with their position on our Constitution and economy-positions which are logical and, without question, in the best interests of all Americans. Their religious position vs. their Constitutional position is particularly baffling given the strict separation of church and state guaranteed within the Constitution itself...
Conservatives support a small Federal Government-as originally designed (pre 17th amendment) by our Founding Fathers; they also support as little regulatory controls over our economy and as few taxes as possible, so as to allow as many people the best opportunity at financial success, through which a person is able to achieve the most personal and individual liberty. However, the only way they could ever accomplish their ideal of installing their Christian doctrine as the backbone of all social and domestic policy in America, would be through an expansive Federal Bureaucracy and strict regulatory control of our economy-to the point that our economy would be more Socialistic, than Capitalistic and our society would be controlled via a strict theological doctrine that would require dictatorial leadership to enforce.
This obvious hypocrisy, combined with the religious message they are intent on sending out every time they speak, present Conservatives as stuffy-old-rich-guys with too much time and money on their hands, who fear any movement towards a progressive future and want to control America...
Today, Conservatism has had something of a resurgence through a movement known as the Tea Party. The Tea Party got its start a little over 2 years ago after Conservatives saw their parent party-the Republicans-straying farther and farther from the Constitution via their (apparent) support of a large federal bureaucracy and their (apparent) distancing from the core Christian values which this "conservative base" of the Republican party, takes credit for.
The Tea Party's message has been one based around original Constitutional principles, anti political establishment, a return to a small federal bureaucracy and limited taxes. It is a message that has rung true with many Americans-regardless of sex, sexual orientation, age, ethnic background, or socio-economic status. However, the Tea Party movement embodies the same hypocrisy which Conservatives have historically held: combining their theological doctrine with their political and economic beliefs.
Though seemingly tempered within the Tea Party movement-most likely due to its broader socio-economic and ethnic make up-the Conservative control of the Tea Party places its theological message at, or near, the roots of all of its positions. Every chance it gets, the Tea Party makes it known that their base values are still those of the Christian religious doctrine and that their beliefs are the right and only way to live ones life by. The result is the same as with traditional conservatism: the vast majority of logical, and rational, thinkers are turned off by the undertones of the "my way or the highway" rhetoric found in what is otherwise a very solid, and easy to embrace, political ideology.
As near as can be deciphered, what Americans call Conservatism today was born during the early Vietnam war era as a counter to the hippie generation's "free love" movement. So called "conservatives", wanted to protect and preserve the family unit and religious beliefs which they saw as being under attack by the hippie generation's attitudes towards sex, drugs, relationships and their general laissez fair attitude toward life. Though initially evolved under good intentions, and with the best interests of all at heart, Conservatives quickly infiltrated the Republican party, taking over their political platform and using their influence as the "older" generation to install a theocratic political agenda within a party whose original basis was the protection of the government which our Constitution created and the free market capitalistic economy which gives all of those who live and work in America the chance to be financially successful.
However, Conservatism suffers from 2 fatal flaws, which turn off the vast majority of people in America: It's insistence on basing all of its social ideology on the Christian moral code and the hypocrisy which this causes with its positions regarding the Constitution and Capitalism.
Religion, of any type, is little more than a subversive form of collectivism. Under any religious doctrine, the main goal is obedience to its "teachings" through the fear that not doing so will lead to a painful life and-especially-afterlife. Due to its collectivist end game, and that it takes force-of some kind-to convince people to obey the teachings, all religions are anti humanistic at their core: i.e. it is human nature to seek liberty, independence, and to find its own individuality-not only from other people and governments, but from anything which seeks to "control" or shape it in an image that is not of its own design.
Under the Christian religious doctrine, individuality-which is supported and encouraged, by design, in both our Constitution and economic system-is, in many ways, prohibited. Things like making choices for yourself, which others may find morally reprehensible, are strictly forbidden: a persons right to do what they want with their body (abortion, tattoo's, piercings, drug usage), the use of non manufactured drugs, homosexual relationships, controlling how you die, should you be in a situation to do so, and many more issues that are personal in nature, are all frowned upon or strictly prohibited-not because these decisions are physically, mentally, or emotionally unhealthy, but because they say they are. The Conservative desire to influence decisions at the personal level is so strong (because their beliefs are right and yours is wrong) that they allow it too dictate their national domestic policy: favoring national legislation which prevents all Americans from being allowed to even have the option of making such personal decisions for themselves.
This theocratic, Napoleon like complex to "do things our way or no way at all", is as radical a belief system as can be found and is in direct conflict with their position on our Constitution and economy-positions which are logical and, without question, in the best interests of all Americans. Their religious position vs. their Constitutional position is particularly baffling given the strict separation of church and state guaranteed within the Constitution itself...
Conservatives support a small Federal Government-as originally designed (pre 17th amendment) by our Founding Fathers; they also support as little regulatory controls over our economy and as few taxes as possible, so as to allow as many people the best opportunity at financial success, through which a person is able to achieve the most personal and individual liberty. However, the only way they could ever accomplish their ideal of installing their Christian doctrine as the backbone of all social and domestic policy in America, would be through an expansive Federal Bureaucracy and strict regulatory control of our economy-to the point that our economy would be more Socialistic, than Capitalistic and our society would be controlled via a strict theological doctrine that would require dictatorial leadership to enforce.
This obvious hypocrisy, combined with the religious message they are intent on sending out every time they speak, present Conservatives as stuffy-old-rich-guys with too much time and money on their hands, who fear any movement towards a progressive future and want to control America...
Today, Conservatism has had something of a resurgence through a movement known as the Tea Party. The Tea Party got its start a little over 2 years ago after Conservatives saw their parent party-the Republicans-straying farther and farther from the Constitution via their (apparent) support of a large federal bureaucracy and their (apparent) distancing from the core Christian values which this "conservative base" of the Republican party, takes credit for.
The Tea Party's message has been one based around original Constitutional principles, anti political establishment, a return to a small federal bureaucracy and limited taxes. It is a message that has rung true with many Americans-regardless of sex, sexual orientation, age, ethnic background, or socio-economic status. However, the Tea Party movement embodies the same hypocrisy which Conservatives have historically held: combining their theological doctrine with their political and economic beliefs.
Though seemingly tempered within the Tea Party movement-most likely due to its broader socio-economic and ethnic make up-the Conservative control of the Tea Party places its theological message at, or near, the roots of all of its positions. Every chance it gets, the Tea Party makes it known that their base values are still those of the Christian religious doctrine and that their beliefs are the right and only way to live ones life by. The result is the same as with traditional conservatism: the vast majority of logical, and rational, thinkers are turned off by the undertones of the "my way or the highway" rhetoric found in what is otherwise a very solid, and easy to embrace, political ideology.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
American political ideologies part 1: Liberalism
There is little question that the dominate political ideology in American politics today is what is called Liberalism-it has taken over the Democratic party, and proponents of it currently hold the highest political seats in our country: President Barack Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate majority leader Harry Reid are all Democrats, and all claim to be Liberals. On it's face, being "liberal" is a good thing-originally it stood for a persons sovereign right to their liberty against authortative governments-or any government, or other, institution which tried, through law or other means, to limit a person's liberty. The problem with modern Liberalism is that it has nothing to do with what Liberalism actually stands for...
To be specific, American Liberalism is based on the work On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill. Throughout the work, Mill struggles with his belief that a person has a right to their liberty from the authority of governments, against his belief of utilitarianism-which is liberty's exact opposite, and 19th century's American version of socialism. Liberalism, true liberalism, is about an individual's right, and the responsibility of excercizing that right, in society, of their soveriegn liberty from government. True, governments are necessary, but they are a necessary "evil", truly only needed to protect the citizens who agree to be ruled by them, for protection from themselves and outside forces, and for the providing of those services which private enterprise and individuals prove to not be able to provide better for themselves. A close examination of today's Liberals-those who claim to be followers of Liberalism-shows just how far from Liberalism today's followers are, and how they are more Socialists, or Utilitarianists, than followers of Liberalism.
When studying the works of Mill, and particularly On Liberty, it is obvious that the founder of what could, today, be called Liberalism, would cringe at what it has become. One need look no further than what followers of Liberalism today support: government involvement nearly every aspect of an individuals life.
These are the words of Mill as it relates directly to allowing government-of any level-to have more and more say, over more and more aspects, of our society; and todays Liberals in America are doing exactly what he warns against by supporting things like government mandated, and provided for, health care; goverment bail outs of companies deemed "to big to fail"; the printing off and buying up of currency to support programs and spending sprees by our Federal Government on programs and agencies we as a nation have no true need for; further "benefits" for the those said to be living below the poverty level; the Supreme Court broadly interrupting the Constituion so as to allow for broader and broader legislative policy from Congress. Even worse is that all of these things are leading American society and culture down a path that is decidedly based on Socialism.
There are many opinions and theories about what truly constitutes Socialism, but all of them are based around-to some extent-government ownership, and control, of all private industry; and society based loosely around a 2 class structure: the "haves" and "have nots".
Our Constitution places very strict guidelines on how much influence the Federal Government can (is supposed too) have over our economy and society, limiting it to 18 or 19 very specific things and, despite an improper ruling by the Supreme Court in McCulloch vs. Maryland in 1819, our Federal Government actually does not have the authority to pass any law that it wants. Thanks in large part to that ruling, Congress, with the support of modern Liberalism, has all the support it has ever needed over the last 2 centuries to attack the Constitution, weakening its built in protections the people once had against Government, while at the same time expanding their power over us all.
On top of its political influences, Liberalism has also had a striking effect on the culture of American society. At the core of modern Liberalism (it must be specified as such because it now resembles very little of what it was originally based on) is a mentality based on avoiding conflict, harm and the desire to make life "easy" for every one-particularly our children. Originally born out of the great depression/World War II generation, this last ideal-that of "making life easier for the next generation"-had good intentions: that generation, perhaps, saw the greatest hardships of any other generation of Americans-besides those who first settled our land in the 16th-17th centuries. Originally meant as a rallying cry to prevent things like another depression and world war from happening through hard work, family values and education, "making life easier"-in the world of Modern Liberalism-has become an entitlement and pacifists mentality. Things such "Obamacare" and the welfare state represent the entitlement aspect of this mentality, while the abolishment of traditional school yard activities like dodge ball, stripping a parent from their right to properly discipline their children while at the same time allowing kids to avoid anything they think is "hard"; as well as allowing basic educational institutions to grade on "bell curves" or tossing out grading scales completely in favor of a simple pass/fail system. The result of the implementation of these ideals on such broad levels has helped to produce 30 years worth of Americans who have no concept of what it means to achieve through hard work; have little to no concept of what can be learned from losing to a close rival; or having the effort it takes to "excel" at anything (except, perhaps, in sports).
A secondary effect of this is that excellence and achievement have also become vilified: those at young ages who strive to stand out are seen as being "weird" or "abnormal", and are placed in so called "advanced" classes, which label them as social outcasts in their school and neighborhood. This segragation also prevents them from having any positive influence over their fellow classmates.
These social and culture ideals are also socialistic: in Socialism, everyone is to be treated as an equal. In cultures based on Socialism, there are 2 classes of people: the ruling class, and every one else. To secure this separation, societies which have historically been based on Socialism, have built their culture and institutions around many of the same ideals that modern Liberals today, in America, support...
Inherently, there is nothing wrong with traditional Liberalism-that which was defined and supported by Mill in 1859. In fact, traditional Liberalism is largely a good thing for people, societies, and cultures to embrace. As it was when Mill first defined it in political and social terms, it became the backbone of the ideals that made America great. That Liberalism would have supported a persons right to choose-concerning everything-without sacrificing human natures natural desire to better itself through effort, hard work, and failure and success through trial and error. That form of Liberalism, traditional Liberalism, was at the heart of our individual spirit, our entrepreneuralship and the responsibility we all once held over our own successes and failures and it would have supported giving people hand ups, not hand outs, from the government. Today, however, Modern Liberalism is little more than Socialism attempting to disguise itself by a word with a better image, and meaning, than that which those using the word today really believe in.
To be specific, American Liberalism is based on the work On Liberty, by John Stuart Mill. Throughout the work, Mill struggles with his belief that a person has a right to their liberty from the authority of governments, against his belief of utilitarianism-which is liberty's exact opposite, and 19th century's American version of socialism. Liberalism, true liberalism, is about an individual's right, and the responsibility of excercizing that right, in society, of their soveriegn liberty from government. True, governments are necessary, but they are a necessary "evil", truly only needed to protect the citizens who agree to be ruled by them, for protection from themselves and outside forces, and for the providing of those services which private enterprise and individuals prove to not be able to provide better for themselves. A close examination of today's Liberals-those who claim to be followers of Liberalism-shows just how far from Liberalism today's followers are, and how they are more Socialists, or Utilitarianists, than followers of Liberalism.
When studying the works of Mill, and particularly On Liberty, it is obvious that the founder of what could, today, be called Liberalism, would cringe at what it has become. One need look no further than what followers of Liberalism today support: government involvement nearly every aspect of an individuals life.
"Every function superadded to those already excersized by the government,
causes its influence over hopes and fears to be more widely diffused, and
converts, more and more, the active and ambitious part of the public into
hangers-on of the government, or of some party which aims at becoming the
government."
These are the words of Mill as it relates directly to allowing government-of any level-to have more and more say, over more and more aspects, of our society; and todays Liberals in America are doing exactly what he warns against by supporting things like government mandated, and provided for, health care; goverment bail outs of companies deemed "to big to fail"; the printing off and buying up of currency to support programs and spending sprees by our Federal Government on programs and agencies we as a nation have no true need for; further "benefits" for the those said to be living below the poverty level; the Supreme Court broadly interrupting the Constituion so as to allow for broader and broader legislative policy from Congress. Even worse is that all of these things are leading American society and culture down a path that is decidedly based on Socialism.
There are many opinions and theories about what truly constitutes Socialism, but all of them are based around-to some extent-government ownership, and control, of all private industry; and society based loosely around a 2 class structure: the "haves" and "have nots".
Our Constitution places very strict guidelines on how much influence the Federal Government can (is supposed too) have over our economy and society, limiting it to 18 or 19 very specific things and, despite an improper ruling by the Supreme Court in McCulloch vs. Maryland in 1819, our Federal Government actually does not have the authority to pass any law that it wants. Thanks in large part to that ruling, Congress, with the support of modern Liberalism, has all the support it has ever needed over the last 2 centuries to attack the Constitution, weakening its built in protections the people once had against Government, while at the same time expanding their power over us all.
On top of its political influences, Liberalism has also had a striking effect on the culture of American society. At the core of modern Liberalism (it must be specified as such because it now resembles very little of what it was originally based on) is a mentality based on avoiding conflict, harm and the desire to make life "easy" for every one-particularly our children. Originally born out of the great depression/World War II generation, this last ideal-that of "making life easier for the next generation"-had good intentions: that generation, perhaps, saw the greatest hardships of any other generation of Americans-besides those who first settled our land in the 16th-17th centuries. Originally meant as a rallying cry to prevent things like another depression and world war from happening through hard work, family values and education, "making life easier"-in the world of Modern Liberalism-has become an entitlement and pacifists mentality. Things such "Obamacare" and the welfare state represent the entitlement aspect of this mentality, while the abolishment of traditional school yard activities like dodge ball, stripping a parent from their right to properly discipline their children while at the same time allowing kids to avoid anything they think is "hard"; as well as allowing basic educational institutions to grade on "bell curves" or tossing out grading scales completely in favor of a simple pass/fail system. The result of the implementation of these ideals on such broad levels has helped to produce 30 years worth of Americans who have no concept of what it means to achieve through hard work; have little to no concept of what can be learned from losing to a close rival; or having the effort it takes to "excel" at anything (except, perhaps, in sports).
A secondary effect of this is that excellence and achievement have also become vilified: those at young ages who strive to stand out are seen as being "weird" or "abnormal", and are placed in so called "advanced" classes, which label them as social outcasts in their school and neighborhood. This segragation also prevents them from having any positive influence over their fellow classmates.
These social and culture ideals are also socialistic: in Socialism, everyone is to be treated as an equal. In cultures based on Socialism, there are 2 classes of people: the ruling class, and every one else. To secure this separation, societies which have historically been based on Socialism, have built their culture and institutions around many of the same ideals that modern Liberals today, in America, support...
Inherently, there is nothing wrong with traditional Liberalism-that which was defined and supported by Mill in 1859. In fact, traditional Liberalism is largely a good thing for people, societies, and cultures to embrace. As it was when Mill first defined it in political and social terms, it became the backbone of the ideals that made America great. That Liberalism would have supported a persons right to choose-concerning everything-without sacrificing human natures natural desire to better itself through effort, hard work, and failure and success through trial and error. That form of Liberalism, traditional Liberalism, was at the heart of our individual spirit, our entrepreneuralship and the responsibility we all once held over our own successes and failures and it would have supported giving people hand ups, not hand outs, from the government. Today, however, Modern Liberalism is little more than Socialism attempting to disguise itself by a word with a better image, and meaning, than that which those using the word today really believe in.
Monday, September 13, 2010
American political ideologies: Introduction
For over 20 years I have been an observer and student of the relationship between government and society. Though I have no formal education in the subjects of politics, philosophy, economics, social economic theory and the American Constitution and Constitutional theory, I have studied all of these as hobbies since my teens. Studying these subjects as I have, has, I believe, provided me with one serious advantage over those who are formally educated in them: I approach all of my studies without the bias of a 3rd party influence. Many may not take my opinions seriously-which is their right; but I have had my self education validated by those who are are formally educated in these topics. Do I still have much to learn regarding these topics? Absolutely, and I continue to do so, but that does not take away what I have learned up too now concerning these topics....
Over the coming weeks I am going to lay out what I believe are the 4 primary political and social ideologies which dominate America today in a 5 or 6 part series (as of this introduction I am undecided as to how many parts I want), how they interact with each other, and how they have helped to lead our country to the precipice of social, economic, and political collapse we are at today.
I hope those who come back to read them all do so with as open a mind as possible: America's greatest strengths have always been our unity and individuality-traits based on freedoms we are granted by our Constitution. These traits are what lead to the many great inventions and our being able to overcome all the many obstacles our nation and society faced through the end of WWII. These strengths have left our society, economy and culture over the last 40 years, and hopefully, in writing the following series, I will do my small part to remind all who read them, to help bring them back as the back bone of what America is all about.
RR
Over the coming weeks I am going to lay out what I believe are the 4 primary political and social ideologies which dominate America today in a 5 or 6 part series (as of this introduction I am undecided as to how many parts I want), how they interact with each other, and how they have helped to lead our country to the precipice of social, economic, and political collapse we are at today.
I hope those who come back to read them all do so with as open a mind as possible: America's greatest strengths have always been our unity and individuality-traits based on freedoms we are granted by our Constitution. These traits are what lead to the many great inventions and our being able to overcome all the many obstacles our nation and society faced through the end of WWII. These strengths have left our society, economy and culture over the last 40 years, and hopefully, in writing the following series, I will do my small part to remind all who read them, to help bring them back as the back bone of what America is all about.
RR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)