Posts
An inquiry posted to all,
I wish to posit a question to any whom honor my thoughts with a few moments of your time in reading my humble blog. If we look back in the last 33 years of American political development we can see two major shifts in our political cosmology. We have seen the rhetoric approach unprecedented levels of openly partisan warfare both in our Federal, State, County, and even Municipal levels of governance. While this is in many ways nothing earthshaking or all that noteworthy in regards to political partisanship in our nation's history.
What is noteworthy is that while our "political" leaders seem to grow farther and farther apart. The American people seem to be continuing their intent on a balanced political philosophy. This in my humble opinion is the first trend of the disconnect between our leaders and us the citizen. We here terms like "War on Women" and "Socialist/Marxist" being thrown about carelessly even worse recklessly. The tea party is decrying what they see as "Casus belli" in regards to the IRS targeting their non-profit groups because of their political orientation.
We see the specter of "abuse of power" in the recent revelation of the NSA's Operation Prism. Neither party is without sin in this regard. While I am glad to see open opposition and policing of the opposing viewpoints by both political philosophies and parties. I am not glad at all, in point of fact, rather angry at the utter lack of civility towards those whom are being treated as unclean for daring to disagree with the "mother church" in the form of a chosen political identity or association with a political party.
We see the Democratic party and its liberal/progressive leadership guilty of their own "war on women." The largely white male Democratic leadership in both houses of Congress are guilty of cowardice by forcing female party members to "take the lead" in chastising the Republican ergo "conservative" groups. This is both unethical as well as immoral to so deliberately use the women of your part as a bludgeon to score points against the other side. Women's issues affect all of us and men as well as women need to recognize and speak on these issues.
Our sitting President for all his claims to his liberal ideals has acted in parallel to his predecessor rather than honoring his promises a more liberal form of governance. The Republican party is no less guilty in their duality and duplicity towards the citizens of this nation. We see the Republican party oppose the serious need for reforms in the areas of health care, taxation, and overt discrimination towards the issues of same sex marriage. This is not a party that was founded prior to the Civil War and openly took the stance against the evils of slavery.
We permit the open demagoguery and demonizing of anyone whom does not march in lockstep with their chosen or given political identification. By this statement I am referring towards the behavior of both ideologies and parties not agreeing to disagree and striving to find a middle ground for what is in the best interests of our nation. Both parties give an unfair amount of influence to those whom have wealth in determining what is in the best interests of our nation.
Our nation has accepted that it is ethical and moral to classify "money" as a form of free speech. I do not think our founding fathers would see this trend as healthy for our Republican form of government. Rather than seeking to work with each other for the betterment of all our citizens, our people are divided in to racial, social, economic, sexual, and religious camps. This division does not serve to strengthen our people rather it permits to control a given group through fear and manipulation.
Why do we permit this behavior? Who bears the blame for this situation, I believe that it is ourselves that are to blame. The intersectionality of our modern lives does not permit a single issue approach to handling the complex issues that our nation face now and will face in the future. I don't see liberals or conservatives as inherently wrong nor are the parties themselves. We must as a people commit ourselves to active citizenship. It is our duty to vote and to actively participate in our political process.
If you wish to see change occur then get out there, get active, and educate yourself with facts. Avoid the overly emotional reactions to an issue but understand that issues that affect others will eventually affect you. The information you need is out there and it only requires basic research skills to find what you need to make informed decisions. Do not passively accept anything fed to you as "news" or "information." Make decision for yourselves and act in what you understand based upon those facts as what is in the best interests of our nation.
One of the main issues with this essay rests in your not defining your terms.
ReplyDelete"Liberal" has two political meanings. In the classic meaning, the one used by our founders, it referred to individual freedoms.
However, in modern US Politics, beginning in the days of Woodrow Wilson, the term "liberal" was taken in context to its other meaning "unrestrained" or "expanded". Consider the term "use a liberal application of ointment to the infected area". It no longer refers to "liberty" or individual rights. the term expresses the application of government authority, something the US Constitution was designed to prevent.
In regards to "money" as "free speech", the argument is not new. It dates back to the Adams v Jefferson presidential campaigns. Campaigning wasn't necessary for the first presidential administration. Washington won, unopposed, both of his elections. In fact, he remains the only US President to garner 100% of the electoral vote.
ReplyDeleteIn contrast, the Adams v Jefferson campaigns were steeped in bile and muck-raking. In the cases of both sides, supporters used money in order to insure their opinions were published. Thus were the first PAC advertisement campaigns. Since, they have remained an intricate part of our history.
These days, everybody has the ability to make their voice heard. They can put up a Youtube video or a spreecast podcast. They can post a blog. They can write a letter to an editor and hope the editor chooses the letter for print. However, it remains true that those willing to use the money they earned through trading their skills and a portion of their lives (time) as donations to support political agendas may get the volume of their voice amplified. There is no constitutional basis for hindering that. In fact, the First Amendment supports it. That is the essence of the Citizens United decision. It is a great read and I highly encourage it.
I also highly encourage that people actually read the decision in Gore v Bush before commenting on it. It is well researched, well written, logical, and reasonable. When it comes to electoral law and policy, it is probably also one of the least biased court decisions anywhere on the books at any level.
ReplyDeleteNow, I will contend that "women's rights issues" actually violate the 14th Amendment. That amendment basically enforces the ideal that all laws must apply to each individual and all citizens equally. As soon as you start having "special freedoms" for one gender or the other, you fall into the collectivist thought that Amendment was designed to prevent.
ReplyDeleteIn the cases of same-sex marriage, you know my thoughts. As with mixed-race marriages, it is primarily a states' rights issue in determining to whom they will issue marriage certificates. Marriage is not a condition of religion in our country, but a condition of the rule of law based on social mores. The 10th Amendment states that powers, authorities, and responsibilities not reserved to the federal government are reserved to the states or the individuals. There is no authority of governance or regulation of marriage enumerated (nor implied) in the US Constitution. That leaves it to the states.
That is why DOMA is unconstitutional.
The 14th Amendment further preempts DOMA. That same amendment necessitates all states to recognize a marriage made legal in any state. That was the opinion in the mixed-race marriage decisions. The same holds for same-sex marriage.
A state can set its constitutional (legal) definition. They can refuse to issue marriage licenses. Most already do that in the cases of first cousins and minors. However, if WV legalizes 2nd cousins to marry, and establishes they can marry without parental consent at age 14, that is the state's right. If the couple moves to Arizona at age 16, they are still legally married and AZ recognizes the marriage. However, should they not have been married but sought a license in AZ at the age of 15, they would be denied.
The same goes for same-sex marriages. In fact, it was the acceptance of mixed-race marriages from one state having to be recognized in another that eventually changed the laws across the nation. If same-sex couples want that sort of change, that is how they should do it.
Something to be very wary of, however, is that many of the activist groups that push for same-sex marriage are also pushing for pedophilia and bestiality to be legalized. And yes, the essays are out there calling for the legalization of inter-species marriages.
One last thing of note -- the wings have not gotten "more extreme". In fact, one of the issues many conservatives have with the "political class GOP" is that they have, themselves, drifted more left, seeking greater government power. These days, what was a political moderate in 1968, 1972, or 1982 is considered "far right wing". In reality, "far right wing" is total anarchy. (Far "left wing" is a totalitarian dictatorship/monarchy). Government by a Bureaucracy with liberal application of regulation and authority is also known as an "Oligarchy". Oligarchy is what Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Mao, Hitler, and Mussolini all sought. It is the political structure that supports a socialist or communist command economy. What many call "far right wing" are constitutional republicans or constitutional moderates who want the rule of law to be followed by both the citizens AND the elected officials.
ReplyDeleteSome would say that Ted Cruz is an example of your "drift towards extreme right wing". He is not a drift. In fact, he represents the views of his constituents very well. He holds regular meetings on weekends. He routinely sends out emails asking for input and opinions. It just so happens that he embodies the very essence of a constitutionally limited federal government that conservatives (notice I didn't say GOP) and libertarians support. John McCain, however, demonstrates the leftward drift of most entrenched "political class" federal legislators, who have given in to the quest for power.