I saw this the other day and found it interesting. Just some more examples of "candidate" Obama differing dramatically from President Obama. It will be interesting if he starts to switch back into candidate mode now.
It's interesting because to the extent that his administration has been successful, it has been largely by not following through on his own campaign promises. Guantanamo was not closed. We got valuable information out of Guantanamo. Obamacare is a reality. Because he did not work across the aisle to achieve consensus, and because he did not bring "change" to the political system. Change would have been a common sense, plain English bill that legislators on both sides had carefully considered, and had come to a consensus on. Instead, you have leading Democratic lawmakers saying that they will find out what's in the bill once it is passed. You have the President posing for "bi-partisan" photo ops with Republican lawmakers, telling them his plans, and refusing to consider their suggested changes.
We are still in the recession, and the two wars in the Middle East. We have also gotten involved in Libya. Guantanamo is still operational. Politics in America is still a game of partisan chicken now that one house is controlled by the GOP. Has Obama fulfilled any of his campaign promises?
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, August 25, 2011
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Is our government addicted to spending?
I saw this article by former Libertarian VP nominee Wayne Allyn Root and it raised an interesting prospect. Is our nation's spending problem the national version of an addiction?
Let's look at it. Like the alcoholic who takes the first sip, we started collecting taxes to build roads, schools, etc. Then, when our nation hit hard times (like the Great Depression), we needed more. The government "needed" to help the unemployed. We started giving out welfare. Which required more taxes. We started government-funded infrastructure projects to both employee people and improve our economic infrastructure. We needed more taxes. Maybe it started off as an addiction.
But to me, our government's spending problem is more like methadone treatment for a heroine addict. We are in an economic crisis. Instead of cutting off our spending, we redirect it. The government is about to hit its debt ceiling. The private market has stopped creating new American jobs. We borrowed too much money, and now our economy is on the verge of collapse, largely because we borrowed too much. Well, what do our elected officials do? Do they stop spending? No, they continue spending. They redirect their spending to more "healthy" and "productive" outlets, like... extending unemployment benefits. Continuing to hire more "czars" and "advisers" to build our President's national monument to the Chicago Democratic machine. Giving cash to first time home buyers. Giving cash to people to buy "greener" cars. Giving cash to companies that create "greener" jobs. Where has it gotten us?
Just like a junky who is in the hospital for heroin use, and leaves just as stoned (although perhaps less at risk for diseases, ODs, and antisocial behavior) on methadone, our economy is still screwed. We are in the hospital for debt, overspending, and economic restrictions which make us uncompetitive in the labor and industrial market places. We are leaving with more debt, but this time it is debt in the service of "sustainability" "redistribution of wealth," and "social justice."
The solution is not to spend on different things. The solution is to stop using. For our government, that means stop spending.
Let's look at it. Like the alcoholic who takes the first sip, we started collecting taxes to build roads, schools, etc. Then, when our nation hit hard times (like the Great Depression), we needed more. The government "needed" to help the unemployed. We started giving out welfare. Which required more taxes. We started government-funded infrastructure projects to both employee people and improve our economic infrastructure. We needed more taxes. Maybe it started off as an addiction.
But to me, our government's spending problem is more like methadone treatment for a heroine addict. We are in an economic crisis. Instead of cutting off our spending, we redirect it. The government is about to hit its debt ceiling. The private market has stopped creating new American jobs. We borrowed too much money, and now our economy is on the verge of collapse, largely because we borrowed too much. Well, what do our elected officials do? Do they stop spending? No, they continue spending. They redirect their spending to more "healthy" and "productive" outlets, like... extending unemployment benefits. Continuing to hire more "czars" and "advisers" to build our President's national monument to the Chicago Democratic machine. Giving cash to first time home buyers. Giving cash to people to buy "greener" cars. Giving cash to companies that create "greener" jobs. Where has it gotten us?
Just like a junky who is in the hospital for heroin use, and leaves just as stoned (although perhaps less at risk for diseases, ODs, and antisocial behavior) on methadone, our economy is still screwed. We are in the hospital for debt, overspending, and economic restrictions which make us uncompetitive in the labor and industrial market places. We are leaving with more debt, but this time it is debt in the service of "sustainability" "redistribution of wealth," and "social justice."
The solution is not to spend on different things. The solution is to stop using. For our government, that means stop spending.
Sunday, January 23, 2011
Throw Those Hands Up Already
So tonight I watched a CNBC documentary on Mexico's drug wars. Not really a lot of new information in there for me, but one thing really got my blood boiling. A Deputy Secretary for Homeland Security from the U.S. said that legalization was not an option, because "it would be like throwing our hands up and saying nothing can be done."
First, let's assume that that is actually the only message that legalizing marijuana on the federal level could send. Alright. So what? Didn't we learn from Vietnam that sometimes, there is a point at which nothing can be done? We are throwing good money after bad, and good lives after lives already lost in the war on drugs. It has been about 30 years since Reagan and his wife began this war, and all we have seen is a steady rotation of the "in" drugs, a shift in production, processing and transit routes. We show images of eggs that are supposed to be our brains, and fried eggs that are supposed to be our brains on drugs; we arrest kingpins. We burn fields of coca and marijuana. We destroy indigenous traditions in South American countries. And what happens? Drugs become more expensive as they become harder to get onto America's streets, the drug trade becomes more lucrative for those at the top of the pyramid, and they become more willing to do whatever it takes to make that money, leading to more lives lost. The international drug trade and the organized crime it supports is the original multi-level marketing scheme, and it is not easily brought down. These are like Avon or Mary Kay ladies with guns. Is it such a bad thing to throw our hands up and say there's nothing that can be done? If we spent that money on education about drugs, job creation, and fixing America's problems, maybe people would not be so desperate to escape their daily lives that they would do anything to get high.
Moreover, though, is the fact that the message sent by legalization would not necessarily be that we were giving up. The message could, and should, be that after a lot of research and calculated thought, we realized that the policies pursued by our government, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, were wrong. We've realized that while eradicating narcotics and their trafficking was a noble goal, it is simply too costly to do so. Literally thousands of lives are lost each year on the streets of America, and in the streets of Latin America, because of our war on drugs. How many lives has marijuana prohibition saved? The argument most often used by those who acknowledge marijuana's relatively low health risks is that it is a gateway drug. Why, though, is marijuana a gateway drug? Probably because once people have started using marijuana, they are more inclined to go the next step. After all, they already know dealers, and thus have access to hard drugs. And they've already crossed the line of breaking the law. So what's one step further into the realm of illegal drug use? Well, legalization actually would eliminate both of these factors. By outlawing pot, we are forcing people who are using a harmless substance (at least relative to alcohol, tobacco, and countless other legal and illegal substances) into a dark, underground world. We are forcing them to make a choice to break the law, as well as to associate with potentially dangerous criminals.
If (or when) marijuana is legalized, potheads will be going to the corner store to get their fix, not to the corner where they will meet a dealer who also peddles crack, heroin, or meth. They will have to make a conscious choice to cross the path of the law when progressing from marijuana to more serious, dangerous drugs.
If the government marketing/propaganda machine could convince us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, certainly they could convince us of the more accurate, and demonstrable, fact that our drug policies are costing more lives than they are saving. Market it correctly and legalization doesn't have to be a white flag of shameful surrender.
Either way, are our politicians and old-guard citizens allowing our pride to get in the way of smart decision making? It's okay to admit that while we may be winning the battles, we are losing the war, and cut our losses. It's also okay to admit that our policies were more harmful than they were helpful, and our costing our children, and the people of our "allies" lives every day.
Some people argue that marijuana legalization is a slippery slope. Perhaps they're right. Gay marriage, the repeal of DADT, and legalization may be the beginning of a slippery slope. But hey, if we can all live happily doped up on heroin and marrying our donkeys, but still be alive, and know that innocent children are not being gunned down in Juarez or Bogota, maybe it's a slope we should be a little more open to sliding down.
First, let's assume that that is actually the only message that legalizing marijuana on the federal level could send. Alright. So what? Didn't we learn from Vietnam that sometimes, there is a point at which nothing can be done? We are throwing good money after bad, and good lives after lives already lost in the war on drugs. It has been about 30 years since Reagan and his wife began this war, and all we have seen is a steady rotation of the "in" drugs, a shift in production, processing and transit routes. We show images of eggs that are supposed to be our brains, and fried eggs that are supposed to be our brains on drugs; we arrest kingpins. We burn fields of coca and marijuana. We destroy indigenous traditions in South American countries. And what happens? Drugs become more expensive as they become harder to get onto America's streets, the drug trade becomes more lucrative for those at the top of the pyramid, and they become more willing to do whatever it takes to make that money, leading to more lives lost. The international drug trade and the organized crime it supports is the original multi-level marketing scheme, and it is not easily brought down. These are like Avon or Mary Kay ladies with guns. Is it such a bad thing to throw our hands up and say there's nothing that can be done? If we spent that money on education about drugs, job creation, and fixing America's problems, maybe people would not be so desperate to escape their daily lives that they would do anything to get high.
Moreover, though, is the fact that the message sent by legalization would not necessarily be that we were giving up. The message could, and should, be that after a lot of research and calculated thought, we realized that the policies pursued by our government, under both Republican and Democratic administrations, were wrong. We've realized that while eradicating narcotics and their trafficking was a noble goal, it is simply too costly to do so. Literally thousands of lives are lost each year on the streets of America, and in the streets of Latin America, because of our war on drugs. How many lives has marijuana prohibition saved? The argument most often used by those who acknowledge marijuana's relatively low health risks is that it is a gateway drug. Why, though, is marijuana a gateway drug? Probably because once people have started using marijuana, they are more inclined to go the next step. After all, they already know dealers, and thus have access to hard drugs. And they've already crossed the line of breaking the law. So what's one step further into the realm of illegal drug use? Well, legalization actually would eliminate both of these factors. By outlawing pot, we are forcing people who are using a harmless substance (at least relative to alcohol, tobacco, and countless other legal and illegal substances) into a dark, underground world. We are forcing them to make a choice to break the law, as well as to associate with potentially dangerous criminals.
If (or when) marijuana is legalized, potheads will be going to the corner store to get their fix, not to the corner where they will meet a dealer who also peddles crack, heroin, or meth. They will have to make a conscious choice to cross the path of the law when progressing from marijuana to more serious, dangerous drugs.
If the government marketing/propaganda machine could convince us that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, certainly they could convince us of the more accurate, and demonstrable, fact that our drug policies are costing more lives than they are saving. Market it correctly and legalization doesn't have to be a white flag of shameful surrender.
Either way, are our politicians and old-guard citizens allowing our pride to get in the way of smart decision making? It's okay to admit that while we may be winning the battles, we are losing the war, and cut our losses. It's also okay to admit that our policies were more harmful than they were helpful, and our costing our children, and the people of our "allies" lives every day.
Some people argue that marijuana legalization is a slippery slope. Perhaps they're right. Gay marriage, the repeal of DADT, and legalization may be the beginning of a slippery slope. But hey, if we can all live happily doped up on heroin and marrying our donkeys, but still be alive, and know that innocent children are not being gunned down in Juarez or Bogota, maybe it's a slope we should be a little more open to sliding down.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Giffords Shooting and Violent Political Rhetoric
What happened in Arizona last week was a tragedy. There is no doubt. But what has happened in the media and on the internet, at the hands of the Left, is even more tragic, and worse yet, hypocritical.
A man with a history of unstable behavior shot at a politician. The immediate reaction of the Left was to blame the Right, and, in particular, the Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin, for the shooting. This is so far off base, and so hypocritical, it is not even funny.
In a country that has one of the most liberal democracies in the world, but very low voter turnout, politicians have long sought to inspire passion about politics and political beliefs in constituents' minds. They use rhetoric of "revolt," revolution, and yes, occasionally violence, to support this passion-building goal. Even the term "campaign" is a military (thus inherently violent) term.
It is not right to blame a politician or a media figure for a deranged individuals' actions simply because they continue this long-standing American political tradition.
On the other hand, these same individuals, who now so easily point the finger, mostly voted our current President into office. Let's look at some of the people our President has associated with, and evaluate their role in creating political violence.
The first, and most obvious of my three examples, is Reverend Jeremiah Wright. If hateful or violent speech is a political sin, Obama's minister is long past political purgatory.
Second, William Ayers, and other members of the Weather Underground. Many politicians use violent images in their speech to wrestle up passion in voters. Yet, while an entire generation peacefully and non-violently protested the draft and the Vietnam War, some individuals took it upon themselves to do so violently, using terrorist violence to prove an overtly political point. Obama is close friends and business associates with Ayers, as well, I'm surge, given his Hyde Park connections, other members of this small group.
Finally, the Black Panther Party, which practiced voter intimidation on behalf of our current President. This is a direct form of political violence, and one which undermines the very core of our political system, our right to elect our political leadership.
I am not saying that Obama is a terrible person, or that he should be crucified for the sins of those around him (although from the cult worship he receives from many on the Left, we might wonder if they have him confused with someone else). I am, however, saying that before we begin to critique the words of those on the Right, we should take a good look at the ACTIONS of those on the Left. We are Constitutionally guaranteed a freedom of speech. We are not guaranteed a right to fire bomb, or a right to intimidate voters.
A man with a history of unstable behavior shot at a politician. The immediate reaction of the Left was to blame the Right, and, in particular, the Tea Party movement and Sarah Palin, for the shooting. This is so far off base, and so hypocritical, it is not even funny.
In a country that has one of the most liberal democracies in the world, but very low voter turnout, politicians have long sought to inspire passion about politics and political beliefs in constituents' minds. They use rhetoric of "revolt," revolution, and yes, occasionally violence, to support this passion-building goal. Even the term "campaign" is a military (thus inherently violent) term.
It is not right to blame a politician or a media figure for a deranged individuals' actions simply because they continue this long-standing American political tradition.
On the other hand, these same individuals, who now so easily point the finger, mostly voted our current President into office. Let's look at some of the people our President has associated with, and evaluate their role in creating political violence.
The first, and most obvious of my three examples, is Reverend Jeremiah Wright. If hateful or violent speech is a political sin, Obama's minister is long past political purgatory.
Second, William Ayers, and other members of the Weather Underground. Many politicians use violent images in their speech to wrestle up passion in voters. Yet, while an entire generation peacefully and non-violently protested the draft and the Vietnam War, some individuals took it upon themselves to do so violently, using terrorist violence to prove an overtly political point. Obama is close friends and business associates with Ayers, as well, I'm surge, given his Hyde Park connections, other members of this small group.
Finally, the Black Panther Party, which practiced voter intimidation on behalf of our current President. This is a direct form of political violence, and one which undermines the very core of our political system, our right to elect our political leadership.
I am not saying that Obama is a terrible person, or that he should be crucified for the sins of those around him (although from the cult worship he receives from many on the Left, we might wonder if they have him confused with someone else). I am, however, saying that before we begin to critique the words of those on the Right, we should take a good look at the ACTIONS of those on the Left. We are Constitutionally guaranteed a freedom of speech. We are not guaranteed a right to fire bomb, or a right to intimidate voters.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Equity vs. Equality
Being a poli sci major when I was in school, one thing I hated was looking at definitions, statistics, etc. versus the bigger picture. This particular conversation, however, is one in which the definition is key to the bigger picture and defining issues and "good" policy.
The problem with the left, and even the center, in American politics today, is that there is a sense of "social justice" which uses inequities as an excuse to push for automatic equality for all racial, gender, and socio-economic groups. Understanding the difference between equity and equality, and the importance of maintaining equity, but also maintaining inequality, in a capitalist system is key to keeping the American dream alive and understanding the proper, limited goal of the government in our lives.
Equality, as it relates to "social justice" and politics is the idea that all people are inherently equal, and equally deserving of everything from liberty to the "finer things in life." This is inherently false, and a dangerous idea to democracy, and, especially, capitalism and the free market. The American dream is built on the idea that through creativity, intelligence, natural ability, and hard work, one can set themselves ahead of the masses. Thus, we all start out somewhere on a scale of unequal conditions, and our goal, our drive to give something to our economy and our society, is to move somewhere up that scale.
Equity, on the other hand, is the idea of a fair distribution of resources, and, in particular, opportunity. That is, if two people are born in very different situations, but have the same skills, abilities, intelligence, and drive, will both have equal access to the tools needed to fulfill their idea of the American dream.
The left will consistently point out how inequitable our society is. They point to statistics of the poor barely making it by, sending their children to underfunded schools so hungry that they cannot focus on the lessons taught by unqualified teachers. They point out that there are few jobs available in minority and poor neighborhoods.
This is all true, and these are issues that need to be addressed. The left, however, then turn around and in the same breath oppose school vouchers, and support instead the redistribution of wealth that we know as social welfare programs. They support unemployment, welfare, food stamps, and other programs which redistribute resources to the poor and to minorities.
This does not solve the underlying problems. While making our society more equal, these programs do little to make our society more equitable. They take away the incentive to work, while also not providing the infrastructure or education to make it possible for the people in these neighborhoods to work, and to raise themselves out of their current conditions.
Unemployment, poverty, or drug addiction should not be comfortable or pleasant. It should not be easy. It should not be secure. If it were, what would be the incentive to progress in life?
If we want to truly right the wrongs of an imperfect society with an imperfect history, we should remove the funding from social "safety net" programs, and redirect it all at meaningful, effective, educational reform. From charter schools to school vouchers, what that means is forcing educational institutions to compete for students and funding, even students from low income areas. By continually complaining about underfunded urban schools, we encourage our officials to reward under-performing districts with increased funding. Instead, by offering charter and magnet schools, vouchers, and, if necessary, transportation, we have the potential to force real improvement in our education system. By basing school funding on where parents choose to send their children to school, not based on geographical boundaries, we force school administrators and teachers who wish to keep their jobs to perform.
Although it may seem cold hearted to leave a generation which did not have access to these reforms behind, the best thing we can do to truly make the American dream a reality is to make sure that the current generation is the last to suffer through this. Make sure that every American child has access to quality education, from educators, schools, and systems which are fighting to remain one step ahead. Run our schools like businesses. Make them accountable for the money they spend, and make them compete with the competition. This is the only way to make them perform. When our schools perform for all of our students, we will be a huge step closer to an equitable society.
The problem with the left, and even the center, in American politics today, is that there is a sense of "social justice" which uses inequities as an excuse to push for automatic equality for all racial, gender, and socio-economic groups. Understanding the difference between equity and equality, and the importance of maintaining equity, but also maintaining inequality, in a capitalist system is key to keeping the American dream alive and understanding the proper, limited goal of the government in our lives.
Equality, as it relates to "social justice" and politics is the idea that all people are inherently equal, and equally deserving of everything from liberty to the "finer things in life." This is inherently false, and a dangerous idea to democracy, and, especially, capitalism and the free market. The American dream is built on the idea that through creativity, intelligence, natural ability, and hard work, one can set themselves ahead of the masses. Thus, we all start out somewhere on a scale of unequal conditions, and our goal, our drive to give something to our economy and our society, is to move somewhere up that scale.
Equity, on the other hand, is the idea of a fair distribution of resources, and, in particular, opportunity. That is, if two people are born in very different situations, but have the same skills, abilities, intelligence, and drive, will both have equal access to the tools needed to fulfill their idea of the American dream.
The left will consistently point out how inequitable our society is. They point to statistics of the poor barely making it by, sending their children to underfunded schools so hungry that they cannot focus on the lessons taught by unqualified teachers. They point out that there are few jobs available in minority and poor neighborhoods.
This is all true, and these are issues that need to be addressed. The left, however, then turn around and in the same breath oppose school vouchers, and support instead the redistribution of wealth that we know as social welfare programs. They support unemployment, welfare, food stamps, and other programs which redistribute resources to the poor and to minorities.
This does not solve the underlying problems. While making our society more equal, these programs do little to make our society more equitable. They take away the incentive to work, while also not providing the infrastructure or education to make it possible for the people in these neighborhoods to work, and to raise themselves out of their current conditions.
Unemployment, poverty, or drug addiction should not be comfortable or pleasant. It should not be easy. It should not be secure. If it were, what would be the incentive to progress in life?
If we want to truly right the wrongs of an imperfect society with an imperfect history, we should remove the funding from social "safety net" programs, and redirect it all at meaningful, effective, educational reform. From charter schools to school vouchers, what that means is forcing educational institutions to compete for students and funding, even students from low income areas. By continually complaining about underfunded urban schools, we encourage our officials to reward under-performing districts with increased funding. Instead, by offering charter and magnet schools, vouchers, and, if necessary, transportation, we have the potential to force real improvement in our education system. By basing school funding on where parents choose to send their children to school, not based on geographical boundaries, we force school administrators and teachers who wish to keep their jobs to perform.
Although it may seem cold hearted to leave a generation which did not have access to these reforms behind, the best thing we can do to truly make the American dream a reality is to make sure that the current generation is the last to suffer through this. Make sure that every American child has access to quality education, from educators, schools, and systems which are fighting to remain one step ahead. Run our schools like businesses. Make them accountable for the money they spend, and make them compete with the competition. This is the only way to make them perform. When our schools perform for all of our students, we will be a huge step closer to an equitable society.
Friday, November 5, 2010
More Positive Election News from Nevada
So not a lot of the candidates I voted for, or even liked, won here in Nevada. The election results though, still made me happy in a way. Reid, who I hated, won, but his son, and most other Democrats, lost.
Why would such a thing make me happy? Even if they were unwilling to take the leap and vote independent or third party, voters in Nevada at least researched and formed an opinion on the individual candidates. Clearly, with the election being split between Republicans and Democrats, and very few races being close, this is the case.
People actually looked at the individual candidates, and not just the letter next to their names, and that is a good start.
Why would such a thing make me happy? Even if they were unwilling to take the leap and vote independent or third party, voters in Nevada at least researched and formed an opinion on the individual candidates. Clearly, with the election being split between Republicans and Democrats, and very few races being close, this is the case.
People actually looked at the individual candidates, and not just the letter next to their names, and that is a good start.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Good News from Election Day
This may sound odd, but I'm very pleased with election day. I'm particularly happy that we are now gridlocked, with one house and the White House controlled by one party, and the other house controlled by the other party. Why, you might ask? Doesn't that make government inefficient and unable to accomplish anything?
Exactly. Our two parties have failed to convince me that they have any desire or will to accomplish anything that actually benefits "we the people." So, with a gridlocked political system, hopefully we can maintain the status quo, and hold off any more Republican attempts at restricting our liberties and Democratic attempts at emptying our wallets for a few years until some candidates who propose real change emerge.
Exactly. Our two parties have failed to convince me that they have any desire or will to accomplish anything that actually benefits "we the people." So, with a gridlocked political system, hopefully we can maintain the status quo, and hold off any more Republican attempts at restricting our liberties and Democratic attempts at emptying our wallets for a few years until some candidates who propose real change emerge.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Why Obama Dems and Tea Partiers are Good for America
It may sound odd to hear someone supporting both Obama and the Tea Party. In fact, I actually support neither.
But I do see the presence of both as a positive force on American politics. Although I would ideally like to see the rise of a legitimate third party, and a system which was not inherently controlled by two parties, I recognize that this is unlikely to happen, and especially to last, with our current system of government. If, however, we are going to have a two party system, it is important that there really are two parties.
Can anyone tell me with a straight face that the Democratic and Republican parties are really that different on politics? Can anyone clearly define the basic, philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats? In doing so, do they not expect me to be able to find any exceptions sitting in elected offices?
"Blue Dogs" and "RINOs" are great for getting things done. They are great for "working across party lines." In reality though, they blur party lines, and their dominance of the American political system right now essentially fails to represent U.S. voters and their views.
Both parties have moved so far to the center that we really have no choice. You can vote for someone with a D next to their name, who opposed the war, but thinks we need to "support the troops" by continuing our foreign occupation and further endangering our troops' lives, supports bailing out banks and auto-makers, and thinks gay marriage and abortion will come when society is ready. Or, you can vote for someone with an R next to their name, who supports the war, but thinks it is time to wind it down, "opposes" bailouts in general, but thinks that banks and auto makers are "too big to fail," and thinks gay marriage, DADT, and abortion are too touchy and personal to be addressed by our current legislature, especially with the pressing economic situation.
Really, from a practical point of view, what is your choice? The votes will go the same way.
The extremism of Obama's socialist-leaning Dems and the far right Tea Partiers is opening a real debate and providing real options to Americans at the ballot box. Turnout in this midterm election will be high, as it will in 2012. By providing real options, we are re-engaging America in politics. This is exactly what establishment Republicans and Democrats are afraid of.
But I do see the presence of both as a positive force on American politics. Although I would ideally like to see the rise of a legitimate third party, and a system which was not inherently controlled by two parties, I recognize that this is unlikely to happen, and especially to last, with our current system of government. If, however, we are going to have a two party system, it is important that there really are two parties.
Can anyone tell me with a straight face that the Democratic and Republican parties are really that different on politics? Can anyone clearly define the basic, philosophical difference between Republicans and Democrats? In doing so, do they not expect me to be able to find any exceptions sitting in elected offices?
"Blue Dogs" and "RINOs" are great for getting things done. They are great for "working across party lines." In reality though, they blur party lines, and their dominance of the American political system right now essentially fails to represent U.S. voters and their views.
Both parties have moved so far to the center that we really have no choice. You can vote for someone with a D next to their name, who opposed the war, but thinks we need to "support the troops" by continuing our foreign occupation and further endangering our troops' lives, supports bailing out banks and auto-makers, and thinks gay marriage and abortion will come when society is ready. Or, you can vote for someone with an R next to their name, who supports the war, but thinks it is time to wind it down, "opposes" bailouts in general, but thinks that banks and auto makers are "too big to fail," and thinks gay marriage, DADT, and abortion are too touchy and personal to be addressed by our current legislature, especially with the pressing economic situation.
Really, from a practical point of view, what is your choice? The votes will go the same way.
The extremism of Obama's socialist-leaning Dems and the far right Tea Partiers is opening a real debate and providing real options to Americans at the ballot box. Turnout in this midterm election will be high, as it will in 2012. By providing real options, we are re-engaging America in politics. This is exactly what establishment Republicans and Democrats are afraid of.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Hypocrisy on the Left (Again)
This post had me smiling the other day. First of all, I'm not a huge fan of Jesse Jackson to begin with. Maybe I'll put up a post some day on that. Second, though, the karma train just pulled into its station. The only thing better would have been if something had happened to Al Gore's jet on the way to some global climate conference.
In addition to his divisive and one-sided race-baiting, apparently Jesse Jackson is also supporting the big government scam of "green" job creation. Meanwhile, he is driving around Detroit in an Escalade. Well, the Escalade is now missing its wheels, a window, and probably some expensive stereo equipment. Building parts for a car that gets well under 20 mpg hardly counts as a "green" job.
In addition to his divisive and one-sided race-baiting, apparently Jesse Jackson is also supporting the big government scam of "green" job creation. Meanwhile, he is driving around Detroit in an Escalade. Well, the Escalade is now missing its wheels, a window, and probably some expensive stereo equipment. Building parts for a car that gets well under 20 mpg hardly counts as a "green" job.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Third Parties and Run Off Election
Recently, the Libertarian Party posted an article (I failed to read it in its entirety) pointing out that polls are now showing several Libertarian candidates in Georgia getting enough votes in November to lead to runoff elections. At first, I did not see how significant this was.
Thinking about it, however, I now see that this is a huge step for Libertarians, independents, and third parties in general. Talking to many voters, they often acknowledge that the views of third parties (usually Green or Libertarian) are actually closer to their own political beliefs than those of either major parties. In election cycles where this thought prevails, particularly in election cycles like the current one, where there is huge discontent with the status quo and the party in power, the opposition party usually spends time and money trying to portray third parties as stealing necessary votes from close races.
I have always maintained that it is more important to vote for the best candidate, even if it does, in fact, steal votes. The harm done by one elected candidate in one term is nothing compared to the damage to our society and nation done by a failing two party system over a period of several centuries. By voting for third parties, every vote is another vote of confidence, and will, eventually, contribute to either the fall of the two party system or a change in the two prominent parties.
Runoff elections, however, provide us with an opportunity for an even more concrete gain from our "wasted" third party votes. Essentially, the prospect of a runoff election provides voters with an opportunity to vote for the best candidate without risking pushing the worst candidate into office by "wasting" votes. For example, if Georgians are confident that there will be a runoff election, they can express support for Libertarian values and candidates in the actual election. Although the Libertarian may not win, they will cause a runoff election. The in-power Democratic candidate will not win the first round of the election. Libertarians can then vote in the runoff for the "lesser of two evils" candidate.
We should take this opportunity in Georgia, and wherever else it presents itself this November, and use the elections not as a referendum on the Democratic or Republican Party, but on their two party system as a whole. Vote for the best candidate this November, and then vote for the "lesser of two evils" in the runoff.
The added bonus of this is that by forcing a runoff election, we force the two major parties to spend even more money than they already do on this election cycle, emphasizing just how much time, effort, and money it takes to coerce votes from people who really aren't happy with either option.
Thinking about it, however, I now see that this is a huge step for Libertarians, independents, and third parties in general. Talking to many voters, they often acknowledge that the views of third parties (usually Green or Libertarian) are actually closer to their own political beliefs than those of either major parties. In election cycles where this thought prevails, particularly in election cycles like the current one, where there is huge discontent with the status quo and the party in power, the opposition party usually spends time and money trying to portray third parties as stealing necessary votes from close races.
I have always maintained that it is more important to vote for the best candidate, even if it does, in fact, steal votes. The harm done by one elected candidate in one term is nothing compared to the damage to our society and nation done by a failing two party system over a period of several centuries. By voting for third parties, every vote is another vote of confidence, and will, eventually, contribute to either the fall of the two party system or a change in the two prominent parties.
Runoff elections, however, provide us with an opportunity for an even more concrete gain from our "wasted" third party votes. Essentially, the prospect of a runoff election provides voters with an opportunity to vote for the best candidate without risking pushing the worst candidate into office by "wasting" votes. For example, if Georgians are confident that there will be a runoff election, they can express support for Libertarian values and candidates in the actual election. Although the Libertarian may not win, they will cause a runoff election. The in-power Democratic candidate will not win the first round of the election. Libertarians can then vote in the runoff for the "lesser of two evils" candidate.
We should take this opportunity in Georgia, and wherever else it presents itself this November, and use the elections not as a referendum on the Democratic or Republican Party, but on their two party system as a whole. Vote for the best candidate this November, and then vote for the "lesser of two evils" in the runoff.
The added bonus of this is that by forcing a runoff election, we force the two major parties to spend even more money than they already do on this election cycle, emphasizing just how much time, effort, and money it takes to coerce votes from people who really aren't happy with either option.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Where I parted ways with FreedomWorks
Let me start off by saying that I still frequent the Freedom Works website. I recently read an interview on there that made me rethink my views on the organization and the Tea Party movement.
In the interview, some higher up from the organization (I forget who) kept mentioning that the organization is currently trying to "take back the Republican Party." Well, here's a few issues I have with that. The first is that the organization has consistently said that it does not take stances on issues like gay marriage, abortion, foreign wars, etc. because it is focused on fiscal and financial freedom. Fair enough. But by not taking a stand on these organizations, and supporting a party which largely does, Freedom Works implicitly supports the Republican status quo stance on these issues, which offends my sensibilities.
Second of all, before overtly coming out as a a movement to "take back the Republican Party," the Tea Party movement and Freedom Works were a sign of hope for real, systemic change. By supporting any candidate, Republican, Libertarian, Democratic or otherwise, who agreed with them on the issues, the Tea Party movement and Freedom Works represented a real threat to the Republican Party as it was.
In an odd way, openly trying to take over a political party strengthens that party, even the parts of it we don't like. By encouraging thousands of Tea Party and Freedom Works activists to become active in the Republican Party, the organization is implicitly supporting the Republican Party. Yes, they may put a lot of fiscally conservative Republicans on ballots and even in office. But when one of the RINOs they are trying to stop gets nominated, they're also encouraging people to vote Republican, and that RINO will get elected.
What candidates, organizations, and movements trying to change one of the two major parties need to do is show their willingness to give up on that party. Freedom Works should be encouraging voters to vote Democratic, or especially Libertarian, IAP, or Constitutional, in races where the Republican candidate is not up to par. By showing that voters are willing to leave a party they don't think represents them, they put real pressure on the party to change. By trying to change a political party from within, we just show the parties that they need to have barely enough candidates, barely far enough to one side of a couple of issues, to keep Tea Party activists voting.
So instead of trying to take back the Republican Party, show them who's in charge around here. If the candidates don't meet your standards, look at third party candidates. Look at independents. Maybe even take a glance at the Democrat running. Show the Republican Party that being "better than the Democrats" isn't enough.
In the interview, some higher up from the organization (I forget who) kept mentioning that the organization is currently trying to "take back the Republican Party." Well, here's a few issues I have with that. The first is that the organization has consistently said that it does not take stances on issues like gay marriage, abortion, foreign wars, etc. because it is focused on fiscal and financial freedom. Fair enough. But by not taking a stand on these organizations, and supporting a party which largely does, Freedom Works implicitly supports the Republican status quo stance on these issues, which offends my sensibilities.
Second of all, before overtly coming out as a a movement to "take back the Republican Party," the Tea Party movement and Freedom Works were a sign of hope for real, systemic change. By supporting any candidate, Republican, Libertarian, Democratic or otherwise, who agreed with them on the issues, the Tea Party movement and Freedom Works represented a real threat to the Republican Party as it was.
In an odd way, openly trying to take over a political party strengthens that party, even the parts of it we don't like. By encouraging thousands of Tea Party and Freedom Works activists to become active in the Republican Party, the organization is implicitly supporting the Republican Party. Yes, they may put a lot of fiscally conservative Republicans on ballots and even in office. But when one of the RINOs they are trying to stop gets nominated, they're also encouraging people to vote Republican, and that RINO will get elected.
What candidates, organizations, and movements trying to change one of the two major parties need to do is show their willingness to give up on that party. Freedom Works should be encouraging voters to vote Democratic, or especially Libertarian, IAP, or Constitutional, in races where the Republican candidate is not up to par. By showing that voters are willing to leave a party they don't think represents them, they put real pressure on the party to change. By trying to change a political party from within, we just show the parties that they need to have barely enough candidates, barely far enough to one side of a couple of issues, to keep Tea Party activists voting.
So instead of trying to take back the Republican Party, show them who's in charge around here. If the candidates don't meet your standards, look at third party candidates. Look at independents. Maybe even take a glance at the Democrat running. Show the Republican Party that being "better than the Democrats" isn't enough.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Thoughts on Gay Marriage
With the ruling on Prop 8, the gay marriage debate has suddenly been brought back to life.
Well, I figure this is as good a time as any to share my thoughts on the issue.
First of all, the religious right is correct. Marriage is a holy and sacred institution. Perhaps, if that is what a particular religion believes, it should not be tainted or disgraced by the marriage of a same sex couple. On the other hand, what does the religious right think of Rush's three marriages? Or Republicans who get divorced?
The purpose of marriage (from a religious sense) is the raising of a family, is it not? So, according to most of the doctrines which oppose gay marriage, these couples should not be using birth control, right? Moreover, widows, divorced people, etc. shouldn't be getting married if the woman is post-menopausal, and unable to bear children, right?
In fact, in many of these religions, people probably shouldn't be marrying if the woman is employed full time outside the home, right? After all, women were intended to raise the family, right?
Well, the hypocrisy of the reasoning behind protecting the sanctity of marriage aside, here is my point. The whole institution of legal marriage is a disgrace to both the sanctity of marriage, and the liberty of individuals.
If a marriage is a holy union, why should you need the government's approval? What about couples who are in love, who have their creator's blessing, but cannot afford a marriage license, or for whatever reason are unable to attain one?
Some say that the issue is over a word. A less extreme view of my own perspective would argue that marriage should be changed to a "civil union" or "legal union" for both gay and straight couples, to take the religious fervor out of the argument.
My own, perhaps rather extreme, opinion, is that marriage as a governmental or political institution should be abolished. There are a series of "benefits," "drawbacks," and other effects which come with legal marriage. These should each be considered individually, and be up to the individuals involved to decide.
Many of these issues can be addressed with wills and living wills. Inheritance, hospital visitation rights, organ donations, funeral arrangements, medical decisions, etc. should go to biological family (parents or children), not to spouses, unless a specific arrangement has been made and legally documented prior to the situation arising.
Taxes should be based on living arrangements, not based on personal or romantic relationships or emotional attachments. Roommates (regardless of their domestic arrangement) who choose to live as a household should be able to file taxes as one, regardless of whether or not they are "married."
Health insurance companies and employers should decide who is eligible for non-employee benefits based on their policies, not based on a piece of paper issued by a court.
A couple of good examples before I stop rambling. Many adults never get married. Some get divorced and stay single. Some adults have long-term roommates. For instance, one woman I know has been married, and lived with her roommate for 30 years (almost as long as she has been married to her husband). They pay bills together, pay rent together, and share groceries. The roommate recently became unemployed, and is now being supported by my acquaintance and her husband. When the couple was raising their child, the roommate was there to support them and help them. Their daughter describes it as "almost like having a second mother." From a financial or tax standpoint, is she any less a part of their household than the husband?
Gay or straight, people should have the right (and responsibility) to make choices regarding individual financial, legal, and medical decisions. These should not be lumped into one institution, under a name borrowed from religion, and based entirely (at least in theory), on an emotional, sexual, and romantic relationship. Leave "marriage" and "unions" up to the people and their churches, and let the state worry about specific transactions.
Well, I figure this is as good a time as any to share my thoughts on the issue.
First of all, the religious right is correct. Marriage is a holy and sacred institution. Perhaps, if that is what a particular religion believes, it should not be tainted or disgraced by the marriage of a same sex couple. On the other hand, what does the religious right think of Rush's three marriages? Or Republicans who get divorced?
The purpose of marriage (from a religious sense) is the raising of a family, is it not? So, according to most of the doctrines which oppose gay marriage, these couples should not be using birth control, right? Moreover, widows, divorced people, etc. shouldn't be getting married if the woman is post-menopausal, and unable to bear children, right?
In fact, in many of these religions, people probably shouldn't be marrying if the woman is employed full time outside the home, right? After all, women were intended to raise the family, right?
Well, the hypocrisy of the reasoning behind protecting the sanctity of marriage aside, here is my point. The whole institution of legal marriage is a disgrace to both the sanctity of marriage, and the liberty of individuals.
If a marriage is a holy union, why should you need the government's approval? What about couples who are in love, who have their creator's blessing, but cannot afford a marriage license, or for whatever reason are unable to attain one?
Some say that the issue is over a word. A less extreme view of my own perspective would argue that marriage should be changed to a "civil union" or "legal union" for both gay and straight couples, to take the religious fervor out of the argument.
My own, perhaps rather extreme, opinion, is that marriage as a governmental or political institution should be abolished. There are a series of "benefits," "drawbacks," and other effects which come with legal marriage. These should each be considered individually, and be up to the individuals involved to decide.
Many of these issues can be addressed with wills and living wills. Inheritance, hospital visitation rights, organ donations, funeral arrangements, medical decisions, etc. should go to biological family (parents or children), not to spouses, unless a specific arrangement has been made and legally documented prior to the situation arising.
Taxes should be based on living arrangements, not based on personal or romantic relationships or emotional attachments. Roommates (regardless of their domestic arrangement) who choose to live as a household should be able to file taxes as one, regardless of whether or not they are "married."
Health insurance companies and employers should decide who is eligible for non-employee benefits based on their policies, not based on a piece of paper issued by a court.
A couple of good examples before I stop rambling. Many adults never get married. Some get divorced and stay single. Some adults have long-term roommates. For instance, one woman I know has been married, and lived with her roommate for 30 years (almost as long as she has been married to her husband). They pay bills together, pay rent together, and share groceries. The roommate recently became unemployed, and is now being supported by my acquaintance and her husband. When the couple was raising their child, the roommate was there to support them and help them. Their daughter describes it as "almost like having a second mother." From a financial or tax standpoint, is she any less a part of their household than the husband?
Gay or straight, people should have the right (and responsibility) to make choices regarding individual financial, legal, and medical decisions. These should not be lumped into one institution, under a name borrowed from religion, and based entirely (at least in theory), on an emotional, sexual, and romantic relationship. Leave "marriage" and "unions" up to the people and their churches, and let the state worry about specific transactions.
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Gay Community Blinded By Partisan Politics
I saw this letter to the editor recently, and it caught my eye. Let me preface this by saying that this is just one example of what I'm sure is a widespread problem.
First, let me point out that the blog this was found on is run by an organization specifically geared toward bringing together gays and the Republican Party.
Second, let me point out as a disclaimer that as a Libertarian (yes, a member of the Party, not just a blogosphere "Libertarian-minded" Republican), I offer a simpler solution for gay and lesbian voters. The Libertarian Party is, in fact, the only political party I'm aware of that actually explicitly supports gay rights to marriage and other gay issues.
But, realizing that most voters are registered with (or tend to vote for) one of the major parties, lets' get back to the overall point. Prominent gays and lesbian, gay and lesbian organizations, and the gay and lesbian media, tend to unequivocally support and endorse Democratic candidates. This may have made sense a few years ago, but given recent political trends, I wonder how wise this is. First of all, many Republicans, including candidates, are Republicans because they are sick of government spending, not because of the Republican stances on social issues.
On the other hand, Democrats seem less firm in their support for gay rights. Has our Democratic President taken a stance yet on gay marriage? Don't Ask Don't Tell? We elected one of the most "progressive" presidents we have ever had. He wants to provide free health care for everyone, raise taxes on the rich, etc. Yet, he has said in the past that he does not believe gays should marry. Granted, he wants to leave the individual decision to states, not the Federal government, but does that matter?
If the LGBT community continues its blind support of the Democratic agenda, we will simply elect state legislators who also oppose gay rights. As Right Pride rightfully points out, there are a number of Republicans in office and running for office who have been vocal in their support for the LGBT community and/or LGBT rights, and a number of Democratic public figures who are vague at best, and anti-gay at worst. Yet, the larger LGBT community continues to support the Democratic Party.
LGBT Organizations and the LGBT media (Human Rights Campaign, QVegas, etc.) are doing a real disservice to the gay community by continuing to blindly support Democrats in politics. While perhaps many gay voters tend to lean left, the role of these organizations and media outlets should be to advise politically based on the common factor affecting their membership and readership, namely sexual orientation. A specific candidate's track record and statements on LGBT issues, not their partisan affiliations, should be the grounds for endorsement by LGBT organizations and media.
First, let me point out that the blog this was found on is run by an organization specifically geared toward bringing together gays and the Republican Party.
Second, let me point out as a disclaimer that as a Libertarian (yes, a member of the Party, not just a blogosphere "Libertarian-minded" Republican), I offer a simpler solution for gay and lesbian voters. The Libertarian Party is, in fact, the only political party I'm aware of that actually explicitly supports gay rights to marriage and other gay issues.
But, realizing that most voters are registered with (or tend to vote for) one of the major parties, lets' get back to the overall point. Prominent gays and lesbian, gay and lesbian organizations, and the gay and lesbian media, tend to unequivocally support and endorse Democratic candidates. This may have made sense a few years ago, but given recent political trends, I wonder how wise this is. First of all, many Republicans, including candidates, are Republicans because they are sick of government spending, not because of the Republican stances on social issues.
On the other hand, Democrats seem less firm in their support for gay rights. Has our Democratic President taken a stance yet on gay marriage? Don't Ask Don't Tell? We elected one of the most "progressive" presidents we have ever had. He wants to provide free health care for everyone, raise taxes on the rich, etc. Yet, he has said in the past that he does not believe gays should marry. Granted, he wants to leave the individual decision to states, not the Federal government, but does that matter?
If the LGBT community continues its blind support of the Democratic agenda, we will simply elect state legislators who also oppose gay rights. As Right Pride rightfully points out, there are a number of Republicans in office and running for office who have been vocal in their support for the LGBT community and/or LGBT rights, and a number of Democratic public figures who are vague at best, and anti-gay at worst. Yet, the larger LGBT community continues to support the Democratic Party.
LGBT Organizations and the LGBT media (Human Rights Campaign, QVegas, etc.) are doing a real disservice to the gay community by continuing to blindly support Democrats in politics. While perhaps many gay voters tend to lean left, the role of these organizations and media outlets should be to advise politically based on the common factor affecting their membership and readership, namely sexual orientation. A specific candidate's track record and statements on LGBT issues, not their partisan affiliations, should be the grounds for endorsement by LGBT organizations and media.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)