Habeas corpus: “The name given to a variety of writs having for their object to bring a party before a court or judge.” My writ promises to be in excess of three-hundred pages and has largely concerned “the restraint of liberty by due process.” In the course of my blog manifesto, two parties have been brought to judgment, something that is seldom as comprehensively done, not even at election time. Surely, more able and more adled minds than mine have been more or less equipped to do so, sometimes to less and greater success, respectively. In a land where all men were created equal, I am reminded of George Orwell’s famous Animal Farm quotation- “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” This is the mantra of the pigs in Orwell’s 1945 novella about the animal overthrow of a human owned farm (ahem, see part 28). This is for the purposes of foreshadowing- just a hint- I may bring up particular fictitious pigs in the course of this offering.
James Madison I: I have already referred to Madison’s ability to effectively consider the nature of factions and while I was not able to agree with him on everything, particularly with his Robin Hood mentality of taking from the rich what they have earned, he is too equipped with talent and truth to dismiss. In The Federalist No. 10, he wrote so many profound words it is difficult for me to summarize or choose which quotations to use to communicate my point, to justify the reason for attacking both current major political parties accountable for the nature of politics affecting the middle class. I have chosen two sets of words: “an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have in turn divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other, than to co-operate for their common good.” In addition, I might add, neither do they co-operate for the common good of people who do not favor either side. In between that quotation and the one in the next paragraph, Madison points out the differences between a democracy which he feels is inadequately represented by relatively few men and a republic (which he favors) as considering the views of a far greater number of people, spread over a more vast tract of land. In the former case he was concerned with the “cabals of a few” and in the latter “the confusion of the multitude.” He further writes about the causes, dangers and cures of factions and in one sentence uses the words “desideratum” and “opprobrium,” two words I didn’t know the meanings of until I looked them up; did I mention they appeared in the same sentence? Jeez.
James Madison II: I refer to many American politicians, political party wonks, members of the media, etc. so wrapped up in party politics- election vampires because they steal away our chance to hear issue debate, the life-blood of politics at the time when we most need it coursing through our veins- at election time. Madison wrote: “The friend of popular governments, never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice [the “violence of faction”]. He will not fail therefore to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice and confusion introduced into the public councils, have in truth been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have every where perished;” even though we have been remiss over the course of 219 years to call this form of popular government- a democracy. It is time to flush out the issues, to know the issues and to vote on issues, rather than on candidates who say what they feel needs to be said in order to be elected.
Extended party: Any prospective party beyond the democrats and republicans, an extension of those parties- (ex. third, fourth, fifth parties, etc. as distinguished from the aforementioned parties). Continually referring to additional parties using the latter method would become too cumbersome. “Extended” is also a synonym for a hardship or obligation born of necessity; in this case, the necessity would be to combat the political status quo. The caveat, as I have mentioned a few times, is that any subsequent party would ultimately become popular enough to take campaign finance money and its integrity would also be compromised. The hopeful dawning of various other parties is not unlike the inclusion of additional menu options on the placard of a patron’s favorite restaurant. It is not often that we only enjoy having two food choices when we go out to eat. Why would we enjoy only having two candidates as options for something that affects us much more than how chicken Alfredo is going to treat our digestive system? Consider the potential additional parties as dishes we might order when dining out. Rather than having just two choices, consider that we have five. While it is true that a number of people frequenting a particular restaurant already have in mind what they plan to order, others need to look at the menu to decide and the former might consult the menu to eliminate dishes they might think of ordering, to try something different. Imagine that avenue was not open to them- you now can see what a frustrating endeavor it is for an Independent to order up a politician who is not on the menu. Prices on various dishes at restaurants might go up, this is just as true of the most high-priced democrat or republican seafood item as it is about the rarely chosen meat and potatoes, those dishes with a little more substance (i.e. the Independent choice on the menu). Another untrue cliché when pontificated upon in connection with politics- “you get what you pay for.” No, no you don’t. Voters pay plenty and do not get all that much.
One thing I briefly touched on last time (the number of major political parties in Canada) will set me going on this installment.
Canada’s major parties: Perhaps it is strange to compare the number of parties from which we have to choose when electing our representatives (presidential, congressional as well as state and district reps.) to a country just north of us. We probably dismiss Canada as a country filled with royalist hicks, inconsequential mountie-lovers, unfettered by reason, who haven’t the extensive world-view knowledge that us Americans possess. However, we are further away from the veritable Canadian utopia of multiple-choice political parties than we are to the average Venezuelan coup attempt. Just kidding. Our election vampires* nearly commandeer themselves into political office considering the near political monopoly they have delivered us, preying on the mass of voters who are unable to vote outside the box. We see this in the deal brokering of each party and this year it is especially prevalent with the democrats. Do we seat the Michigan and Florida delegations at the national convention, allow them a ½ vote (guess so). Some have wondered whether Obama’s electoral vote advantage was going to be enough for him to wrest the democratic nomination from a Clinton last-minute super delegate overthrow, even though the majority of primary voters have chosen Obama.
Consider this: Congressional approval ratings have been under 25% for quite awhile and tied an all-time low in mid May of 2008. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video_log/2008/05/congressional_approval_rating.html- Key in the search “congressional approval ratings.” Traditionally, voters re-elect congress-people at the rate of 90%. Now, I am no math major but that sounds awfully like a voting public merely choosing between the lesser of two evils. Are we that afraid of the unknown? Perhaps only the continued use of community mugs at Colonial meetings was more historically detrimental to the cause of rational thought because it made everyone sick. (The sharing of mugs caused all kinds of germs to be passed from one social drinker to the next.)
Canadia: In briefly perusing what is available on the internet in terms of the nature of Canadian politics I saw the same type of political strife, partisan rebuttals, anxiety, frustration and disgust among the Canadian citizens and between their political parties as is found in our America. So, no, having four major political parties and something called Le Bloc Quebecois (a fifth) who want Quebec to be recognized as its own sovereign state, but still derive economic benefits is not going to solve the problem. The Quebecois are pretty much what a pretentious bloated woodtick must feel like when it has funneled all of the advantage of a connection into its system (i.e. blood) without assuming any obligation. In America, we call those people neo-democrats** . . . or we can still just keep calling them woodticks if it is generally understood that we are referring to democrats. In consulting the world map, it looks like if the Bloc Quebecois wanted to separate from the rest of Canada, they would have to bring Newfoundland and Labrador with them- unless they are not talking about a physical topographical split, whereby I should think they are hoping to find a continental plate (plate tectonic) that might deliver them from the torture of being lumped in with those willing to speak a language other than French. (Note: I’ve briefly perused articles written by a couple of sources, one of which was http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/canada/the-canadian-political-spectrum.html but any pertinent search such as “Canadian politics” could do the trick. The woman who wrote the article just referenced breaks down the platforms of the parties and I can see that the four parties pretty much encompass what we get out of our two parties. The point- there is cross-over, some blending among issues in Canadian politics- not a lot of blending but some, excepting the conservative party*** (see the Canada eZine article I reference directly above). See the Jon Stewart quote I included last time on how the combination of some of the political issues under the republican and democratic platforms in connection with each other make no sense at all. Canada’s parties seem more fluid, and I think we like a little more stability in our country. It would be great if this stability did not come at the cost of representative status quoism as sanctioned by the media and complacency on the part of the voter. The first three parties she lists in the eZine article seem to have some, but not all, goals in common. There probably will not be a perfect candidate out there for everyone in America, but a voter should not have to make a deal with one devil (i.e. an important issue identified) in order to allow another to prevail. I seem to be relying on the theme of crude blood transfusion metaphors (vampires, woodticks); I would not assume this to be accidental, as elections do have the tendency to suck the life out of those who follow them.
Winds of change: The two parties give us little choice on election day. My belief is that they run rather unopposed for the political offices of their choice. The two major parties are so at odds with each other, just as any two people who have come to so resemble each other; we come to despise most aspects of another whom we detest because they so remind us of our own faults. For our government having turned out as it has we could blame: 1) James Madison (for he was the surrogate father of the Constitution);**** 2) the voter because we too often relent, like a penguin that is treated first as a food source and then as a proposed sexual conquest of an elephant seal (without the formal consent of the penguin- see part 28; I could continue with this analogy but I will move on); 3) the politician for continually skating through elections without addressing the urgent needs of the voter. True, the voter puts signs in their yard and thinks only inside the box when it comes to deciding which virtual leader we shall embrace. We do not force politicians to debate on the issues and we become rather distracted by the sideshows that spring up like the weeds that keep us from enjoying our lawn. The republican candidates never even mentioned the probable insolvency of social security when they debated in Florida, a state that’s per capita total of citizens who wear belts just under their armpits (i.e. where retirees go to die while collecting social security) is the largest in the nation. Candidates speak when their guard is down and their associates (Bill Clinton or Reverend Wright) speak when their dander is up, saying things which echo for far too many news cycles. Politics is a circus and I think that the politicians enjoy the media driven virtual scandal sideshows.***** (Looking for examples? Hillary Clinton’s Bosnia sniper fire comments, McCain’s comment about staying in Iraq for 100 more years if necessary and Obama’s comment about his uncle having liberated the Auschwitz concentration camp.******) Don’t forget about the John Kerry swift boat distraction, or Kerry’s flip-flop controversies of 2004; Bush Sr.’s “read my lips” comment in 1988 was a media distraction and on and on. We are far too easily distracted from the issues by those types of media-driven non-issues. The two parties suppose that they have each side of the major issues covered within their platform, underneath their protective umbrella, but umbrellas are harshly treated by the wind; I will attempt to provide the wind. Keep the windbag comments to yourself . . . or not.
Political weather: Politicians should be less respected than weathermen. I feel as if the weather, for purposes of fact, ought to be given just one minute of time on our local news. They should only be allowed to tell us what the weather was for that day, and provide a quick glimpse into the next day’s weather because they do not know anything else. Politicians know even less. They will not agree on what type of political weather we just had if you consider asking one of the republican or democratic forecaster/historians. An exchange between both parties relative to the likelihood Tim Pawlenty would make a good republican vice-presidential candidate considering his supposed recent treatment of the needs of Minnesota provides just one such example. See Lori Sturdevant’s “Still in a Minnesota State of Mind?” Minneapolis Star Tribune, May 25, 2008 (Opinion Exchange section) where a democrat rails on Pawlenty’s contributions while a republican defends him. Just a warning- not a ton of objectivity from either side. The democrat begins just about every comment with the word "but." Candidates do not want to comment much on the topic of the insolvency of social security or the just as probably insolvent pensions for public workers. Check the Washington Post story: “Growing Deficits [which] Threaten Pensions” (see- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24449812/, May 11, 2008) because politicians do not want to talk about a real plan to deliver the pension money a teacher or policeman has earned, but which they might lose, “ ‘Because the fuse on this time bomb is long, politicians flinch from inflicting tax pain, given that problems will only become apparent long after these officials have departed’ ” wrote billionaire investor Warren E. Buffett. Of course, why tell us the truth about the storm that not too many people see coming. Waiting in hope that the problem will go away is something a man does when he hopes his wife will stop nagging him about household chores, not what a politician should do when a tornado of an issue might touch down on the expectations of those who have earned their reward from toil.
Blame game and Tommy Boy: For those thinking we could blame the media for building up and tearing down candidates in the name of ratings. Or for those desiring to blame Congress for giving us the rather ineffectual Federal Elections Commission for being the equivalent of a 21st Century monarchy and Tommy Boy combined- well, I just don’t think that pig is gonna fly; the FEC, or a regulatory body like it, has never really been empowered to check the malignancy of elections and are merely figureheads of campaign finance justice. Oh, the Tommy Boy component of the FEC. As of January 2008, during the heart of perhaps the most hotly contested race for the presidency in forty years, and considering the collective prospective nominees will have spent, by the time the election is over, more than $1 billion campaigning- it makes complete sense that the Commission has seated just 2 of the 6 positions because of partisan bickering on the part of the senate who vote on a potential member’s appointment to the Commission. The plot of Tommy Boy was less predictable; the American voters are going to need to be sold (Tommy Boy was a salesman) on an improved FEC methodology, for the Commission cannot be made up of any more than three members of either political party- who I am sure are all completely benign in their decisions. Just like we need an ethics committee to protect the country from corrupt politicians once they are in office (see next paragraph), we need an empowered agency to be much more than a glorified accountant. Empower an election regulatory body, comprised of Libertarians or Independents or Undecideds, you know, impartial citizen-judges to help police all types of election-time nightmares to protect us from the set of people all vying for the honor of being the next collection of representatives to fiscally disappoint us at the highest levels of government . . .
For example: Alaska representative Don Young claiming “he did nothing wrong when he secretly changed a 2005 highway act, after it had been passed, to redirect $10 million to a new transportation project favored by one of his wealthy donors!” A footnote from the Common Cause e-newsletter I quoted from goes on to state that the “$10 million earmark directly benefited real estate developer Daniel Aronoff, who helped raise $40,000 for Rep. Young . . . only days before Congress considered the highway act. Aronoff needed the money to build a new highway interchange that the local zoning commission had twice refused to fund because the road would destroy local wetlands.” For a more detailed account of the story see- http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/fbi/young/story/9447181p-9358502c.html “Earmarks, favors: Young used position for funds and his donors' projects,” by Greg Gordon and Erika Bolstad of the Anchorage Daily News, November 11, 2007. I wonder if the two member FEC is looking into an issue that deals with the unauthorized redistribution of American tax dollars in exchange for campaign finance money. Rep. Young reminds me of the sea otter in captivity that consumes its allotment of shellfish as quickly as possible so that it can steal from its mates.
Hoover sucked: I am not advocating voting for a Herbert Hoover of a third party candidate just for the sake of thumbing our nose at the establishment, especially if it is KNOWN that an extended party politician is of the ineffectual variety, like Hoover. Keep in mind- Hoover was elected in part, because voters disapproved of the Roman catholicism of Al Smith (courtesy of Wikipedia). That is not quite as great a reason as voting for someone because they might breathe knew life into old issues and not the kind of breath that further sets the nation on fire but that might minimize the combustible nature of the issues by providing more workable solutions. Politicians should be restricted to making the wrong decisions for the voting public only after they have unavoidably been elected to office (see the paragraph immediately above). We should want to empower a committee with some teeth to pour over not only the financial component of political elections but to hold politicians accountable for the nature of issue debate, or lack of it, for attack ads where only half-truths are disseminated, etc. This political regulatory body would conduct a veritable autopsy on the candidates, not only on their means but on their ways as well. The cumulative aroma of formaldehyde does not so offend us until after we have been dissecting the frog for an hour in seventh grade science class, even if it is a sumo-sized frog training to be the aggressor against man (see part 28). There is an analogy in there somewhere- work for it.
The Independent Bangladesh: I always consider the life of a Bangladeshi (it is the new- what would jesus do virtual touchstone) before strongly putting forth opinions of a political nature- or not. This column refers to a proposed boycott of Bangladesh’s two major parties from the next general election. No comment . . . but you know what I'm thinking. See- http://www.independent-bangladesh.com/200805095165/country/without-two-major-parties-elections-can-still-be-fair-eu.html, May 9, 2008, “Without Two Major Parties Elections Can Still Be Fair,” BDNews24.com. This quotation amuses me- “ ‘The EU [European Union] is convinced that elections in 2008 are essential for securing a sustainable democracy in Bangladesh and securing progress towards the goal of achieving the status of a middle income country.’ ” Sir, when you achieve the goal of a sustainable democracy you let us know. Did I read that right- "achieving the status of a middle income country"? Just checking. Is Bangladesh a place where middle income people can go to die or at best, continue to become irrelevant- or should they stay in America and suffer the tragic fate of a typical old money family out of a William Faulkner novel?
Get Carter . . . to debate: Too often candidates who may become serious contenders are frozen out of the election process because of arbitrary rules or because one of the two major party candidates refuses to acknowledge or debate a third party candidate. I already mentioned that Ron Paul was frozen out of a republican primary debate (see part 17). In 1980- former president Carter “refused to participate in a debate with [John] Anderson, because he deemed Anderson a ‘creation of the media,’ and so Reagan and Anderson debated alone.” (see- http://www.geocities.com/dave_enrich/ctd/3p.anderson.html?200819.) Mr. Carter- if the media never covered you, because they thought that you might be a foreign policy nightmare of a president, who seemed to nervously speak like a high-pitched, dim-witted Georgian seraphim whom they imagined sat on his front porch in a rocking chair all day sipping homemade lemonade, imagine where you would not have been- you would not have been allowed to be president. I visited your presidential library once- prior to my learning how much of a roadblock you were to free elections. I wrote in part 17, and it bears repeating, that Ron Paul a populist conservative was caught in a media and politically devised catch-22: the media doesn't cover him because he hasn't polled very well and he hasn't polled very well because the media won't cover him. We need a governing body, with voting representatives who determine who should and should not be allowed into the debates, at whatever level- for president or state district house member and the RNC and DNC are not those to which we should turn for an objective decision in that matter. The League of Women Voters and the Federal Elections Committee were two such entities that allowed Anderson into the one 1980 debate, but then “Anderson’s poll numbers dropped, and the LWV excluded him from further debates, which were closer to the November election.” (see geocities- from above) The decision on who to include in the debate should not be left to either political party because they make decisions like the BCS geniuses who still can’t get us a playoff system in college football- (see Survivor- Hubris Fantasy Island, Episode IV, the conclusion).
The great debate: The source I quote from above also mentions that “the debate issue took on additional importance, because Anderson was the first credible third party candidate in an election with televised presidential debates . . . [and that] only one third party candidate, Ross Perot in 1992, has participated in presidential debates since.” Now, as a rule, people can keep voting for a democrat or a republican if it so suits them and continue to resist a change that might be good for them and their children, but extended party candidates should be heard. “Where does it stop” says someone from one of the two major parties who stands to lose (they contend) by allowing in additional debate participants, or perhaps because they would like to guard against the election process being made a mockery of. My friends, it is too late to object on those grounds- America hasn't taken politics all that seriously since Nixon left office. Limit the participants vying for office in local, statewide or national contests to 6 or 8 entrants, enough to reduce the likelihood that a viable voice would be silenced by not allowing him or her to be heard, which would reduce the impropriety of the monopoly of the two major parties. Ask the people which 6-8 candidates they would like to hear from and then lengthen the time they have to debate. An extra 60-90 minutes wouldn’t kill anyone. On many radio programs I listened to when the nomination for both parties was at stake, I heard callers asking to hear more about Ron Paul and in every instance the ego-agenda of the host took over and dismissed Paul as someone that cannot win. I do not need the help of any talk-show host in determining which candidates are most worth listening to. The OMI (Opinion Mass Index) of the average talk-show host precludes my being interested in their bloviating and I feel I am better equipped than they, given their ego-agenda of damning the whole of Americans to the host’s partisan ways, to filter through the candidates. I prefer the screed form of my own bloviating. As many people as possible should economically and socially prevail after the election process is over. We cannot continue to attend to the inexcusable clamor of our current American media hegemony and find this urgent need realized. In short, I can do my own political BS vetting- let sound voices be heard and I’ll decide. I am not equating Paul, or any future populist, to a political jesus christ, but maybe he is more like an apostle Paul out there somewhere, or a panda that has some decent English as a second language (ESL) skills and looks good on camera- like Arnold Schwarzenegger. (That was a joke at Arnie's expense- I am not backing him politically.)
A voting conundrum: Here is a confounding conundrum consisting of three completely contradictory arguments put forth by those who are certain that either a democrat or a republican is the person for the elected office up for grabs- 1) the voting intelligentsia find it unconscionable to refrain from voting at all, for any reason. People have fought and died for citizens to have the right to vote- the battle cry used back in the 1770s was “no taxation without representation,” a battle cry that millions could still use today if they so chose. While I understand the sentiment, I can excuse those who are too lazy or too ill-informed to vote. If you don’t know the issues then you shouldn’t cancel out someone else’s well-informed vote. I didn’t vote until the MN gubernatorial race in 1998, ten years after I was of legal age. Ok, so according to the voting Nazis, not voting is not allowed. 2) Further, voting for an Independent, or third party candidate is considered a wasted vote by the voting Gestapo because a politician who is not a member of the two parties does not have a chance to win. That one only works for me if I were deciding which form of death I was forced to choose. Yep, my guy can’t win, so I lose- I choose being smothered in the love of a geisha manatee. When millions decide to cast a protest vote, it can influence an election. I mentioned this before but Bush Sr. lost in 1992 and Gore lost in 2000, because in both cases enough people decided not to vote for either party. So, those protest votes made a difference . . . course, in the case of Gore, having a 4-5 liberal minority in the Supreme Court didn’t help. 3) Lastly- so I decide to vote for either a democrat or a republican, because as I just wrote- I cannot refrain from voting and I cannot waste my vote. So, the candidate I vote for wins the election and is sworn in to achieve at least some of the aims, of which I approved, that he or she promised to pursue. But because they are a pathological liar, are ineffectual in terms of building support amongst their own or the other party, or promised the NRA that they would vote against the ban on assault rifles (i.e. because they are in bed with any number of special interest groups/lobbyists who gave them millions in campaign finance money), they are not capable or allowed to effect change. So, the constituents of the losing side in that election simply deride those who elected the winner. So, excuse me for upsetting the apple cart in the name of real change. The path of least resistance is a dangerous one and the economic well-being of an entire class of people hangs in the balance, not the balance between how many democrats and republicans are seated in congress, but how many other voices can be heard from on the political stage.
Summation and blindness: Not voting and voting for someone many feel does not have a chance to win are unacceptable alternatives to voting for someone whom you will later be blamed for assisting into office. You had no knowledge beforehand, as you are not the blind Grecian prophet Tiresias, that the candidate who received your vote by default would have sex with an intern, be involved in Unconstitutional wiretapping, claim to have seen monkeys flying a UFO, or claimed to have been a production assistant in the 1973 cartoon version of Charlotte’s Web (a movie about a pig, a rat and a spider).******* Makes sense to me. Next you will tell me that a select group of house fly ninjas are training in the country of Bhuton, which is shaped like the eye socket of a rock creature from a fantasy movie, to assassinate members of the termite parliament coalition who have deemed their defection to Vietnam a viable way to lengthen their lives.
Past history: People extending an argument such as mine, that voting for a third party candidate has upset the outcome of an election, often focus on the impact of recent elections and restrict the affect a protest vote might have on Mssrs. Perot and Nader. But they forget that of the 44 elections held after 1832, 29 of them included a third party. While many have ended in utter failure for the party considered the third party at the time there have been other interesting developments. In 1844, James G. Birney of the anti-slavery Liberty Party (clearly the third party to the democrats and whigs at the time) gathered 3.25%, (or 16,000) of the New York vote. The eventual winner, James K. Polk won the electoral vote 170-105 over the whig candidate Henry Clay, but bested him by just 5,000 votes in New York. “If Birney had not run, the majority of his votes would have gone to the Whigs rather than the pro-slavery Democrats, but whether or not Clay would have netted five thousand more votes is unknown.” The state of New York was then worth 36 electoral votes; if Polk loses 36 and Clay then wins the 36, the result of the election is quite different. (Note I: run the search “third parties in past presidential elections” and take a look at the Wikipedia result. Note II: if there had been no history of the existence of a third party up until the present time, that would not be proof that a vast number of voters these days are not entitled to more than two choices come election time.) The past can provide us with apocryphal information or can signal the will of the people by giving us hints of desired change. That is enough- because proof is not always to be found and when it is, it can come too late. It is wise and entertaining to consider many things- wise = clipping your nails before gardening; entertaining = considering the chances that a pig could be a champion sheep-herder to the initial disgust of a border collie. Forgive me- I just watched the movie Babe. Pigs . . . sheep . . . is this guy still writing about politics? Yep. Sometimes a guy can do research while distracting his children. (Hint- politicians = pig, sheep = voter, herding = convincing sheep to vote for a pig.)
Cliché 1: The saying goes- “You can fool some of the people all of the time and fool all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”- unless they are republicans or democrats in love with their own state of being an unqualified lemming. Now, in the famous cliché above, replace the word “fool” with “please”. Such is the nature of politics. I am not attempting to justify an approach that would please all of the people all of the time- this is impossible; just as impossible- pleasing them as infrequently as politicians currently do now. The mole that may tear up the rock garden in my back yard this summer if it finds enough grub worms to pacify its appetite displeases me no less than most politicians.
Cliché 2: The most applicable and most easily understood cliché of all time is- ‘everything in moderation.’ This is just as true in politics as it is in ordering fast food. Many people have sought to balance the large fries and Big Mac they order by drinking Diet Coke (good luck with that); we ought also seek a little more balance in our political lives. By this, I do not mean to vote for half of the republicans and half of the democrats on the ballot. Rather, find the balance on each issue, if neither side has the copyright on the truth they are attempting to sell, according to you- then don’t buy it. Don’t take the road on the left or the right, even if they seem the most worn, they are only worn because so many sheep have been led down them, perhaps they had too often been led by pigs.
Issues 1: Consider the list of issues below. It isn’t a complete list and I may not have accurately depicted where the two major parties stand on all of them. Certainly, particular politicians may be a republican and be pro-choice and certain democrats may be for the war in Iraq and may have always been. Finding out how one politician feels on an issue can be difficult because many of the issues have more than two sides to them, which again would be why having more options at election time would not overwhelm any American with an IQ above that of a fifth grade mosquito. The abortion issue is a suitable example of this- what about partial birth abortions, cases of rape, incest, economically unsuitable parentage, etc. The smoking ban is another example- to allow or not to allow smoking in bars, restaurants and public places is not the only option. Should theater nights be allowed in bars and restaurants? Should smoked pork be served (i.e. pigs with emphysema- which is a medical malady and not a combination of the words “emphasis” and “Zima” used to describe the important desire someone might have of consuming a strangely popular girlie drink of the early 90s.) The two examples above, prior to the lame Zima joke, may seem harmless to some and be considered mere social issues which wouldn’t seem to affect any economic class on the surface. But consider how a woman who produces three children in an economically disadvantageous situation creates a strain on all other taxpayers who may have to incur the cost of being socially, and thus economically, responsible for her children who are born into a broken home, should her religion keep her from condescending to use birth control. The smoking ban affects bar owners and employees whose economic well-being depends on paying customers more likely to eat out if they can pollute their own, and other’s, lungs with toxic carcinogens. Often, the best approach on any issue is to choose the better option between the ridiculously partisan choices desired by both major parties. The mind of the modern voter is more dynamic than that. And I wonder that we shouldn’t vote for issues via a referendum than for candidates to begin with. I’ll get into that down the road. In the meantime . . .
Issues 2: FYI- head to http://www.ontheissues.org/republican_party.htm (and substitute democrat for republican in the preceding URL) for more information on the widely considered issues at hand or should you have opposable thumbs, unlike a pig, there are informative lists about issues all over the internet. I have highlighted the side of the issue I favor and when I find that neither side has provided an acceptable viewpoint, I have highlighted the issue. People are always going to disagree not only on what the issues are, but will also consider the relative importance of one issue as compared to the others. The three issues at the top I had previously identified as the most important. If the top three were resolved, it would go a long way in fixing the inherent problems of the cluster of 11 (from education to litigious society) which immediately follow. There is not much separation in importance between the top three and the next eleven, but there is some- in my opinion. Almost all of the issues are at least to some degree connected. Free trade cannot be discussed without job outsourcing and global warming cannot be investigated without the detail of carbon credits, peak oil and polar bear extinction; connecting free trade with polar bears is probably more difficult, considering how pissed polar bears have been lately about the melting of the polar ice caps. Without further ado, for there has been enough ado already, here are the issues:
Key: D= democrat, R= republican. I had wanted to do a column intensive listing but will have to settle for a paragraph style delivery due to formatting and unavailable presentation limitations in this electronic format or because I am just not bright enough to figure it out.
Campaign finance reform: D=ok with excess; R= Unconstitutional
Immigration: D=here, have our country; R=no amnesty, build that wall
Taxation: D=tax the rich and middle class; R=tax the poor and middle class
(Note- $1 billion collectively will have been spent by the candidates running for president in 2008; 1.1 million illegal immigrants cross our border each year; if the Bush tax cuts, which never helped the middle class as much as they helped the rich, aren’t extended in 2011 we’ll have an even bigger problem being able to afford education, health care, gas, saving for retirement, and purchasing necessary cost items- etc.)
Education: D=favor govt control; R=controlled by the state govt
Health Care: D=favor government control; R=leave to the industry of medicine
Society/Amer. Culture: D=let it go to hell; R=protect it
Civil liberties/Rights: D=only for non naturalized citizens; R=protect those here legally
Corporations: D=anti tax shelter; R=pro tax shelter
Oil supply: D=probably in bed with big oil; R=definitely in bed with big oil
Free Trade: D=more regulatory; R=carte blanche
Medicare/social aid: D=as much as we can give to poor; R=forsake the poor, favor the rich
Military: D=reduce the military budget; R=increase the military budget
Gun control/street violence: D=anti-gun; R=pro gun
Litigious society: D=allow it; R=allow it
Judicial Appointments: D=Interpret the law (criminals walk); R=enforce the law (criminals pay)
Judicial Elections: D and R: why not? we finance politicians for their vote, why not finance judges for their verdict
Social Security: D=must have it; R=privatize it
Strong Federal Govt. v. State's Rights: D=strong federal; R=pro state’s rights
Crime/capital punishment: D=go easy on ‘em; R=pro capital punishment
Global warming: D=very real probability; R=not a chance
Environment: D=tree-huggers; R=tree-cutters
Mortgage crisis: D=help them all out; R=the buyers made their own bed
Energy (heating oil, electric) D=promote renewable energy; R=scoff at renewable energy
(renewable, solar and air, etc.):
Foreign policy/Terrorism: D=more laissez faire; R=go get ‘em
Religion: D=more secular; R=in god we trust
Federal reserve: D=inconclusive; R=what ya’ gonna do? (I don't know what the hell to think about the Federal Reserve.)
Church and state: D=separate but . . .; R=joined at the hip (Pledge of allegiance in school- hell yeah, president acting as if his every desire has been mandated by god- no good.)
Drugs: D=fewer regulations; R=strict controls (Legalize medicinal marijuana)
Jobs-outsourcing: D=various and sundry; R=various and sundry
National ID/Real ID: D=not in favor-illegals should vote; R=violation of individual liberty
Smoking ban: D=can’t stand the smoke; R=individual liberty violation
Abortion: D=pro-choice; R=pro-life
Same sex marriage: D=legalize; R=dismiss
I have about twenty others in mind but have decided to reveal those in a later installment.
Oink: If there were extended parties to choose from on election day, whose candidates have natural inclinations which cause them to seek solutions to issues that fall somewhere between the polarizing options indicated above, which better represented the complex desires of the voting public, we would be better off. I do not imagine a utopian community where those who are mortal enemies now would hug each other on the street, but a better country is in the offing with an improved political climate that allows an extension of political ideals, not a smothering of them. Perhaps that sentiment is an echo of Hamilton who wrote more succinctly in The Federalist No. 1- “we are not always sure, that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonist.” We have been at issue debate so long in this country that I would not still contend that the truth of an issue is really what we are still debating. We are debating about which side is more right. Problem is, we all lose if we wholly embrace either party. Continuing to vote for one candidate over the other because he or she supports the somewhat randomly collected agendas listed above, and being proud of it, is downright (and not virtually) pig-headed.
* I am not accidentally comparing the nature of our election process to that of a country where a general stages a coup attempt and am only being a bit fecicous. I could include a number of historical instances, that we know about, that would make our election process not seem as democratic and pristine as both major parties pretend- one example three words- Kennedy . . . 1960 . . . Chicago. So when I compare that to something like this maybe I am not too far off: “Chaos Looms as Thailand's Prime Minister Sweeps Vote Unopposed,” to find out more about election vampires such as Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra who was called upon to quit over corruption allegations. Words like these are included in the article- “authoritarian style” “urban rage” “retains loyalty among impoverished rural voters,” “boycotted ‘pseudo-election’ ” “tyrant” “cronies” and “undermined democratic checks and balances.” Wow, sounds like they are referring to Alexander Hamilton (excepting the rural voter part), or dozens of the politicians whose reelection would be contingent on their being able to complete a word jumble and given the hint that the above words were associated with either their initial election or how they have conducted business since. Let your super-ego complete the word jumble. The article was written by Jan McGirk in Bangkok, April 3, 2006. (See- http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/chaos-looms-as-thailands-prime-minister-sweeps-vote-unopposed-472547.html.)
** Though I have never heard this term, we ought to bring about its use to differentiate old-school democrats from the new version. A neo-democrat would be someone who gains by another’s toil and is not shamed by it. Too many people feel entitled to social aid, to Welfare, to unemployment compensation, to abusing taxpayer contributions in order to assuage their grief over misfortune that’s statute of limitations should have been long gone. Playing the victim is the game of the neo-democrat. Yes, “the meek shall inherit the earth” by whining until someone puts a rich man’s earnings in a poor man’s hands.
*** I think it humorous that the woman who wrote the article writes that only 25% of Canadians would fall under the Canadian version of the conservative party. If you read the broad platform goals of this party, otherwise known as “ ‘The ConservaNAZI Party’ because of their right-wing values [which are according to her] borderline racist and discriminatory.” Guess they have many of the same problems we have concerning political parties. Thing is- a lot of what is listed as goals of the Canadian Conservative party is pretty much what our republican/conservative party has on their wish list.
**** I refer to Madison as the “surrogate” father of the Constitution to be both a contrarian- because everyone calls him the “Father of the Constitution” and because I cannot believe that a man who wrote so thoroughly in his near 30 contributions to the Federalist Papers series could have left so much out of the
Constitution, which is expected to be a living, breathing guide to the country’s citizens and the citizen’s representatives, but because what he included reminds me of Hamilton. I would explain, but again that may be outside of the overall topic at hand; hey, something has to be.
***** I could put virtual in front of all kinds of things- I am writing about politics- virtual hope and virtual change are the name of the game.
****** The man said it was his uncle that helped liberate Auschwitz. In actuality, the Russians did that, without the assistance of Obama’s great uncle at Buchenwald. Running for president Sir, try not to make this stuff up as you go along. At this rate, we may as well have Tommy Flanagan file as an Independent in 2012- Flanagan: I was in the military . . . yeah . . . I was the military . . . I am the one who liberated Japan from Godzilla, the bad Godzilla- that’s the ticket; I was allies . . . with Mothra- yeah.
******* There is an analogy to politics in there somewhere.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment