You just don’t get it.
28 03 2010I’ve become increasingly frustrated lately with the state of politics in our nation (my nation, that is – the United States). It isn’t any one policy, program, or agenda that has me annoyed. While I do see both good and bad in healthcare reform, I’m not all that upset about it. I’m nervous about national debt but can handle it.
What I am finding myself growing more sick of each day is the constant fighting between the major political parties. These are the people that are supposed to be looking out for the well being of us, not themselves or their political parties. Instead there is a constant stream of rhetoric from all directions.
Some would argue that by being elected the views of the candidate effectively mimic the views of their region. However, this argument fails to recognize that the majority of elections are decided by a relatively thin margin. This means that the candidate could, at most, represent the total thoughts and desires of just over half of all constituents.
At a Tea Party rally Sarah Palin recently said, “Washington has broken faith with the people that they are to be serving”. She’s absolutely right – and she is part of the problem. Instead of focusing on roasting political adversaries our elected officials need to focus on fixing the problems. This applies to everyone, republicans, democrats, independents, etc.
If each official used their finger pointing energy to help solve problems our country would be much better off as a result. Bipartisan doesn’t mean split or whole – it means cooperative.
That statement is vague in the extreme, and no two people who say it will ever mean the same thing.
Let’s get specific:
If the purpose of government is to protect individuals, then it should drastically shrink its size and scope, and stop treating the individual as a resource to be sucked up and used by central planners.
If the purpose of government is to give benefits to groups, then the individual is a dispensable resource to be used up by whichever pressure group is currently most influential.
The latter is what we have today, and today’s politicians’ behaviors make perfect sense in that regard: try to please as many people as possible by being as non-committal as possible, sitting on as many fences as possible, and shifting blame for problems – trying to ensure other would-be power-lusting competitors are even less popular than they are.
As soon as individuals are regarded as loot providers to be divvied up by elected officials, then pressure-group warfare becomes the law, and the standard is: can they get away with it.
The answer is to return government to its narrow scope of abolishing the use of force in human relationships, and ensuring that it, itself, does not become an abrogator of individual rights.
But that won’t happen until the individual (the ultimate minority) is considered of value. But that won’t happen until the universally accepted Christian moral ideal of individual self-sacrifice for the group is rejected. But that won’t happen until the various secular and religious forms of mysticism are rejected for a pro-reason, pro-this-worldly point of view.
But that won’t happen until there are enough intellectuals who believe it, who in turn can teach college students, who in turn can go on to become teachers and teach the youth, who in turn can grow up and make better voting decisions to change the political landscape.
Those ideas are beginning to hit intellectuals now, so I give it 30-40 years minimum.
Great response.
Stumbled upon this site for the cheatsheet on Design Patterns. But could not resist to post a quick comment on the response by Rob Quinn. I see what that comes from, but I disagree with the underpinning point of view, in which “the government” is something alien to the citizens.
I rather believe that people get the government they deserve (so says the proverb in my native language, but I would paraphrase by saying “People get the government that reflect the most widespread mindset”). Please note I am using here the word “mindset” to mean the “logic-behind-the-ideas” not the ideas themselves. With an example: while A is democrat and B republican (ideas) both A and B are associated to the two main parties in the country (the mindset in this case could for example be bipolarism).
In the specific case (the reply of Rob) I believe that until one thinks that the change is up to “the government” or “the intellectuals”, change will not likely come about. Change rarely starts from institutions. Change begins with active citizenship and is brought about by committed individuals who initiate processes.
BTW: I am not blaming in any way the author of the reply or USA as a country. With the Obama presidency (whether you support president Obama political views or not) USA people gave an inspiring example of active citizenship and participation.
All the best! (and thank you for the cheatsheet!)