what's it gonna take? part 1 of a whole bunch...
I realize that the election is just over, and that anything can happen between now and the next one, but I ask myself, what will it take to give me a sense of progress in the country for myself and for the general class of people that I associate myself with.
Let me say from the outset that I am not particularly enamored of either political party, and that I generally vote for the candidate or platform that I feel will do the most good at that particular time. Those things said, I don't care if the label that the next congress and president carries is democrat or republican. As a realist, it will be a much colder day in hell if the repubs adopt a program that I find palatable than if the dem's do it, so I will aim my sage advice in that direction, and let whoever use it or discard it as they see fit.
The nation is divided over a set of small and relatively insignificant labels, chiefly liberal and conservative. That these words are grossly abused and misused is obvious to me, and I hope to those who read this blog. If labels are required in this day and age, the party that wins the next election should adopt a new one, and make it stick. Progressive comes to mind, but that word is also subject to a good deal of torquing and twisting. In any event, new platforms are needed, and the party that fails to produce a viable plan to accomplish basic goals should be chastised severely and penalized at the ballot box.
The issues that seem to get the press during an election cycle are those that should have been taken care of long ago. It seems to me that there are limits to freedom and liberty, specifically the imposition of rules and constraints on the freedom and liberty of others. Examples of this abound in everyday life, we all have to make little compromises here and there and we do so, mainly because not doing so, even on principle, is more harmful than the compromise. In this spirit, I suggest that the new political reality needs to address the following issues:
1) the debate over abortion. the terms "freedom to choose" and "right-to-life" are both inaccurate and counter-productive, not to mention inflammatory. why not push a platform of minding ones own business? there is no right to a legal, safe, abortion stated or implied in any law or statute, the driving factor is that these (and presumably other) things are not a valid legal basis for investigating and interfering in the affairs of an individual under the right to privacy enunciated in Roe v. Wade. the right to privacy is a limit on the power of government to impose an agenda, however narrow or broad, on the individual.
2) the right to keep and bear arms. this should have been settled when the second amendment was adopted, but I suppose that there is money to be made and political capital to be amassed by stirring up the masses on either side of this issue. I have a mental picture of Charleston Heston in the role of Prof. Harold Hill, bemoaning all the troubles in River City. at the same time, I see an image of Ted Kennedy as Clarence Darrow, defending the imperative that government must protect the people against dangerous notions and possibilities. there does not appear to be any debate on the the legality of the improper use of firearms, so what is the issue?
as a side note to the second amendment, I do believe that there must be a consensus on where the line is drawn in terms of keeping and bearing arms. what if an individual owns a bazooka?
a flamethrower? a shoulder fired SAM? biological or chemical toxins? not too many folks would argue that these things are a bit beyond the pale in your basic rights argument, but they are armaments nonetheless, and, as is sometimes argued, they might actually be needed if the people were to rise in revolt against a tyrannical government.
3) religious freedom and public education. wow. where does one start on this one? there needs to be a dialogue and a censuses on what constitutes "promotion of religion" by a governmental body or agency. prayer in schools? let me be brief. who cares? if you have a problem with it, then work around it, teach your kids not to participate in a respectful way, but do not try to impose a religious agenda on everyone else by calling it a "non-religous" agenda.
if your kids are intelligent enough to read about the issue and possibly to write or talk about it in a coherent manner, then move on, the schools are doing what they are there to do, and the various little cultural things that happen are insignificant.
4) gay rights. ahem. as I dive into this quagmire, I will merely say that government needs to separate cultural considerations from tax policies. when that is done, see item 1 above.
Let me say from the outset that I am not particularly enamored of either political party, and that I generally vote for the candidate or platform that I feel will do the most good at that particular time. Those things said, I don't care if the label that the next congress and president carries is democrat or republican. As a realist, it will be a much colder day in hell if the repubs adopt a program that I find palatable than if the dem's do it, so I will aim my sage advice in that direction, and let whoever use it or discard it as they see fit.
The nation is divided over a set of small and relatively insignificant labels, chiefly liberal and conservative. That these words are grossly abused and misused is obvious to me, and I hope to those who read this blog. If labels are required in this day and age, the party that wins the next election should adopt a new one, and make it stick. Progressive comes to mind, but that word is also subject to a good deal of torquing and twisting. In any event, new platforms are needed, and the party that fails to produce a viable plan to accomplish basic goals should be chastised severely and penalized at the ballot box.
The issues that seem to get the press during an election cycle are those that should have been taken care of long ago. It seems to me that there are limits to freedom and liberty, specifically the imposition of rules and constraints on the freedom and liberty of others. Examples of this abound in everyday life, we all have to make little compromises here and there and we do so, mainly because not doing so, even on principle, is more harmful than the compromise. In this spirit, I suggest that the new political reality needs to address the following issues:
1) the debate over abortion. the terms "freedom to choose" and "right-to-life" are both inaccurate and counter-productive, not to mention inflammatory. why not push a platform of minding ones own business? there is no right to a legal, safe, abortion stated or implied in any law or statute, the driving factor is that these (and presumably other) things are not a valid legal basis for investigating and interfering in the affairs of an individual under the right to privacy enunciated in Roe v. Wade. the right to privacy is a limit on the power of government to impose an agenda, however narrow or broad, on the individual.
2) the right to keep and bear arms. this should have been settled when the second amendment was adopted, but I suppose that there is money to be made and political capital to be amassed by stirring up the masses on either side of this issue. I have a mental picture of Charleston Heston in the role of Prof. Harold Hill, bemoaning all the troubles in River City. at the same time, I see an image of Ted Kennedy as Clarence Darrow, defending the imperative that government must protect the people against dangerous notions and possibilities. there does not appear to be any debate on the the legality of the improper use of firearms, so what is the issue?
as a side note to the second amendment, I do believe that there must be a consensus on where the line is drawn in terms of keeping and bearing arms. what if an individual owns a bazooka?
a flamethrower? a shoulder fired SAM? biological or chemical toxins? not too many folks would argue that these things are a bit beyond the pale in your basic rights argument, but they are armaments nonetheless, and, as is sometimes argued, they might actually be needed if the people were to rise in revolt against a tyrannical government.
3) religious freedom and public education. wow. where does one start on this one? there needs to be a dialogue and a censuses on what constitutes "promotion of religion" by a governmental body or agency. prayer in schools? let me be brief. who cares? if you have a problem with it, then work around it, teach your kids not to participate in a respectful way, but do not try to impose a religious agenda on everyone else by calling it a "non-religous" agenda.
if your kids are intelligent enough to read about the issue and possibly to write or talk about it in a coherent manner, then move on, the schools are doing what they are there to do, and the various little cultural things that happen are insignificant.
4) gay rights. ahem. as I dive into this quagmire, I will merely say that government needs to separate cultural considerations from tax policies. when that is done, see item 1 above.
posted by eccentric recluse at 11:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home