politics

by

American Politics Sounding More Like Iranian Politics


That I should make such a charge might sound rather harsh at first blush but it does need consideration.  The Republican party this year has decided to make gay marriage its featured issue.  It is a moral issue steeped in religious conviction and having little to do with proper helmsmanship of a government.  Since 1979 Iran has been run by a series of religious ideologues who rule, according to them, by the rule of the Qur’an.  The Republican party will couch their issue in moral correctness but you need only ask yourself on what basis that correctness is formed.

Decades ago the Republican party always portrayed itself in the light of national security, hawkishness, and conservative economics, and that was more than enough for them.  In 1952 they enlisted Dwight David Eisenhower to be their presidential nominee.  In truth, party leaders did not know what Eisenhower’s political preference was when they asked, but he was a national hero and someone who epitomized what they stood for.  Eisenhower ran roughshod over Stevenson that year and again four years later.  He could best be described as a “Nationalist” who Americans idolized.  The most popular political button of the era said, “I Like Ike.”   That was enough.  Not once in either elections did any sort of religious banter enter.

In succeeding elections, right through Clinton’s first election, economics and defense continued to lead the way.  Only once during that time, the early 1980s, did religion make a forray into politics and that was the Jerry Falwell “Moral Majority.”  This far-right political rhetoric, as had been historically true, quickly ran amok and fell into disfavor with the general public.  People recognized that they were not served well by any religious group that tried to control their political convictions.

Today that far right ideology has made a resurgence in the form of the Tea Party.  Madison Avenue marketing has made this into a group that harkens to our nation’s founding, and the men who bravely defied King George III.  But was it lost in translation is that those men of 1774 were a group of disparate political beliefs, some were even self-described agnostics.  Their aim was to make a single point that truly represented the beliefs of all Americans and had absolutely no political designs whatsoever.  The be certain, had the crown relented, ended the tea tax and returned colonial governorships to the control of the people, the revolution, at least at that moment, would most certainly have been delayed, if not completely avoided.

Our country has many pressing problems but nowhere in the top ten, or probably even the top 100, should be found the issue of gay marriage.  That issue, as it is being promoted by the left, is one of civil authority only.  That is the only place it can be politically.  Otherwise it becomes an issue that is contemptuous of the first amendment.  I expect that few American church, at least in the near future, will allow gay marriage within their domain.  But that a political body gives credence to a lawful joining of a couple needs to be left at just that.  It is absolutely not an assault on the institution of marriage as a religious institution.

One thing people of conservative ideology need to consider is the children.  It is not illegal for a lesbian couple to conceive a child.  In fact, once that child is born, the lesbian mother is held to certain legal standards.  A legal marriage between that couple serves to extend that legal, and moral, responsibility.  Even more, gay men can legally enter into a contract to have a surrogate birth a child.  And as in the case of the lesbian couple, a gay male couple would also be held to the rule of law in the care of that child.  Without marriage, the law has little standing with the otherwise unrelated parent.

The thing is, this is one of the most foolish issues the Republican party has ever brought to the front.  To me it says they are more interested in spending short resources on defending that position than to finding solution for the far more pressing issues of the day.  We still have a fragile economy.  We have enormous issues with our military strength and our foreign policy.  We are struggling with issues of non-renewable energy sources, water shortages, and a decaying national infrastructure.  Does it not make more sense to put those issues at the forefront than allowing gay people into legal contracts?

Iran has allowed itself to be led by ultra-conservative religious groups.  They are the “Qur’an Thumpers” of their nation just like the “Bible Thumpers” of ours.  I have no problem with religion.  I think it a very good thing.  But as was recognized in 1789, it has no place in our government.  We can never be a country that is religiously defined except that each person is allowed to believe as he wishes and that no one religious view can prevail over another.  If the issue of gay marriage is allowed into our political arena then it is necessarily dragging in a strictly religious viewpoint.  No court could make a decision on gay marriage, from a moral point of view, as to do so would be to assault the first amendment.  The far right has made this a moral issue and therefore a religious issue.  Following this tack is tantamount to agreeing with the direction a government like Iran takes.

by

Who Owns God?


If you went to church with me when I was a kid, you would have heard that God was properly defined by the Roman Catholics, and everyone else had an incorrect version.  And that was even after Vatican II.  While Catholics certainly have moderated their world view of their religion, it still reeks of “we got it right.”

In today’s world we hear a lot about the Moslem version of God.  I think it fair to say that their view is an extremely unpopular one here in the United States.  That probably includes most Moslems who live here as well, but that is just a guess.  I say that because it is my firm belief that most Moslems who live here have adopted a very moderate, or mainstream, view of God.  They certainly are not the ones yelling, “death to infidels!”  And they certainly are not advocating a jihad against America.

These most basic of feelings that all humans seem to hold, that of a person deity, are the very reason I speak up strongly for the separation of church and state.  We are the only country in the world, that I know of, that has this admonition.  Those Americans who want God worked into portions of our government would do well to ask themselves, which God.  That is, which particular religious slant on God are you in favor of?  You have to choose simply because there is no generic God that I have ever heard of.  That is because as soon as you evoke the name God, in each person’s mind this takes on a very particular point of view.  Hence, our forefathers understood that extremely well and they did not want a Church of England God, or even one of their homegrown versions to have any place in our government.

Since monotheism has existed there has always been a mix of God and religion.  For most of history men have been incapable of separating the two.  Mostly, they have had no desire to separate the two.  I believe that is because they have the notion that there has to be a mixed for a society to be successful.  For a long time that actually worked.  Prior to the 20th Century most societies lived almost entirely within themselves.  Tribalism, as sociologists call it, defined a religious belief and that tribe in turned formed a government for itself.  The people were monolithic, that is, all of one kind.  Until the 20th Century it was not at all unusual for a person to never travel more than 20 miles from where he was born.  That meant these societies were so homogenous that singular beliefs usually worked.

Still, certain groups of people decided even before the 20th Century that their take was the proper one and anyone not so defined was a “heathen.”  For Americans, a great example of this was the European view of the Native American cultures.  Even those Native Americans were mono-theistic, since the did not refer to “God,” and did not understand the European concept, it was clear to those European that the Native Americans were obviously heathens.  Many organized religion set out to bring Christianity to a group that neither wanted nor needed Christianity.  They were mono-theistic and it was Christian ignorance that brought on the problems.  Christians had a long history of such foolishness.  The Inquisitions of the 15th Century and before that the crusades to the middle east to ostensibly recover the Holy Grail.  I say ostensibly because the true reason was the European belief that old Christian churches were somehow being desecrated by the Moslems.  Just a little bit of education by the Christians about the Moslem religion would have shown them that nothing could have been further from the truth.  Even so, I doubt that would have stopped them.  Ignorance and passion have a way of getting together in mankind to bring death and destruction to anyone who has the temerity to believe something different.

I have serious problems with the way the Moslem religion is practiced in the Middle East.  Even in today’s world they are still little more than second class citizens in their own societies.  In Saudi Arabia they cannot drive a car.  Why?  I have not a clue.  In many countries in the Middle East, a woman found guilty, or even suspected, of infidelity to her husband is subject to stoning and death.  Most such countries also require her to wear a burka, to one extent or another.  Men, on the other hand, are not hindered by any such restrictions.  Even the adulterous husband does not fear for his life.

But I can allow for that a whole lot more than some of the practices that are going on right here in America.  These days in America there is more religious intolerance than I think we have had at any time in our history.  And I am a US historian by degree so I can say that with some conviction.  The native Americans of Massachusetts had a word for religious tolerance that bears remembering, “Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg,” which means, you fish on your side, I fish on my side, and no one fishes in the middle.  They were all about peaceful co-existence.

Conservative politicians in America have taken God hostage and are holding him over the heads of Americans.  They tell us how our morals need to be shaped.  They do this via their own religious background.  They are openly contemptuous of anyone who dares believe anything different as well.  They are smart enough to live the name God out of their discussions, but if you could nail one of them down on the origins of their belief, which I doubt you could, they would have to admit that it is directly tied to their God.  One of the great debates in America today is over gay marriage.  Those against it say it is somehow ruining the institution of marriage.  Really?  How is that a country that has literally hundreds of definitions for religion can only have one with regard to marriage?  I find that rather peculiar, and rather disingenuous of anyone to make such a claim.  For centuries in this country the acceptance of marriage free from all religious entanglements has been understood as an absolute right.  If two people desire only a judge or justice of the peace to declare them legally married does that not separate marriage from all religious views?  The corruption comes when people insist that when the marriage is between same-sex individuals somehow God has to be magically introduced into the equation.  That is some of the worst logic I have ever heard and yet, it is the conservative Christians of this country who had taken God and force-fed it upon our entire society.  They tell us that their version of God and marriage are the correct one and God help anyone who differs with that version.

I have many friends who have very conservative Christian views of the world.  I am happy for them.  Some I even admire in the way they practice their religion.  I think they know better than to tell me what is moral and what is not.  They simply are not interested in hearing my lash out at them, and they know they will.  But Americans have become extremely lazy about the separation of church and state.  Instead of finding abhorrent anyone trying to force via legislation morality upon them, they allow politicians, PACs, and religious groups to get away with exactly that.  They are allowing those groups ownership of God, and in doing so, allowing for a particular take on God to be foisted upon all Americans.  It is time for that to stop!  In fact, it is long overdue.  The death of this country is very likely to come from religious zealots who have little tolerance for opposing views.  They are still living in 16th societies that no long exist.

Americans gasp when they hear about the religious intolerance and excesses of the Middle East.  But Americans need to take a second look at themselves.  Are we not doing the same sorts of things?

by

The Six U.S. Presidents Who Did the Most For America


This is, of course, just my opinion.  But, I hope I will show enough proof for you to consider them.

1.  George Washington — We all know that Washington more than any other commander during the revolution, helped America win.  But between 1783, when the English capitulated, and 1789 we really do not hear a lot about him.  That is because he felt his job was done and he wanted to go back to being the gentleman farmer.  But once Washington assumed the presidency he helped bring stability to the colonies.  His putting down the Whiskey Rebellion was his was of asserting the federal government as a central power.  There was doubt in the states that the federal government was strong.  The government needed income and put a tax on whiskey which brought about the insurrection.  Washington’s popularity with the general public helped reinforce the people’s trust in the government and its ability to act in their interests.

2.  Andrew Jackson — Jackson’s election set America on its ear.  People were outraged that a divorced woman would be the first lady.  Unfortunately, Rachel Jackson died before her husband took office.  Jackson also had to weather the dying Federalist Party that said a person of Jackson’s character would ruin the office of the president.  Jackson had been known for bar fights in his younger days and had an outstanding warrant for his arrest in the state of North Carolina from just such an event.  Jackson took on the powerful banking interests of the day.  A private bank, the Second National Bank, virtually had the nation’s finances hostage.  Jackson saw to it the charter of the bank was made null, and then oversaw the formation of the federal banks that exist to this day.

3.  Abraham Lincoln — It is difficult to imagine anyone would need to be convinced of his selection as one of the ten best.  Lincoln was a brilliant political tactician which is seldom talked about.  His first vice president, Hannibal Hamlin, was a safe partner for him.  He was a Maine Republican, who helped Lincoln balance his mid-west roots with Hamlin’s northeast.  But in the election of 1864 Lincoln chose Andrew Johnson, a Democrat.  Johnson’s Democrat affiliation along with his North Carolina heritage was done to appease Southern Democrats who Lincoln saw rejoining the government.

4.  Theodore Roosevelt — Roosevelt was arguably one of the most ambitious presidents this country has ever had.  Roosevelt was William McKinley’s assistant secretary of the Navy when the Spanish-American war broke out.  Roosevelt resigned his office so he could fight in the war.  He saw it as an opportunity to bring glory to himself, which he did rather successfully.  Once he became president after McKinley’s assassination, Roosevelt focused on American expansionism.  He was responsible for the assumption of the Panama canal and America’s overseeing it for the next 99 years.  He established the Hawaiian Islands and Guam as American territories.  He assisted Panama in becoming its own nation.  That territory had formerly been Colombia.  He established the National Parks System with his good friend John Muir.

5.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt — Roosevelt made more changes to the federal government than any president in history either before or since.  Roosevelt was key in establishing the FDIC after the bank failures of 1931, he established the social security system, he brought electricity to rural America with projects such as the Tennessee Valley Authority and others.  He put desperately poor Americans back to work with his Works Project America.  He also skillfully guided America through World War 2.

6.  Dwight David Eisenhower — During his time in office, Eisenhower was criticised for what was seen as excessive time on the golf course, and his propensity to back problems which kept him from the Oval Office many times.  But Eisenhower took his European experience, having seen Germany’s modern highways, and brought those ideas to American.  He was behind the formation of America’s Interstate highway system.

I really wanted a list of ten but none of the rest achieved nearly as much as these six did.  What I will do next is post a list of the ten worst presidents of all time.  That is an easy list, and I am sure, a controversial one.

by

Health Care


I like to keep my blog as non-political as I can but this is something that really bothers me.  I also want to say that I am apolitical.  That is, I really do not like U.S. politics as proffered by either major political party today.  I think they are grossly out of touch with the average American and that both parties play on the fears of the average American.  I am prefacing this that way because this posting will have a more liberal bent to it but I want it to be clear, I do not trust the Democrats any  more than I do the Republicans.

The South Carolina Republican primary is today.  I have seen on news reports a lot of Republicans are pushing for the repeal of the latest health care reform, or as they euphemistically call it, Obamacare.  So here is what I do not get.  Why?  This bill has cost the average American absolutely nothing.  Taxes did not go up because of it.  No one who already has health care was required to change a thing.  The only thing it has done so far is open up health insurance to many who did not have it.  I realize that in another year it is going to require it of all Americans but why is that a bad thing?

We have had mandatory health care here in Massachusetts for a number of years now.  I have always had health insurance so it did not affect me in any way.  Massachusetts set up what is called Mass Health.  It is a system where those who were uncovered can go and buy health insurance at an affordable rate.  The effect, of course, is that people who were formally wont to visit a doctor or get proper medication, can do so now without fear of financial distress.  Doctors and hospitals like it better because now they do not have to write off nearly so many unpaid bills, many of those formerly for people living in poverty.

Why then, would any sane person want to block any American access to health insurance?  This is not a socialist move, as many have stated.  It is a move to help upwards to a third of our uninsured public get better health care.  Even worse, the Republican party has offered absolutely no alternative.  Had they said, for example, they favored a free clinic program, whereby the government invested in setting up and funding such clinics around the U.S., that would be an alternate.  But they have simply said no, we do not want all Americans to have equal access to what is billed as the world’s best health care system already.  And just to put a little perspective on that, the United States is currently ranked 36th by the World Health Organization in its health care.  We are behind a bunch of 3rd world countries.  What does that say about us?  The richest nation in the world, number 1, is only 36th in a very important statistic?  That is both unconscionable and unacceptable.

During the FDR administration it was recognized that too many Americans lacked certain basic needs, electricity and a retirement plan.  Both were resolved and are in place today.  Why then is a basic right to good health care a problem?  It should not be.  It is time for the Republican party to get off the dime, and if they do not care for Health Care Reform as it is, which they say they do not, then it is their responsibility to offer an alternative that creates the same result.

by

Are Politics Threatening Our American Way of Life?


The American government as we have it today started in 1789.  George Washington was as much named as the President as he was elected.  He was not challenged for the office and that was true in 1793 when he started his second term.  People today might find it hard to believe, but the founders of our republic for the most part found the idea of political parties repugnant.  They felt that such a division would inevitably led to the downfall of the nation.  The national elections in 1796 changed all that when Federalists, lead by Adams defeated Democratic-Republicans lead by Jefferson.  That happened in large part because of Washington supporting Adams as the next president.  But even then the politics of party affiliation lasted only as long as there was an actual election in progress.

In the years between 1789 and 1860 there were a number of national parties that elected a president.  The last of these were the Whigs.  The parties of the early 19th Century were mostly focused on the issues of the day, chief among them was slavery, conditions for accepting new states, and American expansion.  Other issues such as temperance, religious conservatism, and economics were relatively unimportant to the average voter.  The only election where economics played a major role was in 1840 which saw Martin Van Buren elected after crop failures and cotton price collapse during the Jackson administration.  Ironically, Van Buren was Jackson’s vice-president.  Such a scenario is unimaginable today.

The politics of the 21st Century have become so divisive that it is anyone’s guess as to how much progress any Congress will make between elections.  It seems that one  party or the other becomes extremely stubborn about a particular piece of pending legislation that the idea of finding middle ground is hopeless.  Each party, however, is quick to point out how it is the other that is obstructing progress.  The truth is, both are guilty.  They are so tied to making a political point that they forget what they were elected to do.

Two of our three parts of government, executive and legislative, are commanded in the Constitution to do the will of  the people.  Only the judicial is exempt except that it is the will of the people that the judicial protect us from illegal and unconstitutional acts.

Even though I am still a registered Democrat, there has never been a time in my adult life that I have always held views that one party or the other embraces as its own.  It is my firm belief that I am actually in the majority in that respect.  I think the number of people who hold only conservative or only liberal views is in the minority of either side or even when combined.

Our elected official seem wont to bring us the bad news.  Neither side is willing to stand up and admit that one of the prime functions of government is that of regulation and taxation.  Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution specifically says, congress has the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes” and then by the Sixteenth Amendment which say, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.”  Our founders recognized immediately that commerce unregulated was detrimental to the nation as a whole.

In the Preamble to the Constitution is the phrase, “to promote the general welfare.” The preamble has one simple purpose.  It sets out the ideals that are the basis for everything that is written in the document.  Part of the oath of office that all public officials takes is to uphold the constitution.  It is my opinion that about 2 seconds after they take the oath of office, our elected officials choose to forget the words they have just spoken.  They are not there to do what they think is right, but what we desire and to insure that our general welfare is of highest priority.

I maintain that all 535 members of Congress are guilty, to one degree or another, of substituting the will of the people and their common good, with the  desires of party leadership and their political goals.  Each of them is allowed to be in congress if they act as an independent agent of those who elected him.  They should make it a point of honor, the duty of conscience, and the directive of the people, to carry out the will of those who elected them independent of their own personal feelings on any issue without exception.  To put a point on it, I am 100% anti-abortion, however, were I elected to  congress I would always vote in line with the majority of the people I represented which where I live means voting to uphold a woman’s right to free access to abortion.  In such issues in particular, my personal point of view is irrelevant when it comes to doing the will of the people.

The answer to my initial question is an emphatic yes!  Politics in this nation now reigns supreme.  And while such politics sometimes is in line with what the people desire, more often than not, it is an impediment to progress the nation dearly needs.  Politicians need to stop talking about making hard decisions, they need to follow through.  We are presently heading down a road to self-destruction if the politics of today is allowed to continue unchanged.