presidential 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

Our Politicains Are Brainwashing Us


Please note, I did not assign this to any particular political party, and that is because both major political parties are equally guilty.  This is not anything new either.  Political parties have been trying to do this forever.  It is not anything new.  The new part is their use of the media to convince people of the righteousness of their position.  At this point you are  probably saying that that is what they are supposed to do.  The response to that is an emphatic no!

In the early 19th Century there was a large portion of our country that was illiterate, and an even larger portion that had something less than an 8th grade education.  As time passed that changed, but political parties approach to the average American has not.  The Whigs, the Bull Moose, the Republicans, and Democrats have each partaken in a manipulations of the truth and outright lies all in an effort to ally people to their way of thinking, the right way according to them.

Democrats love to use the absolutism that green house gases are causing a global warm and they make sure you are looking at industrialists to take the blame.  The fact is, plant life itself causes greenhouse gases.  Democrats love to give that portion of the truth that bolsters their take on global warming.  What needs to be given is the whole truth along with what is in doubt and unknown.

Right now the Republican party is saying that taxing the upper 1% is being unfairly targeted for a tax increase.  Gov. Romney showed in his 15% tax rate that their statements are rather disingenuous.  They claim that it will stifle those who create jobs from doing that.  Really?  You mean they will no longer desire to make money so they are going to withdraw from all market, because that is exactly what you are saying since that 1% has little effect of creating jobs.  Companies create jobs and as long as any company desires to make a profit it will create more jobs to do just that but only as the market bears.  Thirty years ago that same 1% paid triple in taxes, or more, than is demanded of them today.  It was also a Republican idea to have a minimum tax.  Why have they run from that now?

Democrats are famous for their gun control moves.  Their problem is, they have never offered gun owners anything that resembled a guarantee that the individual’s right to own such weapons will not be impeded.  They would be better served by coming up with a system whereby those guilty of violent crimes spend a lot of time in jail and are properly monitored upon their release.  That done, then maybe they can offer ideas on gun control.  But if they do, they had better have an ironclad guarantee along with it.

Republicans chafe at the idea of increased regulation of anything.  Their claim is that we are overregulated as it is, and that government is interfering in people’s private lives.  They say they want government out of our lives.  Last thing first, you cannot get government out of your life.  It is a fact of life that has nothing to do with the type of government but rather mankind’s desire to live in a society.  Orderly society have rules and regulations to live by.  The more freedom demanded for the individual the more extensive the rules and regulations regarding those freedoms.  One of the purposes of those rules and regulations is to protect us from ourselves.  Humans can be extremely greedy, lazy, gluttonous, and other things that have the possibility of hurting others.  That is where governments come into play to protect the individual from the shortcomings of others.  It is that simple.

Today’s politicians take the current issues and become rigid in their position.  They do this successfully because they have convinced their constituents that theirs is the only correct position and to move away from that position, even slightly, is just wrong.  They take issues where 75% of Americans feel one particular way and because they are in the other 25%, and in power, they pay millions of dollars in advertising to change the thinking of the average American so it lines up with their thinking.

Politicians are also giving the appearance of being at the beck and call of the PACs that fund their reelections campaigns.  Again, these PACs do not have the public’s interest at heart, even when they say they do, but have the ideals of their contributors front and center.  Politicians allow themselves to be bought off by such special interest groups.  God forbid they should stand up to one of their sacred cows to stand with the people who elected them.

I find it incredible that the house and senate both to have ethics committees.   I see no proof that any of them have any understanding of ethical behavior.  One of the prime ideals of ethical behavior is that you do not give even the appearance of unethical behavior.  Senators and congressmen regularly not only give the appearance of unethical behavior, they flaunt unethical behavior.  For example, they should never accept any gifts from any corporation vying for government contracts, government approval, or any other government action that they have sway over.  But such action happen daily.  They allow corporations to wine and dine them at a rate well above the $25 a civil servant is allowed.  They take ride in corporate jets, get seats in very expensive corporate booths at sporting events, take gifts of all sorts and supposedly they claim that such gifts do not affect their participation in events that corporation has in the government.

The bottom line is, we as Americans need to do more thinking for ourselves.  We cannot allow ourselves to be swayed so much by the politically motived ads that pollute the airwaves at election time.  We must be willing to investigate the truth of any and all claims made by every politician, and when they do not line up with the truth, we need to make that known to the politicians involved.

Right now the Republican candidates for president are making all sorts of claims of what Obama did or did not do.  What they do not offer is how they were complicit in things not happening that should have or vice versa.  They are not the least bit forthcoming in their own failings.  And when the time comes, the Democrats will practice the very same less than honest portrayals of the Republican presidential candidate.

Americans need to understand one thing very clearly.  The president cannot make a single law, only congress can.  And while presidents make lots of claims of what they intend on doing, without the cooperation of congress, none of it will happen.  Quite simply this means, if you do not like where we are right now, look to congress as the problem, and then at yourself, to find the root of all our problems.  We do not live in a dictatorship and the influence of any president is rather limited.  Do not allow all the various candidates to convince you otherwise about the president or any other person they are running against.