I have always been one who used to lend an ear to discussions of politics and loved to offer my opinions to the fray. But as time has passed that interest has waned as I become more and more disillusioned with the rhetoric from all sides. The amazing thing is how this rhetoric permeates every fabric of our being if we let it and how we make assumptions about others based merely on their political leanings. No matter how absurd these assumptions are, people cling to them for dear life because these are the justification for the sheer animosity spewed from the participants in the argument.
However, to truly have an exchange of ideas and seek positive change and resolution, it is imperative that one try to consider the point of view of the opposition repeatedly and honestly and then proceed. Repetition is important because it guards against being automatically dismissive and honesty is important (though rare) because it is the only platform on which any exchange of ideas can be weighed. A favorite saying of mine and one dismissed perhaps too easily is "You can't argue with an idiot." It seems almost rude, but that statement speaks volumes. Basically it means that if people do not accept basic truths as premises to an argument, then no fair exchange of viewpoints can possibly occur. While this matter of honesty sounds a few steps below simple, it eludes us the most on matters of politics.
In the middle of another election year, these concepts come to view in the glaring light of partisanism. In order to justify impressions about candidates or their supporters we accept assumptions that are so inflammatory they could not stand for anyone less than a psychopath.
One such issue is social responsibility to the disadvantaged. This argument is based on the idea that the conservatives have absolutely no concern for anyone struggling to overcome difficult circumstances and liberals are only seeking to gain power by offering kickbacks rather than sincerity. This argument has gotten so extreme that liberals have accused conservatives of literally trying to kill school children by cutting the rate of increase in school lunch program subsidies and conservatives have accused liberals of endangering the well-being of future generations by jeopardizing their defense, rushing social security to insolvency and pushing agendas that destroy the moral foundation on which our nation was built.
I fear that neither of these extreme positions offers a place for me to stand. Frankly, Ralph Nader almost makes more sense than most in his alarmist kind of way with commentary on the lack of social responsibility of American corporations. What he misses is that it is not just an American phenomenon. In fact, the globalization of markets and the world-wide conglomerates that come with that are the worst offenders. No matter what the violation or by whom the company is led, in the arena of corporate greed I stand firm in calling for the enforcement of laws guarding against improper, unfair or otherwise misleading practices .
Nevertheless, I guess this is where I come down on a few issues.
I hurt for people that are struggling through no fault of their own, whether the reason be health or circumstances or other things. However, in a system like ours wherein each dollar I pay in taxes is filtered through a government that keeps 60-70 cents, and further which distributes to remainder to various programs that may or may not actually reach those in need, basic logic says there must be a more efficient way. If the goal is re-distributing wealth, are people with government jobs really the intended beneficiaries? If it is forcing an unsuspecting public to give money for social concerns they might not otherwise give, is that helpful? The same kind of people argue against forcing morality on others through things like the posting of the Ten Commandments or other religious messages. Isn't that disingenuous? How on one hand can we say morality cannot be legislated and then carry forced philanthropy as a standard? One might say it does not matter as long as people get help. I contend that this is a very worldly view of what kind of help people really need even if one ignores the very watered down nature of these "entitlements."
I mentioned this briefly before, but many well-intentioned people use this as their primary reason of support for liberal policies. I agree that our society is woefully out of whack as it relates to this, but the argument of payrolls for cops versus professional athletes or teachers versus movie stars or soldiers versus rappers has been done to death. So how to repair this inequity remains the argument.
One camp touts the virtues of increasing the minimum wage. Sadly this is a very elementary approach to a complicated issue that fails under true economic analysis rather than political analysis. When this happens, the economy is affected in two ways. For most of us, in rather a long-term lag, we feel the bump in pay as it is passed to consumers through inflated prices ultimately erasing any benefits to workers. For many workers, though, (and this is the truth that remains largely unspoken) the effects strike much more quickly as small businesses lay off employees from an inability to make payroll or, in extreme cases, close altogether. This is not uncommon and is a scenario I saw in my role as a commercial lender for many small businesses.
It intrigues me that when people discuss the redistribution of wealth, they support the idea by pointing to high-paid executives and the extravagant lifestyles they pursue but do not mention high-paid entertainers or atheletes. In fact, the executives are responsible for providing jobs to a large segment of society. Where they need to be held accountable is for their violation of laws to support their lifestyles. Entertainers, on the other hand, laud the virtues of liberal policies while remaining blatantly hypocritical through their own behavior. In our last election, one major candidate carried this torch of virtuous entitlements, but at the same time his tax records showed a mere $3,000.00 in philanthropic giving for a year while the other candidates records indicated over $350,000.00. Even in this year's election, one candidate admittedly wants to raise taxes despite his own efforts to shelter himself from Medicare and Medicaid taxes and to further move a large portion of his family business off-shore. Were his charges to carry any weight, one might expect that he would try to pay more than what is expected rather than less.
The fact is, large problems are rarely solved by quick fixes and this is the fundamental difference between conservatism and liberalism. Liberals often react to issues in a way that is sure to please many people immediately but fail the citizenry in the long run. The examples of this are many. The failure of the health care system, the pending insolvency of social security, the creation of a welfare state that in its adulterated condition does little to help those truly in need, the moral decay of society in general and on and on.
Providing for the national defense, however, is one area in which we may scrimp to our own peril. Our nation has now seen the results of not taking a threat seriously as did Europe in the early 1900's. Hopefully this lesson is one from which we can apply our new knowledge. But the fact is, these lessons are not new. Muslim extremist have hated the United States for more than the last three years. Previous attacks on Americans and even previous attempts to destroy the World Trade Center were harbingers of our ultimate circumstance to which we paid little mind. Even now, as extremists call for the ousting of George W. Bush, should we not at least consider this as one of the best reasons to stand behind him? But again, the quick-fixers and the please-all-the-people-all-the-timers ratchet up the rhetoric and promise whatever it takes.
Basically, the lesson we need to learn is consistent with what generations of people have proven. Quick fixes are suspect. Hard work and planning pay off over the long run. Saving money that does not have to be spent unnecessarily provides opportunities for true needs. This is true of our personal finances and it is true of government funds as well. Like my dad always says (and I do mean
always) "A penny saved is opportunity gained."
Putting this into practice means choosing leaders who lead on principal rather than on popularity. It is not easy to do the right thing when something else might be popular, but it is still the right thing.
The Democrats were close in the early 20th century but unchecked, this eventually decended into what we now witness. Now
both sides are more liberal than FDR ever was or even JFK for that matter. I am personally sick of the way both sides of the aisle are rife with politicians who are constantly electioneering rather than leading. But if someone is willing to stand up and lead based on principal, they have more honestly earned the few votes they are likely to receive. The sooner voters educate themselves and seek to ask not what their country can do for them, but rather what they might do for their country, the sooner the long and necessary process of healing may begin.
