One of my readers reminded me about the old aphorism "a new broom sweeps clean",
expressing hope that the Obama administration would suffer a "necessary" defeat
on Nov. 2. There is another adage "marry in haste, repent at leisure". If the people,
in their wisdom, decide to divorce the Democratic party and remarry the Republicans,
will that be a repeat of a relationship which brought on the worst recession in history, involvement in two senseless wars, and a state of economic disparity in which 1% of the population became obscenely wealthy while the entire middle class approached poverty?
According to the radical Tea Party zealots, government is the enemy, the bigger
it gets, the more evil it becomes. But so much of our existence is now dependent
on what government does, that treating it as the enemy threatens the most basic
foundations of our way of life. Imagine life without Social Security, Unemployment Compensation, Medicare; No regulations governing safety of medications, food and
water; No consumer protections in the functioning of Stock markets, banks, credit cards; No minimum standards for construction of roads, tunnels, bridges, homes
schools, hospitals; No educational requirements for practicing professions---physicians, attorneys; No environmental controls; No police, firemen, para medics, sanitation workers, armed forces; No courts of law. Without all of those, what would we have--AFGHANISTAN.
Ours is a huge country, with complex economic and social relationships which took a long time to develop and will take a long time to alter.
Throwing out the "Bums" now in charge and replacing them will not produce rapid, productive change. Expecting that will mean that each mid-term election will resemble the previous one.
The dilemma in which we find ourselves grew over many years. To blame it all on Obama is juvenile. Repeating the policies which put us here, in the hope they will change our condition, meets the definition of insanity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
A very wise and balanced opinion. Where many countries have numerous parties, we have a marvelous 2-party system. The main advantage to the country is that it is possible to reach a majority consensus. The disadvantage is that we tend to think one party is good and the other is evil. What is more true: We are all in the same pot, and those on the bottom feel the boil first. We don't agree when we are not personally impaced at the exact same time. Dr. Best argues for rationality. I strongly agree.
Kim's commentary is right on point.
Being a two-party political system affords us huge advantages BUT it also requires all of us to study the electoral landscape, sift through the garbage of campaign jargon, actually research the facts and attempt to find some shred of truth that might provide a glimmer of hope in the near term.
"Mid term elections" have absolutely nothing to do with the presidency or federal court. Only representation in the House of Representatives and our local system is affected. Any attempt to sway the stodgy attitudes of U.S. Senate members through voting is a mission for Don Quixote - there is almost no way to succeed.
Influencing the bias of hundreds of House members however, is a distinct possibility but not anytime within the first two years of a "freshman's" term.
The real power of voting during "mid term elections" is at the local level. Municipal, state and governorships are where "rubber meets the road". "Mid terms" are all about how revenues are collected and spent in visible ways. No president or even U.S. Senator has any sway over such things. They may hope to influence our choices but their power is pointless in this, most fundamental act of patriotism. Once every four years we are granted the authority to make significant improvements to our society and all the "big money" invested in misleading ads proves how significant this opportunity is.
Now the huge question; how many of us are willing to wade through the propaganda and make an informed decision about how our single vote might influence anything?
Don't think president.
Don't think party.
Don't think about the ad you just heard.
Think survival.
The two party system is good for a large country like ours with hundreds of millions of people. It is simple enough for the average American citizen. Either you are a democrat or a republican. A few weirdoes are independent. This limited dual choice provides the few who vote with peace of mind. Just go to the booth and pull the lever for your party.
Overall ,middle aged people with a financial retirement cushion are leaning to the right. Younger and/or with liberal views you are leaning to the left. So two choices are enough to satisfy most political aspirations.
In the European Union, most countries offer their citizens a wider panoply of representatives to govern them. In France it is often said that there are as many choices as there are cheeses!
In Florida, Sink or Gold, and a few minors : easy, simple but not satisfying.
Post a Comment