Don't Let Politicians Divide Us Into Opposing Teams

Why do we insist on choosing up sides in order to decide what we believe? During the last Presidential campaign somebody sent me a You Tube link that showed several Obama supporters interviewed on the street, being asked questions like, "What do you like most about Obama, the fact that he is pro-life or that he selected Sarah Palin for his running mate?". I'm sure there were plenty of people who caught on & were therefore edited out of the video, but there were certainly enough who supported both of his supposed positions to make an entertaining several minutes. These people didn't support Barak Obama because of his positions on the issues. They supported him because he was a Democrat, or because he was a liberal, or because he was black, or because he was articulate, or because their friends supported him. These people went along & allowed other people tell them what to believe about Obama and, presumably what to believe about McCain.

The most recent example is the healthcare debate. People are lining up on this, and stridently defending positions outlined by what appears to be their party of choice. A few days ago several people on Facebook had posted, ""No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick. We are only as strong as the weakest among us." If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day." This is a sentiment most if not all of us can agree with. But this quote seemed to be being used, by and large, to promote a particular version of healthcare & to imply that those that don't support provisions in the bills now before congress are opposed to healthcare. But pay attention. Republicans have advanced several proposals to make healthcare both affordable and available to all Americans.

We can agree on many things that political teams in Washington DC want us to believe we cannot agree upon. If we refuse to let them set the agenda for us, we will be able to come up with something reasonable and bi-partisan.

Reagan Republicans?

There are 2 kinds of political conservatives in the United States. There are religiously motivated conservatives. I keep searching for a word to describe them, because they are not all evangelical Christians, but they all share the same moral values. For them, being conservative seems to mean conserving the institutionalization of their value system. I think Social Conservative may be the best description. This group is well meaning, but they seek to enforce their value system through a system of laws. This is a dangerous idea. Your interpretation of morality may be the right one, and the world my be a better place if we all lived by moral laws, as you understand them. But what happens when somebody else is in power who has a different value system. The proper way to promulgate morality is through religion and philosophy. It is not through force or threat of punishment that we change peoples hearts and behavior, it is through understanding and insight. It is through conversion.

Then there are the Libertarian Conservatives. Although Ronald Reagan had a deep sense of Christian faith, he fell more into this camp. Although, he was also socially conservative in many ways, he believed that the less government was involved in people's lives the better it was for everybody.

Reagan left office with a very high popularity rating, he rejuvenated the Republican Party, re-started the American economy, brought inflation under control, re-built the U.S. military and was crucial (some would argue the cause) to the end of the cold war.

The result is that now, everybody running on the Republican ticket claims to be Reagan Republicans. They are not. I haven't seen one since 1989. We need one.

Thesis

For several years I have lamented the divisiveness of American politics. Talk radio seems to appeal to the juvenile in us rather than the problem solvers in us. Politicians seem to treat political office more like a team sport to be won rather than the responsible governing of the people by statesmanship and compromise. I look in vain for thoughtful people who are speaking up for the American people.

Edmond Burke said, "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". I felt that if I wasn't seeing what I believed to be a responsible approach to government and politics, I could at least let my voice be heard. If you happen to stumble upon this blog and believe it to be worthy of your time, tell somebody else about it. Perhaps, if there are enough people out there that want to solve problems instead of win the game of politics, we can make a difference.