How I Arrived Here (and Other Details)
Oct. 27th, 2008 10:20 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shipperxI wrote today that I'm taking the last week before the election to break my own rule against posting about politics. There are things that I want to say in regards to the election. Bear with me as I ramble:
I believe in the two party system. I do not believe in a permanent majority. No one is infallible or incorruptible. I believe that the push and pull between two parties is needed both as ballast to help provide stability and as a tool to provide course correction when adjustments are necessary. In a recent editorial, George Will had a quote from a British politician that I rather liked:
Like centrifugal force, party politics inevitably pull towards their activists. On the other hand, the general electorate is like gravity, a weak but inexorable force that pulls towards the center. Generally there is balance because when one party is pulled too far afield, the other moves towards the center, gaining the majority and changing the trajectory of the other party. Politics and political parties are not static entities but dynamic forces that, as a whole, create a system. With that in mind...
I believe that there is a need for people and for parties that push new agendas, new ideas, and new ideals -- things that drive us forward and that eliminate relics from the past that we should move beyond. We do not wish to stagnate. We wish to improve, to create, to work toward a better future.
On the other hand, I also believe in the need for people and for parties who pull back, remembering -- and valuing -- our past, counseling against moving too precipitously and to not throw the baby out with the bath water.
(I thought this article in Dallas Magazine gave a reasonably good definition of old school conservatism. Horrible definition of progressive, but a reasonable definition of traditional conservative:
But...I digress.
Anyway, in addition to believing that it's a good idea to have opposing parties, believing that it's a feature not a bug, I also believe in a middle that gives a fair hearing to both sides. When one is passionately devoted to one set of ideals, one is reluctant to give as complete a hearing of the other side. Thus, it behooves the middle to listen to both and to throw their vote with the side that best serves our needs in the current circumstances.
Ultimately, I consider myself to be moderate. Actually, I categorize myself as "fiercely moderate." And, while I know many consider that a wussy position, I believe the middle serves a purpose. Besides, it suits me. That said, throughout my life, I've voted Republican more often than Democratic. So, that's where I started. And, if anyone searches my journal to January, you'll find a post where I lamented being unable to vote in both the Republican and the Democratic primaries. However, in the last eight years or so, I've felt great misgivings with the Republican party. There have been a number of reasons giving rise to that discomfort, one of which is the GOP's growing dependence upon the Evangelical Right.
I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state. I respect people of faith, but history is full of examples where overreaching religious influence in governance has led to far less than heavenly situations.
As I said, I respect people's religious faith. But, being a history buff, I am leery of marrying any one religion or singular religious viewpoint to our government. I think we need to steer away from paths that lead to theocracy and that puts me at odds with an activist religious faction within the Republican party that seeks to increase their influence within the party, with an eye towards specific policy objectives and legislative agendas. Yes, we all seek (and have the right) to be heard, but when a major political party becomes dependent upon a single activist faction for its survival, I fear that faction is weilding far greater power than I am comfortable with. For this reason and others, a few of which mentioned in the previously linked article, I'll even quote one section because I thought it stated it relatively well:
"...today it is conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt {...} Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask. Today it is conservatives {...} who say America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth."
Anyway, because of these thoughts and a sense that not only does the nation need a new direction but that the Republican party itself needs to reassess and readjust, prior to the primaries I had given serious, thoughtful consideration to voting Democratic. In fact, by Super Tuesday, I leaned strongly towards doing so. On the other hand, I had lingering affection for McCain. I had voted for him in the 2000 primary, and saw him as a more moderate option to Bush. Plus, I had a mostly positive (though not excessively informed) opinion of him. Still, on Super Tuesday, I had a large degree of indecision. I literally did not make a definitive choice until hours before I voted. But, as time has gone on, I've read, watched the election results, and followed subsequent primaries (as well as researched the candidates in great depth) and the more I've learned, the more confirmed I've become in the choice that I made Super Tuesday when I chose Obama. I can (and at some point will) post the reasons for my decision, in addition to how I became confirmed in my choice. But, for now, what I've written summarizes where I began.
"Both of our political parties, at least the honest portion of them, agree conscientiously in the same object: the public good; but they differ essentially in what they deem the means of promoting that good. One side believes it best done by one composition of the governing powers, the other by a different one. One fears most the ignorance of the people; the other the selfishness of rulers independent of them. Which is right, time and experience will prove..." Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams.
I believe in the two party system. I do not believe in a permanent majority. No one is infallible or incorruptible. I believe that the push and pull between two parties is needed both as ballast to help provide stability and as a tool to provide course correction when adjustments are necessary. In a recent editorial, George Will had a quote from a British politician that I rather liked:
"Someday, [the opposing party] will win an election. Our job is to hold on until they are sane."
Like centrifugal force, party politics inevitably pull towards their activists. On the other hand, the general electorate is like gravity, a weak but inexorable force that pulls towards the center. Generally there is balance because when one party is pulled too far afield, the other moves towards the center, gaining the majority and changing the trajectory of the other party. Politics and political parties are not static entities but dynamic forces that, as a whole, create a system. With that in mind...
I believe that there is a need for people and for parties that push new agendas, new ideas, and new ideals -- things that drive us forward and that eliminate relics from the past that we should move beyond. We do not wish to stagnate. We wish to improve, to create, to work toward a better future.
On the other hand, I also believe in the need for people and for parties who pull back, remembering -- and valuing -- our past, counseling against moving too precipitously and to not throw the baby out with the bath water.
(I thought this article in Dallas Magazine gave a reasonably good definition of old school conservatism. Horrible definition of progressive, but a reasonable definition of traditional conservative:
"Conservatism to me is less a political philosophy than a stance, a recognition of the fallibility of man and of man’s institutions. Conservatives respect the past not for its antiquity but because it represents, as G.K. Chesterton said, the democracy of the dead; it gives the benefit of the doubt to customs and laws tried and tested in the crucible of time. Conservatives are skeptical of abstract theories and utopian schemes, doubtful that government is wiser than its citizens, and always ready to test any political program against actual results."
But...I digress.
Anyway, in addition to believing that it's a good idea to have opposing parties, believing that it's a feature not a bug, I also believe in a middle that gives a fair hearing to both sides. When one is passionately devoted to one set of ideals, one is reluctant to give as complete a hearing of the other side. Thus, it behooves the middle to listen to both and to throw their vote with the side that best serves our needs in the current circumstances.
Ultimately, I consider myself to be moderate. Actually, I categorize myself as "fiercely moderate." And, while I know many consider that a wussy position, I believe the middle serves a purpose. Besides, it suits me. That said, throughout my life, I've voted Republican more often than Democratic. So, that's where I started. And, if anyone searches my journal to January, you'll find a post where I lamented being unable to vote in both the Republican and the Democratic primaries. However, in the last eight years or so, I've felt great misgivings with the Republican party. There have been a number of reasons giving rise to that discomfort, one of which is the GOP's growing dependence upon the Evangelical Right.
I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state. I respect people of faith, but history is full of examples where overreaching religious influence in governance has led to far less than heavenly situations.
“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” (I realize the quote has a slightly different interpretation in its original context, but it still has meaning for me here.
As I said, I respect people's religious faith. But, being a history buff, I am leery of marrying any one religion or singular religious viewpoint to our government. I think we need to steer away from paths that lead to theocracy and that puts me at odds with an activist religious faction within the Republican party that seeks to increase their influence within the party, with an eye towards specific policy objectives and legislative agendas. Yes, we all seek (and have the right) to be heard, but when a major political party becomes dependent upon a single activist faction for its survival, I fear that faction is weilding far greater power than I am comfortable with. For this reason and others, a few of which mentioned in the previously linked article, I'll even quote one section because I thought it stated it relatively well:
"...today it is conservatives who are cemented to political programs when they clearly don’t work. The Bush tax cuts—a solution for which there was no real problem and which he refused to end even when the nation went to war—led to huge deficit spending and a $3 trillion growth in the federal debt {...} Meanwhile, a movement that once fought for limited government has presided over the greatest growth of government in our history. That is not conservatism; it is profligacy using conservatism as a mask. Today it is conservatives {...} who say America’s job is to “defeat evil,” a theological expansion of the nation’s mission that would make George Washington cough out his wooden teeth."
Anyway, because of these thoughts and a sense that not only does the nation need a new direction but that the Republican party itself needs to reassess and readjust, prior to the primaries I had given serious, thoughtful consideration to voting Democratic. In fact, by Super Tuesday, I leaned strongly towards doing so. On the other hand, I had lingering affection for McCain. I had voted for him in the 2000 primary, and saw him as a more moderate option to Bush. Plus, I had a mostly positive (though not excessively informed) opinion of him. Still, on Super Tuesday, I had a large degree of indecision. I literally did not make a definitive choice until hours before I voted. But, as time has gone on, I've read, watched the election results, and followed subsequent primaries (as well as researched the candidates in great depth) and the more I've learned, the more confirmed I've become in the choice that I made Super Tuesday when I chose Obama. I can (and at some point will) post the reasons for my decision, in addition to how I became confirmed in my choice. But, for now, what I've written summarizes where I began.
