How I Arrived Here (and Other Details)

[shipperx]

I 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:

"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.

Comments

[rowanswhimsy.livejournal.com]

Well, Thonmas Jefferson was one of our country's great political partisans so I guess he's quite appropriate to quote when discussing this year's election. He and John Adams sure knew how to campaign dirty!

I am a very strong believer in separation of church and state. I suspect I'm even more uncomfortable than you are with this election on those grounds because not only do I fear the influence of certain evangelical elements on the Republican Party but I also fear the influence of Christianity on the Democratic Party. I'm not one for faith-based initiatives or women consulting their pastors about health decisions or candidates being sent to us by God to lead us. It all makes me feel rather squirmy as I view religion as a private matter. If history shows us anything, it's that politics and religion can be a dangerous mix.

For all the glass ceilings and barriers that have kept the presidency a white man's club, perhaps the greatest barrier to the office is religion. Would an atheist even stand a chance to be elected let alone a non-Christian? Heck, even Catholics are too exotic for our country. In this respect, we seem to have grown more conservative as a country over the last century.

[jerrymcl89.livejournal.com]

Throughout American history, many Presidents have paid lip service to the value of religion without being all that religious, including George Washington, Andrew Jackson, and, really, even Ronald Reagan. I'm in favor of that. I think it's a relatively good thing for Presidents to have faith, but I want this country run by people who think this life is the only one we get.

I don't really think Obama's as religious as he says he is, and I think both Biden and McCain are in the "lip service" tradition. I don't really know what to make of Palin in that regard.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I agree that I think that Obama, Biden, and McCain are what we used to call "Sunday Morning Christians" meaning they do the basic stuff, but they are largely secular.

Palin, however, actively participates in a particular denomination of "Assembly of God" that I'm familiar with because my Grandmother attended "Assembly of God." That experience, as well as reading own words, viewing YouTube clips of her, etc, leads me to believe that Palin's religion is about as serious as she purports it to be(though whether it trumps personal ambition, only she could say for sure).

[rowanswhimsy.livejournal.com]

I'm looking to elect people with values and couldn't really care less what lip service they pay to religion. The problem with McCain is that he's undoubtedly changed things about himself in order to try to woo and win that vote. Once candidates start to compromise themselves in that way, I think it's trouble.

The jury's out on Obama. If he really does allow faith-based programs to continue or worse, expand them, I'm going to have a big problem with that.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

The problem I have with McCain is that he's clearly, openly, and intentionally pandering to them. And doin so in a really cynical way.

When I watched the "Saddleback Faith Forum" thing, it really turned me off McCain in a big way. First he offered up simplistic answers in a way intended to pander to the far right. Those weren't thoughtful answers concerning spirituality and world view, they were shallow, overly-simplified talking points. Second, what struck me even more harshly was that in a freaking faith forum he somehow managed to bring each and every question back to war. Hey, it's disturbing enough that he managed to bring each and every question back to war, but also linked war with religion ( for his audience because I do tend to think he is in practice not particularly religious... perhaps not much at all. On the other hand his being raised with a military first mindset was quite obvious.) When you start feeding audiences these things, you're feeding a hungry beast that should not be fed.

[rowanswhimsy.livejournal.com]

Whereas Obama only does it in a semi-cynical way by appearing on a faith forum (ugh), talking about women consulting pastors about medical decisions, and supporting expansion of faith-based initiatives.

I expect the Republican candidate to pander to the evangelical right. It makes me sad that McCain who at some point actually was a maverick had to succumb but it's almost more disturbing to me when the Democratic candidate compromises.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Well, there has to be room for pragmatism in anything. Mainstream as well as Fundamentalist and Evangelical Christians form a very large, very motivated demographic (that largely wants to paint Obama figuratively and occasionally literally as the anti-Christ). I think appearing at the forum and giving reasonable, thoughtful answers was an effort to neutralize the demonization of him. We can and should all have ideals, but we also need to keep the realities in mind as well. Ignoring a group doesn't make them go away. He didn't give the answers that the Evangelical right wanted (they didn't want "You cannot defeat evil and sometimes evil is done in the belief that someone is doing good"(paraphrase for lack of a photographic memory), they wanted McCain's simplistic, unrealistic "We defeat evil!"). Anyway, efforts to be inclusive, to include their views in the conversation rather than go whole hog all in or completely ignoring them, is part of what I think is most effective about his leadership style. There's something to be said for diplomatically listening to others and trying to digest their views, if only to make people feel included in the conversation.

And, I do believe that had Hillary still been in the race, she would have also attended, for she is also a pragmatist and a skilled politician.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Dude, the stuff Jefferson and Adams wrote about each other would result in major lawsuits these days! The dirt they dished was extreme.

And, I doubt that an atheist could be elected at this point in our history. I personally would have no problem with it, but one of the factors of democracy is that it's heavily influenced by the people who partipate in it. And, given our history, it isn't a surprise that Protestantism has had a great deal of influence over our culture. For that to change, our culture would need to change and who knows if and/or win that will happen. And who knows whether that would result in a net positive. It might... it might not. Religion serves an important service for many people.

That said, I have serious issues when religion is allowed to direct public policy. I feel that it is dangerous (and history bears that out. Theocracies rarely lead to a stable, productive, or tolerant governments). And having religion trump science leads to less than great places as well. That's why I believe that religion needs to remain in its own realm. Religion serves some people, the people who wish to follow and to believe. However, I believe it is best that government remain esconced in the secular and the legal legislative realms.

[rowanswhimsy.livejournal.com]

Reading about the early elections in our country can give one a perspective on what's happening now, that's for sure. Being called a socialist pales in comparison. ;-)

I think portions of the electorate are imposing a religious test on candidates which is forcing all of them into adopting positions (at least during the campaign) in order to pass the test. Then it's impossible to know who will allow their religion to interfere with governance.

Worse still if we get someone like Bush who apparently actually believed that he was appointed by god.

European countries have managed to escape the influence of Catholicism. Why is Protestantism so much more tenacious? Or maybe we just haven't had enough time pass yet.

[paratti.livejournal.com]

De jure we've an established protestant church in the form of the Church of England. De facto we're basically completely secular, almost no one goes to church and politicians like Blair (and to a much lesser extent Brown) get mistrusted for being actual godbotherers rather than safely hatch, match and dipatch attenders at most functional atheists/agnostics at best.

Maybe our religious settlement, combined with the loud and unwilling to play well with others going off to America, effectively defanged religion here.

[rowanswhimsy.livejournal.com]

Yes, sorry, I was taking a mental shortcut. I feel that Protestantism (especially in England) doesn't have that same type of strangehold on politics as the US variant. Catholicism was the greater political threat.

Is it just time that's secularized Protestant European countries or did you all just send us all the crazy Protestants in the 18th century?

[paratti.livejournal.com]

Germany is different to the Scandies, as it is mixed Catholic-Protestant, but there is still major north south cultural differences many of which have roots in the different religious settlements out of the reformation/counter-reformation. There's even major differences between the home nations here - all coming out of our different history. But in England much of it does come out of the post Civil War settlement where the radical protestants won the war and lost the peace. Many of those did end up over your side of the pond and while nonconformist protests won the Toleration Acts by the 1690's and nonconformity remained it did remain a definate minority and many of those that remained did get reabsorbed back into the mostly harmless CofE and the very English suspicion of enthusiasm in religion. It certainly seems to have been the case for the Quaker side of the family I found about in the last month, some of whose relations did emigrate after William Penn to his state. Our lot stayed home and within a couple of generations were absorbed back and running pubs.

[rowanswhimsy.livejournal.com]

I'm still hoping you'll agree to take some of them back.

[paratti.livejournal.com]

Let me think - No.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Aw, come on! We could share!

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Well, I do think we need to point out that the European struggle between Catholicism and Protestantism led to a few wars, many beheadings, and some people being drawn and quartered... Hey, I've been watching The Tudors a lot lately. ;) {Though it more seriousness, the struggle between religious factions shed a great deal of blood...albeit in most of Europe that was a thing of the distant past. But then again, some of the peace was won by sending folks to the "New" world. Amusing tidbit being that as I read an article not long ago about "mainstream" US religion versus "evangelical" religion, most of the ones listed as the "mainstream" religions were the likes of Methodist, Episopal, Presbyterian, etc which are considered downright "liberal" by the evangelicals. I'm afraid the more dismaying evangelicals are home grown. (Which is why we really need to focus on providing decent educations. An uneducated mind is more easily cornered into irrational fear.)

[rowanswhimsy.livejournal.com]

Yes, 'escaping the influence of Catholicism' was a short-hand reference to those (and other) wars and various other political events.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

But think of how much less interesting movies on Henry VIII and on Elizabeth I would be without the religious intrigue.

[empresspatti.livejournal.com]

Since I have to get off the couch and out of my pj's, I can't write all the ways I enjoyed your post. Very interesting and well done will have to suffice.

Participation and compromise are the foundations of a vigorous democracy. I love that you have done your research and are confident of your choice. That is what I hope every person going to the polls does - regardless of who they vote for.

You GO girl!

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

Participation and compromise are the foundations of a vigorous democracy

And diplomacy. Truly, if there's one thing that American politics has run far too far away from it is diplomacy, both within our own government and with other governments.

[thedeadlyhook.livejournal.com]

ETA: Argh, edited for a bad tag. Sorry!

Conservatism to me is less a political philosophy than a stance, a recognition of the fallibility of man and of man’s institutions.

Or, even shorter, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." Conservatism is a perfectly rational policy. But then again, so is progressivism, which basically amounts to "if it's broke, DO fix it." But then you start to have the arguments about what is or isn't broken, and then that's where religion gets brought into it. Then things stay broken, because nobody wins those kinds of arguments. Sigh. And that's as good as reason as I can think of to separate church and state, without even getting into the way religious + legislative power seems to bring on the crazy, in any culture or belief system.

I'd agree that in theory, or two-party system is a good one, but I have some issues the way it's currently practiced, mostly to do with the way its evolved into an all-or-nothing us-vs.-them contest that both sides have learned to game like a poker match. There are too many weird mechanisms keeping the voter from exercising direct popular control over political excess - why, for example, should the Electoral College even exist in this day and age, other than to create artificial leverage in certain areas? Why should some states be more important than others? And I resent the way no new parties can arise without "splitting the vote." I can't help but feel that our political system would be far more centrist, and accurate as a reflection of the majority of American feeling, if we actually had a popular vote with multiple candidates. But I doubt that's ever going to happen in my lifetime.

Have you read this article in the New Yorker about Andrew Jackson's biography, and how it started that whole tradition of politicians claiming humble origins? It's kind of sobering to realize how little politics have changed.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

I tend to think that the "why are some states more important than others" thing is an unfortunate byproduct of the system. But, I don't know that it's particularly avoidable as if there wasn't an electoral college, they'd still have disproportionate attention paid to the most populus states, which was pretty much why the founding fathers compromised on an Electoral College. Right now we end up with a stupid fixation on "swing states". Though, I believe the main reason for it was to prevent urban areas from dominating rural areas disproportionately. It's a flawed system in its entirety but, I don't think that it will ever be changed as it would require an amendment and no way would they ever get 2/3rds of the states to agree to give it up. So, basically, it's here to stay.

Thanks for the link. Interesting. I'm something of a history geek and I do believe that history has a way of repeating itself. People don't really change and so the same sorts of situations keep popping up... sometimes in odd ways. I remember a year or two ago watching the series on The American Revolution and in part of it I was actually struck that in some strange way, part of The American Revolution actually resembles our situation in Iraq... only in this equation we're the British. (The episode that brought about that strange idea was the one where they explained that the British strategy was to invade The South because there were supposedly a great many Loyalists in the South. The British thought they'd be greeted by Southerners as "liberators" only to find out what they'd done was incite local feuds between "Loyalists" and "Revolutionaries" where they didn't give a damn about the British but were fighting each other over long standing local feuds. The British found themselves mired in a mess of local politics that they didn't particularly understand and couldn't control. Watching it, I couldn't help but think -- that's us in Iraq.