Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Thursday, January 7, 2010
From Dodd to Dick
There's plenty of talk that CT Attorney General Richard Blumenthal will be the Democratic candidate for Dodd's seat. This is the same Blumenthal who...Dodd might be a corrupt slimeball, but that doesn't mean the power-hungry AG is a good pick for Senate. Exchanging crap for crap at the state and federal level...
Monday, January 4, 2010
Thoughts regarding imperfect candidates
The only person I completely agree with, 100% of the time, is myself. Heck, even my own opinions can change from time to time. I'm resigned to the fact that I'll never find a politician with whom I agree more than 80%. So I'm conflicted whenever I support any politician or candidate.
I'm often faced with this dilemma when evaluating Republican candidates who hold certain socially-conservative views that don't necessarily align with my own. In such a case, it is necessary to gauge the likelihood of that candidate infringing upon personal liberties by imposing their personal views if elected to office. This is hardly a foregone conclusion, as there are many liberty-minded folks who have some socially-conservative views.
Being fiscally-conservative and socially-conservative often (but certainly neither always nor necessarily) go hand-in-hand. Social conservatives sometimes seek to use state power to impose their beliefs (abortion), but social liberals use it regularly (insert endless list of liberal social programs here). I have some opinions regarding morality that others might consider "socially-conservative," but I don't seek to infringe the individual liberty of others by pushing my beliefs on them. If I were to publicly state that it is preferable for children to be raised in a home with both parents, would it be reasonable to assume that I would seek to criminalize or somehow penalize single parents if I held public office?
There is a difference between advocating a position and enforcing it. Statements of support are a far cry from (ab)using executive power to advance personal views. Social engineering is not a proper function of government, and I do not support candidates who seek to engage in it. If individual liberty is your primary political principle, then pushing economic reforms supporting property rights, low taxes, and limited regulation is entirely consistent with not imposing your personal religious beliefs on others.
One general purpose of my political activity is to prevent the imposition of others' personal views upon my freedoms by advocating for limited government and individual liberty. I suppose even that could be construed as imposing *my* views upon others, but I see it more as a form of self-defense. So the political calculus here leads me to support liberty-minded conservatives for the most part (as Libertarian Party candidates are hardly ever true contenders for election, and often have very flawed national security platforms). The risk of conservatives attempting to impose their social beliefs is more than balanced by the real, long-term damage being done to my economic freedoms by the current liberal cadre in power. The Democrats can be counted on as reliable opponents of overreaching by social conservatives. Unfortunately, the Republicans are not reliable opponents of [redistribution of wealth | Keynesian economics | big government statism | etc.], so for me, it's important to support those Republicans who assert such opposition.
I'm often faced with this dilemma when evaluating Republican candidates who hold certain socially-conservative views that don't necessarily align with my own. In such a case, it is necessary to gauge the likelihood of that candidate infringing upon personal liberties by imposing their personal views if elected to office. This is hardly a foregone conclusion, as there are many liberty-minded folks who have some socially-conservative views.
Being fiscally-conservative and socially-conservative often (but certainly neither always nor necessarily) go hand-in-hand. Social conservatives sometimes seek to use state power to impose their beliefs (abortion), but social liberals use it regularly (insert endless list of liberal social programs here). I have some opinions regarding morality that others might consider "socially-conservative," but I don't seek to infringe the individual liberty of others by pushing my beliefs on them. If I were to publicly state that it is preferable for children to be raised in a home with both parents, would it be reasonable to assume that I would seek to criminalize or somehow penalize single parents if I held public office?
There is a difference between advocating a position and enforcing it. Statements of support are a far cry from (ab)using executive power to advance personal views. Social engineering is not a proper function of government, and I do not support candidates who seek to engage in it. If individual liberty is your primary political principle, then pushing economic reforms supporting property rights, low taxes, and limited regulation is entirely consistent with not imposing your personal religious beliefs on others.
One general purpose of my political activity is to prevent the imposition of others' personal views upon my freedoms by advocating for limited government and individual liberty. I suppose even that could be construed as imposing *my* views upon others, but I see it more as a form of self-defense. So the political calculus here leads me to support liberty-minded conservatives for the most part (as Libertarian Party candidates are hardly ever true contenders for election, and often have very flawed national security platforms). The risk of conservatives attempting to impose their social beliefs is more than balanced by the real, long-term damage being done to my economic freedoms by the current liberal cadre in power. The Democrats can be counted on as reliable opponents of overreaching by social conservatives. Unfortunately, the Republicans are not reliable opponents of [redistribution of wealth | Keynesian economics | big government statism | etc.], so for me, it's important to support those Republicans who assert such opposition.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
2010 and Beyond
I'm still pessimistic about the prospects for what can actually be accomplished in the next few elections vis-à-vis rolling back the unconstitutional expansion of the federal government's power.
In order to elect leaders with the understanding and willingness to affect this kind of reform, you must first convince the electorate of the worthiness of your cause. While many people are starting to wake up, far too many Americans remain transfixed by the promise of hopenchange, thanks in part to the collectivist mush crammed into their skulls by public schools and the media. No amount of reasoned discourse is likely to relieve them of this condition, as rational arguments tend to be ineffective when employed against irrational minds.
We're talking about generational change here, and the current set of clowns in Washington is simply the latest spiral in a transformational process we've been "progressing" through for many decades. No generation alive today is immune. Try having a discussion with a retiree about the unconstitutional and fundamentally unsustainable nature of Social Security and Medicare. Though they might agree with you in principle, they'll tell you that the government is "obligated" to provide them with these "entitlements," and that they'll be damned if they let anyone tell them otherwise. I need not relate to you the state of political thought on our college campuses. Today's Marxist sociology majors are tomorrow's social justice agitators, frothing at their mouths for the chance to redistribute the earnings of the few remaining productive members of society. This utter dependency on the federal government by individual citizens for the satisfaction of their myriad "needs" has been nurtured by folks who are ideologically-driven to alter the nature of the relationship between the People and their government, and it has all but extinguished the uniquely American spirit of rugged individualism.
I fear that things will have to get worse -- much, much worse -- before they can get better. I'm becoming ever more convinced that the only scenario which can turn this mess around is an economic disaster truly on the scale of (or even exceeding) the Great Depression. The follies of Keynesian mixed-market European-style (read: well-intentioned soft socialism) central planning will be exposed to the voters and taxpayers of the United States, despite the fact that capitalism will most assuredly be blamed by the media and intelligentsia all the way down. A jarring, forced return back to basics (think fruit cellars and victory gardens) might prove to be what it takes to convince the public of the error of their ways, compelling them to vote-in leaders who will resurrect the ideals of limited government and free-market economics. (Though Detroit is, admittedly, a counter-indicator for this theory, as 50 years of a Democrat monopoly on local politics has helped shape Motown into the shining beacon of Progressivism that it is today, and the voting patterns of its citizenry are unlikely to change any time soon.)
Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your perspective and/or investment portfolio), we're hurtling towards such a watershed event with reckless abandon, and the policies of those currently in power may just make this endgame unavoidable. I hope that, in the end, America can learn from her mistakes.
In order to elect leaders with the understanding and willingness to affect this kind of reform, you must first convince the electorate of the worthiness of your cause. While many people are starting to wake up, far too many Americans remain transfixed by the promise of hopenchange, thanks in part to the collectivist mush crammed into their skulls by public schools and the media. No amount of reasoned discourse is likely to relieve them of this condition, as rational arguments tend to be ineffective when employed against irrational minds.
We're talking about generational change here, and the current set of clowns in Washington is simply the latest spiral in a transformational process we've been "progressing" through for many decades. No generation alive today is immune. Try having a discussion with a retiree about the unconstitutional and fundamentally unsustainable nature of Social Security and Medicare. Though they might agree with you in principle, they'll tell you that the government is "obligated" to provide them with these "entitlements," and that they'll be damned if they let anyone tell them otherwise. I need not relate to you the state of political thought on our college campuses. Today's Marxist sociology majors are tomorrow's social justice agitators, frothing at their mouths for the chance to redistribute the earnings of the few remaining productive members of society. This utter dependency on the federal government by individual citizens for the satisfaction of their myriad "needs" has been nurtured by folks who are ideologically-driven to alter the nature of the relationship between the People and their government, and it has all but extinguished the uniquely American spirit of rugged individualism.
I fear that things will have to get worse -- much, much worse -- before they can get better. I'm becoming ever more convinced that the only scenario which can turn this mess around is an economic disaster truly on the scale of (or even exceeding) the Great Depression. The follies of Keynesian mixed-market European-style (read: well-intentioned soft socialism) central planning will be exposed to the voters and taxpayers of the United States, despite the fact that capitalism will most assuredly be blamed by the media and intelligentsia all the way down. A jarring, forced return back to basics (think fruit cellars and victory gardens) might prove to be what it takes to convince the public of the error of their ways, compelling them to vote-in leaders who will resurrect the ideals of limited government and free-market economics. (Though Detroit is, admittedly, a counter-indicator for this theory, as 50 years of a Democrat monopoly on local politics has helped shape Motown into the shining beacon of Progressivism that it is today, and the voting patterns of its citizenry are unlikely to change any time soon.)
Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your perspective and/or investment portfolio), we're hurtling towards such a watershed event with reckless abandon, and the policies of those currently in power may just make this endgame unavoidable. I hope that, in the end, America can learn from her mistakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)