[Cross-Post from Fi-uh] Political Musings
For many years now I have been frustrated by the Republicans. I find that my views of the world are more consistent with the general Conservative viewpoint about the proper way for the US governments to work. The problem is that since Gingrich, the only coherent groups within the Republican party have been the Evangelicals and the Neocons. The issues that are important to the Evangelicals are very important to me and we disagree fundamentally. For a while, the Neocon perspective was attractive, but it's turned out to be more or less wrong. Perhaps I should have seen that sooner given that its real world success relies so heavily on many of the factors that make Liberalism such a failed philosophy.
But I voted for Obama so enthusiastically. As far as I can tell, his philosophies are dyed in the wool liberal. He believes the fundamental role of government is to effect social and economic justice through its ability to tax and write and enforce law.
The reason for my enthusiasm was that I view him as an effective leader, one who can inspire and effectively set a positive vision of the future around which hundreds of million very different people can rally. As a nation, in many ways we have lost our sense of what we are all about, why it's cool to be us. We're struggling through two wars. The world esteems us less. Our economic might is humbled by our regulatory bumbling. And people are suffering. We have no meaningful goals or sense of what we should look like in the future. Obama gives me some hope and some pride. As Jim Cramer observed the other day, with Obama going to the White House, it's almost cool to work in government again.
It helps that Obama shares many of my views, or so I believe, on things like how to talk softly and carry a big stick, on civil rights, on government transparency. These are many of the things that I see as most important in a president. After all, signing statements notwithstanding, the president doesn't legislate. But I digress...
Obama's strong leadership though is also a cause for concern. Sure he's like Reagan. But whereas Reagan wanted less government, Obama wants more. Reagan's success wouldn't have grown government whereas Obama's will. I think Obama is a good guy, but bigger government itself is necessarily an assault on liberty and I know nothing of the characters of those who will follow him. I toss in that caveat because we should be aware of it and appropriately vigilant.
My support of Obama is the support of a leader who can set a legitimate vision and begin moving our country in a positive direction, even one with which I disagree.
I would though have liked to have had the chance to vote for an alternative who better represented my views.
So much of Republicanism has been reduced to lampooning a) radical theology and b) anyone who'd found a way to build some wealth for themselves and their families. There are significant ideas that are part of Conservatism and part of the Republican party that are not ignorant, foolish, intrinsically offensive or otherwise unworthy of exploration and discussion. Would that someone of stature and accomplishment could emerge to rebuild some passion for those ideas and for America.
I'm not an idealogue. I'm not absolutist in my thinking nor do I need intellectual purity in an idea. The world, people in it and politics are diverse and messy. Ideological purity wouldn't get me much.
Why is it such an offensive thought that good governments should be restrained by law and by the biases of politicians? We often agree that civil liberties are crucial to what we hold dear. For some it's being gay, for others it's privacy, for others it's freedom to worship (or from worship). We intuit that the government should keep out of our affairs and protect us from those who would violate our liberty (including the government itself). Why then am I likely to be branded fascist for suggesting that government should stick to its assigned role and not decide for me the best way to utilize what is mine? I hold that our leaders should have a bias for staying the hell out of our business except where there exists some imperative to do otherwise. I want to see someone who constantly strives to shrink the role of government, adding to it only reluctantly and as temporarily as possible to solve our greatest problems.
Why is it such a horrible idea to suppose that we should have a powerful military, a powerful state department and a powerful apparatus of defense in general? This isn't to suggest we use it as clumsily and foolishly as we have of late. It is to say that our relative power is important and in the interests of our citizens. I want someone who builds us a strong, advanced military which backs up a distinguished, accomplished, effective foreign policy.
Why am I a horrible person for believing that it is ok for there to be haves and have nots in the world? What is so defective about the trust in human nature that the have nots will want to have and will, through their industry and genius, create something not only for themselves but for others in the process? And if that is not so offensive, why would we not want to work as hard as possible to to protect the fruits of those labors so as to keep intact the rewards for risk that incent the whole system forward? I want our government to tax fairly and simply in ways that reward that industry, not punish it.
What is so inadequate about celebrating our differences and fiercely protecting the liberties of every one without compelling everyone to work toward erasing the signs of those differences? I want a leader free of prejudice either for or against anyone in particular.
Why is it wrong to speak of pride in being American? Despite how spectacularly we've fumbled the ball in our national recent past, we're still the team to beat. Much of the rest of the world still wants to wind up here. And when they get here, they create the next great generation time and again. Greatness should be our goal. We should have the strongest, most resilient economy, military, wealth and culture. This isn't something to be shunned as gauche or indicative of an insensitivity to all that remains to be accomplished. I want to see us living the inscription on the Statue of Liberty with leaders whose pride in the United States knows no bounds.
I think we're better off if our leaders work to inspire us to greatness. I think we benefit when they lead by example, not compulsion. Ours is a better nation when they strive to keep government off our backs as they carry out their duty to protect us from assaults on our land, person or liberty while protecting the weakest among us.
I would love to have seen a Republican get up and talk to me about these things and to have inspired me as much as Obama has.
Maybe someday.
But I voted for Obama so enthusiastically. As far as I can tell, his philosophies are dyed in the wool liberal. He believes the fundamental role of government is to effect social and economic justice through its ability to tax and write and enforce law.
The reason for my enthusiasm was that I view him as an effective leader, one who can inspire and effectively set a positive vision of the future around which hundreds of million very different people can rally. As a nation, in many ways we have lost our sense of what we are all about, why it's cool to be us. We're struggling through two wars. The world esteems us less. Our economic might is humbled by our regulatory bumbling. And people are suffering. We have no meaningful goals or sense of what we should look like in the future. Obama gives me some hope and some pride. As Jim Cramer observed the other day, with Obama going to the White House, it's almost cool to work in government again.
It helps that Obama shares many of my views, or so I believe, on things like how to talk softly and carry a big stick, on civil rights, on government transparency. These are many of the things that I see as most important in a president. After all, signing statements notwithstanding, the president doesn't legislate. But I digress...
Obama's strong leadership though is also a cause for concern. Sure he's like Reagan. But whereas Reagan wanted less government, Obama wants more. Reagan's success wouldn't have grown government whereas Obama's will. I think Obama is a good guy, but bigger government itself is necessarily an assault on liberty and I know nothing of the characters of those who will follow him. I toss in that caveat because we should be aware of it and appropriately vigilant.
My support of Obama is the support of a leader who can set a legitimate vision and begin moving our country in a positive direction, even one with which I disagree.
I would though have liked to have had the chance to vote for an alternative who better represented my views.
So much of Republicanism has been reduced to lampooning a) radical theology and b) anyone who'd found a way to build some wealth for themselves and their families. There are significant ideas that are part of Conservatism and part of the Republican party that are not ignorant, foolish, intrinsically offensive or otherwise unworthy of exploration and discussion. Would that someone of stature and accomplishment could emerge to rebuild some passion for those ideas and for America.
I'm not an idealogue. I'm not absolutist in my thinking nor do I need intellectual purity in an idea. The world, people in it and politics are diverse and messy. Ideological purity wouldn't get me much.
Why is it such an offensive thought that good governments should be restrained by law and by the biases of politicians? We often agree that civil liberties are crucial to what we hold dear. For some it's being gay, for others it's privacy, for others it's freedom to worship (or from worship). We intuit that the government should keep out of our affairs and protect us from those who would violate our liberty (including the government itself). Why then am I likely to be branded fascist for suggesting that government should stick to its assigned role and not decide for me the best way to utilize what is mine? I hold that our leaders should have a bias for staying the hell out of our business except where there exists some imperative to do otherwise. I want to see someone who constantly strives to shrink the role of government, adding to it only reluctantly and as temporarily as possible to solve our greatest problems.
Why is it such a horrible idea to suppose that we should have a powerful military, a powerful state department and a powerful apparatus of defense in general? This isn't to suggest we use it as clumsily and foolishly as we have of late. It is to say that our relative power is important and in the interests of our citizens. I want someone who builds us a strong, advanced military which backs up a distinguished, accomplished, effective foreign policy.
Why am I a horrible person for believing that it is ok for there to be haves and have nots in the world? What is so defective about the trust in human nature that the have nots will want to have and will, through their industry and genius, create something not only for themselves but for others in the process? And if that is not so offensive, why would we not want to work as hard as possible to to protect the fruits of those labors so as to keep intact the rewards for risk that incent the whole system forward? I want our government to tax fairly and simply in ways that reward that industry, not punish it.
What is so inadequate about celebrating our differences and fiercely protecting the liberties of every one without compelling everyone to work toward erasing the signs of those differences? I want a leader free of prejudice either for or against anyone in particular.
Why is it wrong to speak of pride in being American? Despite how spectacularly we've fumbled the ball in our national recent past, we're still the team to beat. Much of the rest of the world still wants to wind up here. And when they get here, they create the next great generation time and again. Greatness should be our goal. We should have the strongest, most resilient economy, military, wealth and culture. This isn't something to be shunned as gauche or indicative of an insensitivity to all that remains to be accomplished. I want to see us living the inscription on the Statue of Liberty with leaders whose pride in the United States knows no bounds.
I think we're better off if our leaders work to inspire us to greatness. I think we benefit when they lead by example, not compulsion. Ours is a better nation when they strive to keep government off our backs as they carry out their duty to protect us from assaults on our land, person or liberty while protecting the weakest among us.
I would love to have seen a Republican get up and talk to me about these things and to have inspired me as much as Obama has.
Maybe someday.