political tuppence

[zostrianos]

Over the few weeks I've been back in America, I've been trying to take stock of the political situation here. When I left for Thailand things were feeling pretty stuck, like there was no real organized resistance to the military-industrial powers-that-be. I think when Obama came into office there was some hope that things would change in a

Comments

[devilscrowbar]

This is a strong argument, and one that bears careful consideration. I have always (so far) voted Democrat, and I think the party suffers terribly by its "lesser evil" stance.

That "we're not as bad" position is passive, apathetic, and stagnating. You may know of the massive rallies last year here in Wisconsin. While I feel that I was part of a very self-organized, relatively mixed (for Wisconsin, and setting aside the marked absence of people of color) group of protesters, the Democratic Party, various progressive non-profits, and several large union organizations were quick to take credit for the events of the winter. There was a great deal of apathy masquerading as active support.

Our "Hope and Change" president has not only permitted, but contributed to the dissolution of civil rights and various legal freedoms. Likewise, he asks nothing of us - despite the continuing economic hardship and warfare, we are not called upon to make sacrifices of time, resources, or talent.

Often I feel that an ambitious, centrist Republican with definite principles and policies could accomplish more than a party-line, reactive Democrat.

On the other hand, Ron Paul feels that gay marriage is "hostile to liberty," and that abortion is tatamount to murder. These two standpoints are popular among his colleagues.
I absolutely recognize the alternatives you balance above - of course there are global evils being condoned or devised by the same party that so champions liberty and egalitarianism.
The relative safety - political and physical - and comfort (I realize there are heinous exceptions) of American citizens are hardly worth the increasing burden and pain on the part of, more or less, the rest of the globe.

I don't understand why we should be forced to choose between sound fiscal, military, and beaurocratic strategy and inclusivity and protection for our citizens.
Both parties suggest, really, that it's one or the other: protect women or protect jobs; maintain economic power or maintain diversity. To some extent, of course, we must prioritize our needs and let some resources, protections, and institutions falter or be eradicated.

But I believe that many of the social issues so hotly divisive at the moment are absolute red herrings. Generally speaking, I think that immigration, gay rights, and womens' health issues are secondary to the maintenance of national stability and productivity.

Personally, I believe that civil rights and social equality are more or less good, as promoting personal welfare, and can be leveraged to improve national well-being. Gay marriage? I can tell you this: if I were allowed to marry my partner legally, the government would save *thousands of dollars a year* in taxes. Legal matters of health and estate would be greatly simplified. Likewise, legal abortion prevents the healthcare costs and licensing concerns associated with black-market abortions, can save the state vast sums associated with unwanted children, and avoids the social and economic evils that may attend their families' lives. I would also sumbit, although sadly, that a guarantee of universal, inexpensive abortion could support the anti-poor and anti-minority positions of the far right as well - the well-educated and affluent tend to have fewer children and can afford abortions at almost any price, besides.

Gay marriage can support the fiscal conservatism of the right and the egalitarianism of the left; unrestricted abortions the profound individualism of the left and the cultural exclusivity of the right. Where, then, is the contention? Why these hot-button social issues and bizarre affrays over, for example, Mitt Romney knowing French? I often feel that both parties are having us all on, and bending their adherents this way in that as though to distract the populace from any constructive work towards the general good whatsoever.

Years ago, you suggested in regards to candy commercials that we may have "reached a state of pure irony, in which no actual values are possessed by anyone." I think this may reflect the current state of American politics, as well.

I'd like to see something different.