Consider a toy: perhaps a box of some sort, painted blue on the outside and red on the inside. With a few simple movements, you can turn the box inside-out, such that the red is on the outside and the blue is on the inside. The box brings no other use or amusement save this feature; it serves no distinct purpose, and it cannot be truly altered in any real sense. What level of advancement do you suppose a child would reach before casting the toy aside in either abject boredom or frustration at the toy’s inflexible and predictable nature? Do you suppose an adult would find this same toy useful or entertaining? Despite the obvious rhetorical nature of the question, I submit that most rank-and-file members of the Republican and Democratic parties would be fascinated by the object.
Simply put, Democrats are lying thieves and Republicans are thieving liars: two sides of the same political coin that should have been taken out of circulation 100 years ago. When Woodrow Wilson noted that Thomas Jefferson was “not a great American,” it should have been painfully obvious to the most addle –brained sub-normal that something was seriously amiss in American politics. In our own time, consider the thought experiment of a generic tax cut: one side will argue that they cannot support a cut that extends through the wealthiest 1% of the citizenry, while the other will argue that they cannot support a cut that does not include said segment. The bickering and threats continue ad nausea for weeks on end, the salaries and facilities subsidized by people who have to perform a useful function in order to receive remuneration: you and me. At the end, one side finally gives ground (having had enough back-handed concessions passed their way) and the bill is passed as a triumph of bi-partisan efforts- only to be turned into an election year talking point by both sides ( as a mistake or an accomplishment), dependent on its outcome.
No one, however, seems to be willing to ask the most fundamental question: were they willing to trounce on the very people who finance this nonsense based on their (the individual legislator’s) pet hatred or adoration (depending on the party) of the wealthy? If you witnessed this sort of bloviating among children, you would write it off as typically childish behavior; yet when it is seen in adults, it is accepted as “part of the political process.” That people are willing to tolerate this chicanery is an indication of how far we have sunk as a nation; that some are happy to encourage the reign of half-witted charlatans is an indication of how far we will sink.
Ironically, I console myself with innate cynicism: I assume that the major party members slyly wink at each other across the aisle, confident that they have duped the voting public into believing they are “fighting for their Constitutional rights.” I nevertheless live in fear that some of them may truly believe the incomprehensibly inane eructation spewed on a daily basis. I take it as holy writ that the most incapable are drawn to politics so as to appeal to the lowest common denominator with an over-riding precept: aim low- thus if your goal is not achieved, no one will notice anyway.
Lest I be accused of speaking in generalities, consider the following statement as it appears in the official Democratic Party Platform. In the 2008 document, Section IV (Renewing American Democracy) outlines eight key areas of commitment. Yet, in the body of the document all of these commitments are specifically addressed with one notable exception: “Invest in social innovation and ideas that work.” I find it interesting that of all the points in this vacuous document, the most troubling is conveniently missing an explanation. Think about that phrase for a moment: invest in social innovation. If the phrase does not terrify you, I would suggest you quit reading at this point.
We do not require any “social innovation.” Why would we? We foment social change as a result of our growth as a human populace. The government’s job is to adapt to social innovation- not institute it. Any student of history could make a convincing argument that when government gets into the business of shaping society vice the other way around, tyranny is not far behind as injustice waits in the wings; this is the essence of totalitarianism: bending of the social identity of a target population to the will of a single party or individual.
In transition, I will remark that Republicans are no safer from this type of intellectually bereft invective than the Democrats. In fact, I consider the party to be more vexing than the Democrats. While Democrats will gladly tell someone they are about to steal money from an individual to benefit some nebulous concept of “social innovation” (then spend the money on a grant for a performance artist who plays with feces and is considered “important” by the shallow cognoscenti who serve as the arbiters of modern taste), the Republican party represents a diametric opposition: you will be told that your “individual rights” are being protected while your liberties are surreptitiously siphoned off in the exasperated gasp of Christian extremists.
As a reference from the Republican Party’s official 2008 platform, the following statement appears: “Because our children’s future is best preserved within the traditional understanding of marriage, we call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriages as a union of a man and a woman, so that judges cannot make other arrangements.” This is indeed an interesting sentence on many levels. For example, I am at a loss to explain how the phrase “Because our children’s future is best preserved” has any merit whatsoever. It sounds as if the party was trying to sound scientific, despite the notable lack of empirical evidence one way or the other. Gay marriage has not been a contended issue (in the main-stream, at least) for more than twenty-odd years. The raising of children in same-sex homes barely breaks the bounds of the century. What studies or data mining thus supports the veracity of this phrase?
The second portion of the opening salvo is simple to eviscerate: “within the traditional understanding of marriage” implies the same sort of social tinkering for which I lambasted the Democrats- instead of the government trying to change society in an “innovative” way, though, the Republican vision is one where the government attempts to maintain the status quo in an obviously dynamic society. Traditional? Whose tradition? Gustav Mahler once noted that “tradition is an excuse for slackness.” Take a hint.
One must chuckle inside considering that this is the party of “individual rights” when the next words are read:”we call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriages as a union of a man and a woman.” Protects from whom? If we open the floodgates to same-sex marriage, will we heterosexuals “catch gay?” Nevertheless, this idiotic phrase is perhaps the most damning sequence of words in the complete sentence.
When we look at the Constitution of the United States, the amendments seem to fall mostly into two general categories: procedural clarifications and rights-enumeration. Essentially, either errors of technical omission and administrative clarity are corrected or specific rights are guaranteed. There are, however, two notable exceptions to these broad bins: the 16th (Income tax) and the 18th (Prohibition). These items, enacted under Wilson’s administration (as with our current President, also a Nobel Peace Prize winner), represent (for the first time in nearly 124 years, roughly speaking) a constraint on individual rights. This is significant in that no other examples may be found in the amendments that so starkly represent an imposition of ill-defined will on the American public- yet the Republicans propose to do the very same with a “marriage clause.” This is an egregious assault on the core principles of any true champion of liberty.
The ending of the sentence is laughable: “so that judges cannot make other arrangements.” In other words, after only the 3rd constraint on individual liberty in the history of our living document, the power of the Judiciary would be unalterably suborned to the Legislature in the name of Judeo-Christian sensibilities. This is an obvious enforcement of narrow religious tradition on a non-sectarian document. To argue that the separation of church and state does not preclude constraints on the individual will so as to avoid offending the spiritual preferences of the majority is beneath contempt.
The careful observer will note that I have spent more energy refuting a single Republican sentence than I have with a similar Democratic conjecture. My rationale is simple: the hypocrisy of the Republican Party is an offense against liberty of the highest order. I make no attempt to hide the fact that I find it annoying when Democrats appear to take the approach of “all is permitted…so long as we, the obvious intelligentsia, consider it socially valid,” I nonetheless expect it: when half-educated buffoons assume that their viewpoint is the only intellectually valid stance on a given issue, it is safe to assume that their condescension will become apparent when challenged by others. I am infuriated, though, by the Republican Party’s outward defense of individual liberty when it is combined with the socially-constraining rhetoric and the unmitigated corporate cronyism of the last 50 or so years. Both sides may be said to be infected with rectangular brain syndrome; that their respective recent activism bears witness to this goes without saying.
The net effect is this: both parties seek, by means of legislative imposition, to upend the very foundations our forefathers sought in a war of staggeringly bad odds. I am shamed by the thought that an afterlife might exist; the image of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and even John Locke looking down on us and wondering what went so terribly wrong bothers me to no end. I do not claim to know the answer, but I believe I have the solution. Thomas Jefferson, in one of his more radical moods, wrote that any extant government should be wiped clean every ten or so years. We have witnessed an activist vice benevolent caretaker form of undeniable autocracy for well over 100 years…and the smell of rot is beginning to fill the air.
Granted, it is easy for me to sit at my desk (armed with the strains of Bach in the air and a fine Scotch in the glass) and find fault with the current system. But we have known the solution all along: a housecleaning is in order, and a damn fast one at that. Americans tend towards a “throw the bums out” mentality when a piece of controversial legislation is passed. Unfortunately, we also tend to have short memories (hence the absence of contested legislation in the months leading up to elections). In my optimism, I believe that if the mistakes of the past are kept fresh in the contemporary mind, the future decisions made by the political class will unfailingly be for the cause of liberty. Nevertheless, if “change” is to be fomented, we as a political entity must be willing to cast aside the plastic chains of traditional party affiliations, exchanging the familiar for the controversial, chastened by our past experiences yet brimming with optimism about a radical step-change in political identity.
As a nation, we must be willing to acknowledge that the current system is in a hopeless state of disrepair; duct tape can no longer be applied to ideologies bereft of actionable intents in line with the founding principles of this nation. This is obviously easier said than done. To be frank, many people with whom I’ve spoken vote out of a negative perception: essentially, they chose the candidate they think least likely to trample on them. This is a crucial point; when we begin to vote from a sense of desperation or “damage control” vice voting our conscience, the downfall of our political experiment cannot be far behind.
I have never hidden the fact that I am a Libertarian. I have voted Libertarian in every election since I came of age- and I do not regret a single ballot. None of my candidates has ever “won.” Nevertheless, I have walked out of the voting booth safe in the assurance that my conscience is clear. I have voted for the candidate whom I believe to be the greatest advocate of liberty; this is not a pat phrase, but a singular conviction. I doubt that many straight-ticket party voters can claim the same. They are, in most cases, demonstrating a Pavlovian reflex derived from upbringing, a particular college professor, or influential friends- they are in no sense voting as a means of rational consideration and due reflection.
In championing the careful, considered vote, I think I should make it clear that I have never ruled out, explicitly, any major party candidate due only to his or her affiliation; rather, their noxious regurgitation of empty party rhetoric has typically eliminated them for me. As such, I do not necessarily champion the Libertarian candidate simply due to the “L” after his or her name. I hope that those who choose (and, I might add, not choosing is also a powerful statement…so long as it is not done solely out of apathy or expediency) to pull the proverbial lever do so in good faith, safe in the assurance that the candidate of their choosing truly represents what will be best for the United States. Anything less than this demonstrable conviction is a wasted vote: not in the sense of selecting a “definite lose” candidate, but rather as a reflexive vice assertive act. Certainly, we as a nation are better than that.
The strength of the United States lies in its ability to reinvent itself as time and culture dictate, while staying true to the core principles upon which it was founded. In the current state of affairs, very little differs between the two major political parties- one is on the outside what the other is on the inside. If such is the case, can we reasonably expect fundamental change? At the end of the day, our historically singular nation owes its grace and favor to the will of the people. When the liberty of the constituency is degraded, the Spirit of ’76 is betrayed. We have not come this far to see the ideals of the American Revolution tossed onto the pyre of adherence to the failed practices of our major parties. “Change” is indeed required, but not the cheap vernacular usage of the term. A fundamental shift away from the empty promises and miserably inefficient actions of the current political class is decidedly in order. The political will for this type of paradigm shift does not find its base in the Washington regulars, but in the hearts and minds of the constituency: those who understand the principles on which this nation was founded and long to see them returned to the conscience of all our fellow citizens. Nothing less is acceptable.
The Unrepentant Elitist 