A Weekend Treat.

I had a rather long blog saved for today, but it's been a rather busy one. So unfortunately you will all have to wait till Monday. However, I'd like to share one of my favorite videos to surface in the last few months. Here we have President of Ireland Michael D Higgins on conservative talk show host Michael Graham's program. President Higgins gives his personal opinions regarding the tea party and conservative media outlets. It is certainly worth a a listen, and I hope you all enjoy it.

Have a nice weekend everyone, new posts on Monday.

Chris

We All Built This

I feel that given Mitt Romney's recent remarks regarding the forty seven percent of Americans who seem to be nothing but societal leeches in the eyes of the modern right, the concept of an "entitlement society," and the role of government is of incredible importance. Although Romney's video may have stated in slightly more blunt terms how many conservatives seem to feel about the less prosperous half of the US population, it certainly isn't a new or even a particularly unpopular idea.

Some of these ideas do hold weight. About forty seven percent of Americans do not pay income taxes, and a staggering number of people do receive federal aid in some form or another. However, it seems incredibly ignorant to suggest that these forty seven percent are all in “Obama's pocket.” In fact, the breakdown of this demographic is rather interesting. Of this forty seven percent, over half still pay payroll taxes for programs such as Social Security and Medicare. The rest are divided among the elderly receiving Social Security benefits and households with income less than 20,000 per year, according to a breakdown from the Tax Policy Institute.

So the question is this: which of these forty seven percent are in the pocket of the president? The elderly in the US certainly haven't historically been in the pockets of the democrats, and while low income voters tend to vote more liberally, the poorest state in the US has been Mississippi for quite some time (very much a red state). In fact, most of the nation’s ten poorest states have historically voted conservatively. So the question remains, if these forty seven percent are clearly not write offs for the Republican party, why would Romney make such a statement?

This brings me back to my earlier point. I mentioned that a staggering number of people receive government support in one way or another. In fact, that number is nearly 312 million people, or in other terms, nearly one hundred percent of the US population.

We all drive on roads, eat subsidized food, and enjoy the benefits of the FDA monitoring what we put in ourselves (I rather like not being poisoned by my medicine). We enjoy the protection of the strongest military in the world, and we watch with pride as NASA lands a rover on Mars. Perhaps the key word here is pride. We as a nation did those things, together. We have every right to be proud of our incredible number of collective accomplishments. However, in addition we've put together a medical and monetary support system to ensure our senior citizens no longer have to live in poverty, and we created a support system to ensure that it is almost impossible for children or adults in the US to starve to death.

The Republican National Convention launched with the theme "We Built This" (obviously jabbing at Obama's out of context statement regarding aid in any form) but I think that's a very important message. We built this nation, the roads, the rockets, and the support systems for the less prosperous. While yes, there is a collective role to make sure the things we build are in the best interest of everyone (why we have a welfare to work program, and why that policy deserves the attention and editing it gets) nothing is gained by demonizing the individuals that benefit from what we create together. I drive on roads and eat FDA approved food, some use food stamps to feed their families, and Mitt Romney enjoyed nearly four million dollars in tax breaks.

So yes, maybe welfare, Social Security, discretionary funding, and Medicare need altering: all policy constantly does. And yes, maybe the Bush era tax cuts need revisiting too. However, we built this, we can change it, and every time the word "us" is replaced with the word "them" we lose a little more of our identity as a nation. We built this together. We'll keep fixing it together. I sincerely hope we can keep our identity as an "us" along the way.

The 'Shut up and trust me' Candidate.

I was attempting to save this for a later post, but in light of recent events (specifically a leaked video making the rounds) I feel it is necessary to discuss the current republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney. For those of you who have yet to see the video, I'll happily share this little gem.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/watch-full-secret-video-private-romney-fundraiser

In this video, Romney makes a series of statements probably not meant for the ear of the general public. These ranged from suggesting the election process would be easier for him if he were Latino, to making bold statements claiming forty seven percent of Americans (the ones who do not pay income tax) cannot be made to take "personal responsibility" for their own lives. Now despite the obviously demeaning nature of the statements and the rather false implications that nearly half of Americans don't pay taxes, I find this video disturbing for much different reasons.

There is an overused term, "flip flopping," which is generally pulled out to describe political candidates who have changed positions on various issues. I think the term is unnecessarily condescending, as it demonizes the evolution of thought or changes of opinion as more facts are brought to light. That being said, there is a concern when as an electorate, voters are unable to understand the positions of the candidate they are attempting to familiarize themselves with. This is probably my biggest concern with Mitt Romney.

In the video Romney makes brash, poorly edited comments, but the scariest part of all is we as a people have no idea how he actually feels about any of them. Romney may or may not believe rape victims should be allowed to have abortions. He may or may not believe that insurance companies should not be allowed to discriminate based on preexisting conditions. Romney has become a blank canvas of a candidate, constantly attempting to be the man his perceived "audience" wants him to be. His campaign has even directly reflected this notion with a refusal to put forward a budget plan, even while running on an economic and budget balancing platform. He has become so afraid of his own opinion and the repercussion of having one based on evidence, values, and thought that he has simply condemned himself to not having one.

That is the biggest fear of all: what will be the consequences of electing a president with no stance of his own?  Romney is not the next Bush as some seem to assert based on his business bravado platform. President Bush may have had issues, but Mitt Romney will likely be an entirely different story altogether. After campaigning for the better part of the last seven years it is hard to see a scenario in which Mitt Romney stops. I do not believe the issue here is electing a man who's wealthy upbringing and life have left him disconnected from society in a fundamentally damaging way (although I believe that may also be true). I believe the danger is electing a man who will be too afraid of choices to make any.

In summary, I would love to believe Mitt Romney is actually a reasonable, moderate conservative candidate who is pandering to the far right because modern political discourse has left him no choice (an issue I will get to in a blog latter this week I promise, and yes I'm looking at you Fox), but I can't. Romney is asking us as a people to elect him on faith. Not only faith that he will be a president who supports and understands the view of all citizens, but a candidate who supports anything at all. Romney's campaign has not only been void of fact checking, it has been void of substance at all, and I see something deeply troubling in electing the president of the United States on the 'shut up and trust me' platform.

As always, comment or message with thoughts or critiques.

Chris

Reason for a Democracy

I'd like to start my first substantial post with a disclosure about my feelings regarding trust in the democratic process. Now, when I say trust in the process, I'm not referring to congressional approval ratings or the idea that individual votes don't matter (both issues which need deep discussions which I will get to at another time). I'm talking about the notion that political discourse in this nation seems to have no respect for not only the opinions of the majority, but even the idea that majority rule has a place in society.

There is in our, as well as many other representative democracies, an idea that there is a bright line between where majority opinions hold sway over the rule of law and where fundamental rights take over despite the views of the majority. This, of course, is truly necessary. However, when I look at current agendas on both political sides, there seems to be this overwhelming sense that nearly all social issues can be solved by clearly defined rights and rules. When we look at issues ranging from immigration to legalizing marijuana in various stages, the debate always focuses on the rights of the individuals. We've become a nation of absolutes, and these absolutes rule the political discussion. It is no longer a question of American citizens choosing based on personal impact how the nation they live in is run; it's become an argument about which absolutist dogma meets the fundamentalist criteria of whichever idea set is pulling the strings, and I think that's a shame.

More than just a shame, I think it is incredibly dangerous to the political process. Not only does it limit individuals from believing they live in a society they truly have no control over, it is one of the most factional elements in modern political discourse. The two (primary) party systems already seem to limit the choices of average voters to an extreme extent, but an even deeper seeded idea that the opinions of individuals MUST be right or wrong destroys the concept that one really has the ability to make a choice. Being part of the complex, wonderful political process which governs your society is an incredible thing. It allows for the evolution of culture and the feeling of responsibility and connection to the society we live in.

So my point is this: not every issue HAS a fundamental right or wrong, and even the process of deciding which issues do fall in that category requires a society engaged in the political process. The alternative is a series of dogmatic rules and laws which govern not because we as a people chose to live in that society, but because we are bound to it. In a nutshell, it eliminates the purpose and reason for a democracy, and there could be few greater shames for us as a collective people than that.

As always, please comment or message with thoughts or critiques.

Chris

A Start of Something

As a reasonably educated, well informed (and frequently angry) US citizen, I have a history of reacting to political discourse. In this way I'm probably not much different from any other reasonable, educated, and informed person. However, what I find most interesting are the ways in which my reactions to political news and events have changed over the course of the last five or six years. I am a reasonably talented debater and debate coach. As such, a need for logical discourse has historically clashed with a need to cleanse the world of ignorant (frequently rude) rhetoric. The thing is, years ago I would have tied the trite bullshit I frequently read on social media (and shamefully often on mainstream media) with specific political beliefs. Fox news has done nothing helpful in this respect. That being said, after interactions with incredibly intelligent people on both sides of the political aisle, I finally found it in myself to start this blog. I find myself valuing the complexity of the discussions we as a society need to have more than the answers themselves. In fact, I'm of the opinion that claiming to have the answers is one of the most destructive hindrances to modern societal progress. So no, I don't have answers. I will do my best in this blog to formulate a conclusion based on the evidence I have. I will always be excited to hear new evidence and review my positions and even my convictions. Finally, despite my political leanings, while I may not always seem to have respect for individuals representing certain ideas, I will always have respect for those who respect the complexity of the issues we all have to face. Post 1, 9/17/2012 Chris