The Best Idea
Is Openly And Diligently Debated
And Eventually Agreed To
By All Parties
This article is focused on what used to be the entrenched two party system in the US. I’m not suggesting we change the system. I’m suggesting it’s slowly morphed into something very different.
We lived with it for many years and, in spite of its flaws, it served us acceptably well. But all that’s been changed.
Reasonable Debate No Longer Applies
What used to happen between the Democratic and Republican forums – debate the issues until acceptable middle ground is agreed upon – is no longer at play and hasn’t been for a while.
Starting at least with Richard Nixon, Republicans began using tactics that could only be tagged as treason. Nixon’s Watergate scandal is common knowledge but that wasn’t his worst infraction. Nixon’s interference in the Vietnam peace talks isn’t talked about as much or known as widely but it far outweighs the criminality of Watergate. Both instances, however, shine a light on what was to come.
His motive in both cases was to win the presidency at any cost.
Things have gotten worse. Republicans are no longer interested in rational debate. They will do anything to win an election.
Nixon was shamed out of office once his true character came to the surface. Now, Republicans act out and dare anyone to question it.
Autocracy Reigns
America, of course, is not an autocracy but the presidential office has so much power and the administration is so far reaching that it is quite possible for a person of limited character to act unilaterally.
Unfortunately, the progression toward more and more autocratic behavior has been slow but sure.
Reagan – a close friend and ally to Nixon – showed some of the same colorations during his administration. Admittedly Reagan didn’t display the same level of depraved indifference but the Iran-Contra Affair happened under his leadership in which negotiations were had with terrorists and under-handed dealings were carried on in direct contravention of the law.
Once it became public, he survived the backlash and following that the message was clear. Admit to nothing, deny everything and you can get away with anything.
Not only did Reagan lie to the American public – something a man of such upstanding character would never do – he broke the law and his own publicly stated principles – never negotiate with terrorists.
There’s really no excuse here. Even if Reagan didn’t have first hand knowledge of these events (quite doubtful), it happened under his watch. Those representing his administration – namely North and Poindexter – felt sufficiently free to do whatever their righteous indignation called for, the law be damned.
There may be occasions when breaking the law is the only option but democracy allows for a better way. Disagreements in democracies are managed by discussion and debate. When you disagree, make an argument. If you can’t get everything you want, try for what you can. Only the more autocratically minded tend to break the law with abandon.
That seems to happen a lot with Republicans.
And they claim to be the conservatives.
Autocratic Arrogance
The problem with autocrats is not that they have no ideas or their ideas are only bad, but that their ideas are the only ones they’ll consider. Their beliefs are the only ones that count. They know better than everyone, or so they feel.
And if you get in the way, watch out.
In a democracy, that approach doesn’t fly but with the last election, and everything that led up to it, you have to wonder if the party structure is still functional.
Did Trump single handedly kill a border deal hammered out in the traditionally democratic manner by both parties? Have we now come to the place where debate has been shelved, where character is dismissed and threatening is the most effective tool of leadership?
Are we now allowing one person to lead the entire government?
The two sides still exist and each sends messages everyday in an effort to fashion public opinion.
We hear the discussions. We know what’s being said, but it is very clear that authority has been usurped by one person. Is that OK? Are we happy to let that happen?
The Tags Confuse The Issues
Admittedly, this is a touchy subject and it’s only made worse by the tags associated with each party. Republicans are thought of as conservative while Democrats are referred to as liberal.
Republicans want us to believe “Conservative” means truthful, faithful, consistent with principled thinking. Democrats want us to believe “Liberal” means forward looking and conducive to progress.
Both ideas can be true.
But we mustn’t be overly swayed by the rhetoric. The terms “Conservative” and “Liberal” can mean anything. Each has both a positive and negative nuance. “Conservative” can mean stingy, cheap, withholding more than is mete, while “Liberal” can mean generous, understanding or giving the benefit of the doubt.
It’s best to remove the labels and judge each issue dispassionately, on its own merits. Originally, debates helped find a way forward, agreeably to both sides. It was a way to make progress while staying acceptably in step.
All of that has changed. Debates are more like hatchet fights and the one that draws the most blood wins. It’s no longer about working together but rather an attempt by each to take over.
The take-over mindset started with the Tea Party and that attitude has since viralized congress.
Those tags mean very little these days. I consider myself conservative but I’ve voted for democratic candidates many times and I know others who’ve done the same. The labels are neither fitting nor clarifying.
Small Government Doesn’t Exist
Conservatives are often associated with small, anti-regulatory governments. I say anti-regulatory because there’s no such thing as non-regulatory. Regulation isn’t the issue. Neither party eliminates regulation. The real difference is Republicans favor regulations that serve big money while Democrats favor regulations that support the individual.
That’s neither a secret nor a revelation. Everyone understands that. Party members admit as much.
Both parties are regulatory. Both points of view are necessary. The regulations in each case serve different segments of the community and both are needed to maintain balance.
Reagan’s trickle down theory is a good example. His regulatory approach (which was really re-regulatory) enabled big money to make even bigger money. We knew that was his intended outcome. He admitted that was his intent and argued that the benefits would trickle down to the masses.
All of that sounds good on the surface but the flaw in the assumption was the idea that big money would be good natured enough to encourage the trickle. There was no question that big money would make more money but without regulatory guidance, there was no guarantee the trickle would be downward or would even happen at all.
The truth is if you can’t regulate the actions of corporates, you should at least regulate the outcomes.
What we do know is that Reagan’s policies shrunk the middle class badly. That trend has continued aided largely by the actions or inactions of both parties. The whole approach is self defeating.
According to Robert Reich, the middle class is the grease that keeps economic wheels turning. The more it diminishes, the fewer there are with money to spend, the greater the reliance on debt to meet basic needs and the more big money appears more like slave owners.
All of that makes for an interesting discussion which, in light of the most recent election, is no longer relevant. There’s a bigger point to be made. Republicans and Democrats, and the people they represent are no long at the center. Big money and the individuals who have it are now pushing all the buttons.
The US has effectively swung toward an Oligarchy, a financial Oligarchy. That’s been the aim for a long time but with the inclusion of Elon Musk and Ramaswamy in the administration, the mask has finally come off.
And to aid the transformation, administrative gaps are being filled by clever but agreeably sycophantic types. Not just clever individuals. Not just sycophants. These gap fillers have made a name for themselves by targeting and dismantling democratic processes and structures.
That’s happening because in the Republican mindset democracy can no longer be allowed to impede the power of money.
Religion Plays A Part
Unfortunately, religion contributes to the decline in the democratic approach.
The religious mindset takes an absolutist approach to Beliefs. Never mind the fact that a belief is something you can’t prove. Proving something isn’t the point, pushing it is.
if religion believes something, they believe it absolutely and you must believe it too.
Never mind the fact that religious beliefs are so divergent as to be impossible to catalogue, the mindset is hardened. Beliefs in each system are set in stone. No variation is allowed. If you wish to be accepted in any group, you must commit to the beliefs without question.
Religion is nothing if not absolutist. Credibility in a religious system is based not only on how readily you accept the ideas but also on how intensely you fight for them.
Jehovah Witness Church believes blood transfusions are not allowed. It doesn’t matter why they believe it, that is the belief.
In a democratic system of government, they are allowed to live by that belief. But what if JW’s gained enough political power to influence the laws. And what if they introduced legislation the denied everyone access to transfusions, would that be acceptable to you?
Could we see them doing this? If you’ve ever had discussions with JW’s you know how adamant they can be. If they had power, I don’t think they could do anything other than deny everyone access to blood products.
The point is if religion believes something is right, they have no choice but to push the idea even if they have to break laws to do it.
This is a mindset. It’s not about the particular belief, it’s about the attitude. Catholics and Baptists entertain very different belief systems but both accept their beliefs absolutely. There’s no other way to see an idea other than the way they’ve been taught to see it.
And they take that attitude with them into every other sphere, be it politics or the neighborhood HOA.
Nixon and Reagan prove the point. Both came from very involved religious backgrounds. Nixon’s religion differed quite a bit from Reagan’s but both had the same mindset.
Each thought he was the only man for the job. Each thought his ideas were the only ones that mattered and each was willing to do anything to push their ideas through. Each could be persuasive publicly. Neither could make a convincing argument.
THINK!AboutIt
Leave a Reply