In so many ways I wish I saw the
world in the simple terms of the right or the left. It seems so easy to live without thinking,
condemning those you view as wrong, and praising those you believe best represent
you. I blame my parents for this fault
in my personality. As a child I learned
the world was not black and white, but made up of various hues and shades. A college in the heart of West Virginia
reinforced my belief the world was complex, and I had to learn to think for myself,
form my own opinions, and assume responsibility for my life. Oh, but how I yearn to see only one side, and
condemn as evil the other. As I see so
many do.
It must be wonderful to believe
the Democratic politicians are out to make the world a wonderful place and the
Republican opposition is stupid and ignorant.
Or that the Republicans are most interested in protecting individual
rights and the Democrats are all died in the wool communists out to take your
guns away. You may label me a pessimist,
but I am caught in that ugly middle ground, that sees the federal politicians
as individuals who will bend any fact necessary to gain reelection and maintain
their position of power and authority.
For example, when the honorable Ms.
Pelosi comes out and complains the poor Congressmen and Senators are living pay
check to pay check and can appreciate the struggles of those federal employees
of the DHS who could loose their pay because the Democrats believe it more
important to stand united against the Republicans on immigration; I find that
plain old stupid.
On the other hand when Senator
Inhofe, brings a snowball into the chamber to discuss the issue of climate
change I have to wonder has he been drinking or is he really just that foolish?
But of course the issue of
climate change is settled isn’t it? Just
because data has been “manipulated” to reflect changes where they may not
exist, or that federal funding of studies come with certain expectations, or
that personal agendas may be at play there is no reason we should ever question
science. Wasn’t it scientists who said
man could never go faster than sound, or that there was nothing smaller than an
atom? For some reason we questioned
those facts and discovered the beliefs were flawed, but clearly the issue of
climate change and man’s cause of it is settled!
So what happens when the climate
changes and the sun spot activity slow and the earth is cooled? What then?
How about this new issue of
“Right to Work?” I have to laugh at the
union outrage, although I certainly agree with many of their points. As I have grown older I’ve come to believe
some unions play absolutely critical roles in protecting their members, but
beyond political organization the value of others are questionable. For example, federal employee unions can’t
strike, don’t negotiate for employee pay, or do much beside tell the government
managers they need to give them 30 days notice before they change the
furniture.
How much easier to only believe
unions are good and ignore unions like the American Medical Association that
limits the production of doctors or the public employees unions that serve
little real purpose other than to support the Democratic Party with funds and
activist support.
Those who advocate for the
“Right to Work” do so not because they are interested in individual freedom or
the unfairness of union rules, but because the unions have become a political
force that opposes their views of government.
So far I’m leaning towards the right to work side, but would be happy to
support union shops if there was a law that unions could not be politically
active and/or must be politically neutral.
For every dollar or hour contributed to one party they must contribute
an equal amount to all the other parties.
Tell you what! When this list shows unions at
something that approaches 50/50 I’ll begin to feel sorry for the unions and
support closed shop unionization. Until
then I guess I remain passively on the sideline but leaning to the side that
seeks to crush balance union political activity.
How about racism in
America? I think only a fool, or a politician
(perhaps one and the same) would say racism doesn’t exist, but what has this
administration done, beyond using it to cover their flaws, to truly address
it? You know when there are jobs for
everyone, and individuals believe in an optimistic future racism doesn’t seem to
be the issue it is when people are rioting in the streets because they have
nothing better to do.
I love Attorney General Holder’s
exit interviews when he claims racism is the cause of all the animosity
towards him. Was it racism that drove
the “fast and furious” cover up, or racism that drove the lack for
transparency into the IRS targeting of conservatives. I agree it was racism that
drove the federal involvement in local criminal investigations in TX, FL, and
MO. The only question really on the
table is whose racism was it?
Here is what I’ve learned over
the past number of years. The difference
between a leader and a politician is action.
It is easy to talk, it is hard to do, especially when others disagree
with you. My hometown President,
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a leader.
He unified a frightened nation; in a time they needed that comfort. While I don’t necessarily agree he chose the
best courses of action, I do have to admit he left the nation better off for
his terms.
John F. Kennedy, inspired the
nation; upon his death Lyndon Johnson and the his Northern Republican support
overcame the Southern Democratic resistance to move civil rights forward faster
in the 1960s than the 100 years since the civil war. Of course I doubt this
would have happened without the courage and strength of Dr. King, but to listen
to today’s advocates it was all done by the Democrats out of their love for
equality.
Reagan was a man of similar
capability. He helped a nation that had
been divided by the Vietnam conflict, and was in financial turmoil. Today’s youth won’t remember it, but interest
rates for home loans were sitting at 14%, inflation was escalating, and the
auto industry was on the verge of collapse.
His comforting approach reassured the nation, brought us back to a
stable fiscal approach, despite his growth in government spending, and at the
end of the day he bankrupted the Soviet Union, ending the cold war. There is much I would question about his
choices, but at the end of his term we were a better nation for them.
In simple terms, we won’t be
better at the end of this President’s eight years. He has made choices that divide the nation,
and weaken the United States as a world power.
The question is why? Is it lack
of the skills to lead or something else?
No comments:
Post a Comment