This term, used by Richard M. Nixon, to characterize those who did not join the anti-war protests, and were being overshadowed by the media’s push of what the President saw as a minority position, has come to represent the Republican base. I think we need to reconsider whether or not that is still true and who is today’s Silent Majority. I am not sure in its original context this term is still accurate.
Today we have large numbers of vocal advocates on both sides of the political spectrum. The religious right and the progressive left have pundits broadcasting on the web, on television and radio, and in the written press. Neither side can claim they are THE silent majority, but each side can lay claim to A silent majority. So who is right? I argue neither side is.
Let’s start with a subject that stirs tremendous debate from both sides, and one that I have at least a passing knowledge of, the move towards acceptance of homosexuality and the continuation of identified homosexuals in the military. In this discussion the politicians, pundits, reporters, and civilian advocates and opposition, all seem to view the military today as a homogeneous group. I can assure you that is not the case. Today’s military is a reflection of the society it is built from. For the most part its senior leadership (both civilian, officer and non-commissioned) is conservative, its junior ranks – liberal. There are also differences between the services, based primarily where their recruits come from and the educational levels they have. The elimination of “don’t ask, don’t tell” or DADT is having a far more traumatic impact on senior leaders than it will have on the force itself. So who is really the silent majority here? It is certainly not the vocal gay advocates who argue for inclusion or the fundamental religious civilians who claim it the work of Satan. So who is the silent majority and what do they think? I’m not sure, but we will find out once DADT is rescinded.
How about the debate on the national debt, and the “right size” of the federal government? Here we have two diametrically opposed views of what is right for America with loud, aggressive, and often hateful rhetoric filling the airwaves. Both sides arguing for their view of America, neither side willing to compromise, each saying it is the others fault when something goes wrong. With the election of a Democratic Party controlled Executive and Legislative Branches in 2006 they promised change and transparency of government. Did they deliver? If the 2008 election results are any indication I would say they didn’t. The first two years of President Obama’s term led to the creation of the Tea Party, a loosely knit group of people concerned with the fiscal policies of the federal government. This group was immediately attacked as racist-terrorists bent on the destruction of America by political operatives, the media and others working to maintain the Democratic Party's control of the Congress. On the other hand, working from a position of weakness, brought on their own failures to govern in the center, the Republicans have used these attacks to fan the flames of division. By the way we don’t govern as a democracy; we vest in our representatives to power to govern for us that is what we mean when we say: “One Republic, under God.” I am not sure most of our citizens understand that, especially today when reporting and governing appears to be based on public opinion polls. If we are to continue this trend then perhaps we’ve reached a point in time where it is appropriate to consider a revolution and establish a true democracy, but I digress. The real question here is what is the right approach and what does the silent majority think? I believe in this debate neither side is really considering what their supporters think the right answer is; they are playing to the key contributors and power brokers. I would go farther and say the power brokers probably don't care, most of us are viewed as sheep to be herded. Who is the silent majority in this issue? I guess we will find out in 2012, as the choice boils down to a commitment to larger government that promises much, including higher taxes, greater benefits, and larger debt, or smaller government that promises less entitlement funding, fewer benefits and potentially a balanced budget.
4 comments:
What I would most dearly love to see is a more modest federal government. Modest, in the sense that it would leave most issues to the states. I think this is the crux of it. If states have the power to be different, then a lot of our problems aren't so impossible. Kansas can be Kansas and Connecticut can be Connecticut. These tooth and nail fights over federal decision making wouldn't be such a huge issue because they would take place in 50 different places, allowing for many solutions instead of one. I think this is a solution for both sides if only we could get there.
While I agree in principle, we've long ago moved from the ability for states to be different in real fundamental ways. With the transitory nature of our society today the "home grown" nature of an area, unless it remains rural is likely slipping fast away.
Then a brittle and loud national discourse would seem inevitable. So much rides on every election and every decision. This kind of continual pressure and emotion is dangerous and I fear there will be real violence if it continues.
Unfortunately I agree, the pressure seems to be building to a point where the outbreak for violence seems inevitable. I wonder if this could be an outcome of our primary system where public campaigning starts two years out from the Presidential election?
Post a Comment