It is said life is about choices. That is certainly true for
governments as well. As the country has
grown to over 300 million - the choices before us become harder each day.
Unfortunately the costs, in terms of humanity, and impacts are never fully
understood when we set out.
As I read the on-line rants of the perpetually offended it is
apparent any movement towards common agreement becomes more difficult each day.
Increasingly, we are driving ourselves towards the me-first society that marks
a dramatic turning point in social order.
When we cannot find agreement on the value of life, or the reasons when
the sacrifice of that life is legitimate, then what hope is there for the hard
problems? Like:
Global Warming - does condemnation of skeptic's, or unilateral
action by the US move us towards a solution, or does it just enrich those who
have interest in "green" technology?
I don't have an answer, but when I see the President fly a 747 to a
meeting where he condemns carbon based fossil fuels I wonder what is the real
agenda? If he were really serious about
this he could have teleconferenced in and saved 190,000 pounds of those evil hydro carbon-based fuels reducing the carbon footprint of his office. I am sorry, but
the hypocrisy of the agenda condemns its message. I agree with Ms. Carly
Fiorina when she says, "a state acting alone can make no difference."
Perhaps, as she goes on say, we should look to the total spectrum of innovation
for not only "green" sources but improved use of carbon-based fuels
as well.
I wonder, is this just another example of crony capitalism? When we get into the futures market with the
trading of carbon credits and the a process whereby the rich countries buy
carbon credits from the poor countries I'm guessing there is a ton of money to
be made by those who set up and run this exchange. So the influential get richer while the poor
are exploited? Nah, the progressive movement wouldn't be that crass and
self-serving to help the rich supporters to get richer on the backs of the
poor, this is clearly about changing the social structure and cleaning up the
air by all those concerned politicians and scientists.
War - is a funny thing. We
universally condemn it, but it is inherent in the nature of man. I challenge
anyone to find a time in recorded history where conflict was not on-going. Perhaps it is part of our tribal makeup, or
perhaps just a part of our need to survive and dominate, but for whatever
reason we are always at war. Writing in the first half of the 19th century, Germany's Baron von Clausewitz in his study
of warfare notes war is a political instrument, "a continuation of
political intercourse carried out by other means." In their condemnation of religion I've heard
the left claim religious movements are the cause for most wars. This is, at best, uninformed. While religious differences may be a pretext
for beginning a conflict, the root of that conflict goes much deeper and it is
used only as a rally point. The human
desire to dominate and gain power is always at the root. It doesn't matter if we are talking about the
War of the Roses, the Axis of WW2, the IRA and UDA in Ireland, or the Islamic
movements of today. The real question
then becomes how do we, or even should we, deny those seeking power the use of
that rallying point? So far, no one in a
position of power has shown any clear understanding of the problem, or the
insight to affect an answer. What we do
see is the lack of an effective political will to win. Unless we can agree with what winning looks
like, it is unlikely we will develop one.
Race relations - since at least Theodore Roosevelt we have
understood the power of the President's position to shape and influence the
country. With TR it developed the
moniker "the Bully Pulpit," a term used to this day. Some President's, like nephew Franklin, John
Kennedy or Ronald Reagan, have used this tool exceptionally well, inspiring a
nation and the world to achieve more than they thought possible, while other's
have quietly used it to shape the country for the future. Harry Truman and Dwight Eisenhower stand as
examples of the later. Many of our
Presidents, although gifted politically, seem unsure how to effectively use
this powerful tool to bring the nation forward.
Unfortunately for people like me I don’t see our current President and his
closest advisors using all the tools available to either unite or inspire the
vast center of our society, choosing instead to play to the extremes and to
make race a central dividing point.
Where we might have had a President who could unite us as none before,
we instead found one who attempts to force us towards the political extremes as
he has choses dividing issues to weigh in on and cast his support clearly to
one side, regardless of what the facts would eventually detail. There is a difference between a political
campaign and governing, and I've noted in the past this President has never
been able to move from the first to the later.
He has extended this political agenda through the entirety of the
executive branch; as shown in the use the IRS and Justice Department to attack
political opposition. His promise of
transparency in government was, at best - empty, and at worst a clear falsehood
for the people and their elected representatives in the Congress.
Role of Government - our founding fathers were as divided as we
are today on how best to shape the government.
Some felt we should be 13 independent states, while other's argued for a
single central authority, with the potential to establish our own monarch. When the flaws in the federation concept
showed themselves we came together and through debate and compromise settled on
the scheme we have today, a central government and independent states. The role of the central government was to promote commerce and provide for a central defense. If we look at the early budgets for the
nation, these tasks were divided in about a 40/60% balance. In looking at
our budgets today the role and priority of the central government has shifted
to social engineering through regulation and law, and defense, only now the
balance has shifted to 60% for social issues and 40% for defense. This reflects the ever-increasing control of
the central government on the individual.
Economic growth - so now we come to a point where the popular,
but flawed, economic and social theories of Marx and Engle are supported by those, who in the name of "social justice," argue for an
ever-stronger and pervasive central government.
We have reached a point where the government, not the individual,
chooses what is best and will enforce those decisions through a variety of the
tools available to it. The popular rally
point today is wealth redistribution! Is
this much different than what we saw a little over a century ago when the
concepts of socialism and communism first appeared and gained wide acceptance? The central question for America today is can
the wealth of the rich be taken without destroying the engine that created it
in the first place? Is there an
applicable example that shows how making the rich poorer will make the poor
richer? We talk of the evils of
capitalism, but what better alternative exists that will allow someone with the
drive to succeed to move from poor to rich?
This whole idea of wealth distribution gains great support from those
who would like to be in charge of the distribution, and those who mistakenly
think they will be the benefactors of this largess. There is an interesting observation somewhere
in the recent news about how a restaurant chain in San Francisco recently
raised its prices about 14% after the City decided to raise the minimum wage by
14%. I wonder, who is surprised by this?
Education versus training - for as long as I can remember we've talked about how important education is, and cast a dim view on those who do not believe everyone going to college is the answer. We are seeing today an outcome of that college for everyone mania. How many college graduates leave school and enter the job market into a career versus a job? Isn't that what college is supposed to prepare you for? How many, because of their choices enter post-college life with heavy debt because it is so easy to get the financing for a college education that ill prepares them for the reality of today's world? We are quick to condemn the "for-profit" trade schools who take a students money but don't deliver a real job, yet we are equally quick to praise the "not-for-profit universities who do the same thing. In both cases the students have been bilked. As we progress forward - who will do the hard work of building America? Is this why we are opening our boarders, so American citizens won't have to do physical labor, or is it to keep the cost of that labor so low those who would do it can't pay their bills and we keep the poor in their place? The Democratic talking points seem a little vague on what the true reasons are, or what they hope is the best case outcome.
Broadcast Journalism - as we move deeper into this information
age the whole concept of how we get our news and who chooses the storyline it
presents is truly an issue. Before the
Internet there was television, before that radio and movies, before that print,
and earlier still word of mouth. Each form has its strengths and
weaknesses. Unfortunately most never
have an inclination to understand them. Today's instant communication fuels an
insatiable need for sensationalism as the media competes for dollars in the
commercial market, i.e. the more viewers the bigger the income. How to pull in the highest Neilson rating is
the driving factor, accuracy, editorial balance, and legitimate evaluation of
news value come in far down the choice list.
As we see in ABCNNBCBS and FOX they will latch on a story and play it
for all it's worth. They have airtime to
fill and truth be damned. Better to be
sensational first and then push a small retraction if the facts prove
otherwise. We see the exact same thing
with major papers like the NY Times where the headline may read TED CRUZ BEATS
DOGS but a few days later buried on page 3 is the correction "Ted Cruz
stopped man beating dogs, we regret the grammatical mistake." In their on-line publication they may just
change the story and not even acknowledge the change - as we saw with the story
on Ms. Clinton, where initial reports said she was under criminal investigation for
release of classified on her private e-mail and then after complaints it was
changed to something else. It would be
nice if everyone were honest, but agenda always comes first and we viewers just
want to be spoon-fed by talking heads we like and agree with. I would very much like it if we would follow
the British and most of the world, and refer to these talking heads for what
they are "News Readers" rather than the more solid sounding title of
"News Anchors" because most know little more than what appears on the
teleprompter in front of them.
So we come to the proverbial fork in the road. We as a nation will once again set out to
reshape our government. We will be buried in inflaming political rhetoric,
mud-slinging, snide character attacks, and subterfuge as candidates attempt to
hide their true beliefs and play the message they think will get them elected.
The most ardent supporters will swarm like locust to push their parties
messages, always intended to condemn the opponent while vaguely promising a
brighter future. Will you be one of the
55% that cast your vote? Will more than
an attack ad inform your choice, or will you fall in line with what the party
tells you to do? What choice will you
make? Will it be towards unifying the nation
or continuing as we have since the mid 90's? So many
choices!
Socialists have been advocating
for classless society. Looking at
today’s political dialogue I would say they got their way. Most of the comments I read are classless.
