30
Mar
2004
American voters are in for a rude awakening if we continue to ignore the loss of identity that plagues the two major political parties. One's party affiliation should help define how one's candidate conducts him- or herself with regard to policy and legislation. But the lines are more blurred than ever between the once-polar-opposite ideologies of Republican conservatism versus Democratic liberalism. The rationale for this is becoming increasingly obvious: Most Americans are really moderates with inclinations on various issues to either the right or the left. Unfortunately the definitions of what constitutes "left" or "right" of center are not generally understood by most Americans. Subsequently, as each party of the duopoly vies for votes to attain power and control, the candidates list toward center on particular swing issues all the while attempting to convince their core base that he/she has not forsaken them.
Special-interests-driven government and the mainstream media are most culpable in this dilemma. The ever-shortening attention span of Americans is ensured by the continued sound-byte-style news reporting in order to create a simplistic "black versus white" or "us versus them" context. Heaven forbid that the details of one's voting record or past campaign speeches be analyzed by the pundits to further understand the nuances of an issue. Rather the almighty polls are consulted hourly by news commentators who have morphed into the announcer calling a horse race. Thus, as the discourse is steered toward polarization by our media outlets and the candidates sway back and forth on issues with the wind of the polls, the function of each respective major political party has been reduced to its efficacy as a turnstile for fundraising and influence- peddling. The party's principles that guide an elected (or hoping-to-be-elected) official are only as useful as they relate to the standings in the latest polling cycle.
Part of the problem rests with voters' obtuse understanding of what defines a conservative or a liberal. How many voters register with a party because their parents did, never giving serious thought to what the party stands for or whether they agree with its platform? Many voters opine about the distinctions, but few have a grasp on the actual content of the party mission they claim to support.
Generally speaking, and painting with a wide brush, many voters associate party ideology through stereotype: Conservatives don't like change or conservatives only care about corporate America and the almighty dollar, while liberals are for the working man, or liberals are for cleaning up the environment, undermining business interests. These stereotypes are not only inaccurate, they fall far short of defining either Republican conservatism or Democratic liberalism.
In short, the biggest difference between the two parties used to be the amount of government oversight and service necessary in a democratic republic. Conservatives believed that less government was always better, and that most of whatever governmental authority there was should rest with the individual states, especially due to the diversity and myriad variables that impacted each state differently. Liberals advocated more governmental oversight and public services, believing it more efficient to centralize responsibilities under the authority of a federal umbrella that flowed through to the states. Far-right conservatism advocates limited government through strict adherence to our Constitution, while far left liberalism views the Constitution as a guiding post for legislative action that is ever-evolving.
It follows then that in order to finance more governmental oversight and services to the public, revenue in the form of taxes is necessary. Hence, liberals are traditionally accused of over-taxing everyone, including the working class they claim to uniquely support. Conservatives advocate privatization of most public services as part of capitalism, supporting lower taxes for all parties, including entities such as corporations, with all manner of incentives for business in the form of tax exemptions, deferments, rollbacks, etc., resulting in more resources available to expand business and create more jobs. In the past, there was a healthy adversarial relationship between government and business that kept a certain balance in the equation.
If viewed through this simplified lens, the current political body is a confused mess. The current Republican administration implemented the largest governmental oversight bureaucracy in the history of the nation with the USA PATRIOT and Homeland Security acts, and initiated the largest expenditure for an entitlement (social) program ever with the new Medicare bill. These actions are the antithesis of Republican ideology of less government. It is normally the Democrats who are accused of gross spending for social programming. Meanwhile, the lead candidate for the Democratic nomination, John Kerry, is talking about cutting taxes as part of his campaign jargon.
Perhaps times have changed so much that the parties are simply not relevant anymore. Many vote based on a single issue, or vote for the individual regardless of party, or vote the lesser of two evils, or even worse, don't vote at all. Conservatives accuse anyone critical of them of being liberal and vice versa. Always remember that in a democracy, it is not only our right to question authority; it is our responsibility.
At a minimum, voters should define for themselves what ideology they support if they are registered, because registering a party suggests a commitment that goes to feed the monster. If voters bothered to truly evaluate their political allegiance, and hold their elected officials responsible to those principles (not only with the cast of their vote at election time, but by communicating to them about issues between elections), then the democratic process would take on more meaning for each of us. Then the electorate, not the special interests, would be engaged and positioned to create the change we are duty-bound to exact from this process so perfectly designed to keep us free.
Special-interests-driven government and the mainstream media are most culpable in this dilemma. The ever-shortening attention span of Americans is ensured by the continued sound-byte-style news reporting in order to create a simplistic "black versus white" or "us versus them" context. Heaven forbid that the details of one's voting record or past campaign speeches be analyzed by the pundits to further understand the nuances of an issue. Rather the almighty polls are consulted hourly by news commentators who have morphed into the announcer calling a horse race. Thus, as the discourse is steered toward polarization by our media outlets and the candidates sway back and forth on issues with the wind of the polls, the function of each respective major political party has been reduced to its efficacy as a turnstile for fundraising and influence- peddling. The party's principles that guide an elected (or hoping-to-be-elected) official are only as useful as they relate to the standings in the latest polling cycle.
Part of the problem rests with voters' obtuse understanding of what defines a conservative or a liberal. How many voters register with a party because their parents did, never giving serious thought to what the party stands for or whether they agree with its platform? Many voters opine about the distinctions, but few have a grasp on the actual content of the party mission they claim to support.
Generally speaking, and painting with a wide brush, many voters associate party ideology through stereotype: Conservatives don't like change or conservatives only care about corporate America and the almighty dollar, while liberals are for the working man, or liberals are for cleaning up the environment, undermining business interests. These stereotypes are not only inaccurate, they fall far short of defining either Republican conservatism or Democratic liberalism.
In short, the biggest difference between the two parties used to be the amount of government oversight and service necessary in a democratic republic. Conservatives believed that less government was always better, and that most of whatever governmental authority there was should rest with the individual states, especially due to the diversity and myriad variables that impacted each state differently. Liberals advocated more governmental oversight and public services, believing it more efficient to centralize responsibilities under the authority of a federal umbrella that flowed through to the states. Far-right conservatism advocates limited government through strict adherence to our Constitution, while far left liberalism views the Constitution as a guiding post for legislative action that is ever-evolving.
It follows then that in order to finance more governmental oversight and services to the public, revenue in the form of taxes is necessary. Hence, liberals are traditionally accused of over-taxing everyone, including the working class they claim to uniquely support. Conservatives advocate privatization of most public services as part of capitalism, supporting lower taxes for all parties, including entities such as corporations, with all manner of incentives for business in the form of tax exemptions, deferments, rollbacks, etc., resulting in more resources available to expand business and create more jobs. In the past, there was a healthy adversarial relationship between government and business that kept a certain balance in the equation.
If viewed through this simplified lens, the current political body is a confused mess. The current Republican administration implemented the largest governmental oversight bureaucracy in the history of the nation with the USA PATRIOT and Homeland Security acts, and initiated the largest expenditure for an entitlement (social) program ever with the new Medicare bill. These actions are the antithesis of Republican ideology of less government. It is normally the Democrats who are accused of gross spending for social programming. Meanwhile, the lead candidate for the Democratic nomination, John Kerry, is talking about cutting taxes as part of his campaign jargon.
Perhaps times have changed so much that the parties are simply not relevant anymore. Many vote based on a single issue, or vote for the individual regardless of party, or vote the lesser of two evils, or even worse, don't vote at all. Conservatives accuse anyone critical of them of being liberal and vice versa. Always remember that in a democracy, it is not only our right to question authority; it is our responsibility.
At a minimum, voters should define for themselves what ideology they support if they are registered, because registering a party suggests a commitment that goes to feed the monster. If voters bothered to truly evaluate their political allegiance, and hold their elected officials responsible to those principles (not only with the cast of their vote at election time, but by communicating to them about issues between elections), then the democratic process would take on more meaning for each of us. Then the electorate, not the special interests, would be engaged and positioned to create the change we are duty-bound to exact from this process so perfectly designed to keep us free.
