The Stupor Committee (or The Ditzy Dozen)

The brain-trust of Congress is just over a week away from their dead-line to place before their brethren and the public their solution to the federal deficit reduction problem. That is, they would be expected to present their proposal if they have managed to achieve an actual joint proposal that they agree to endorse. However, given the moronic state of contention that the Republicans and Democrats insist upon sustaining as their unique version of a perpetual non-motion machine, I suspect that we will not see a “super committee” plan. At best, they will have devised two or more “plans” which different permutations of the committee membership will favor and advocate or will reject and deride. In other words, the stupor-committee will dysfunction in the manner that Congress uses at every opportunity. Why do something intelligent, public service oriented or worthy of American leadership? Hell, they’re in Congress, they aren’t supposed to work for the American people’s interests.

So if the appointed twelve do in fact punt on their duty and miss their chance to do something meaningful and important for the country, if they fail to seize their carpe diem moment, and if they forgo the opportunity to cast an enduring legacy then what is the American public supposed to do? Well the Democrats will rail against the Republican members, and the Republicans will harp on the Democrats; so nothing different there. But what is it that the Independents should do? They hold the key after all to all these politicians’ futures. They decide the elections that each Congressional hack will be facing in the future.

The failure of the super committee to act in a responsible, inspired and courageous manner should cost them their seat of privilege at the Congressional trough. The price of their inaction is to transform them into a beacon of enlightenment, a super nova in the firmament of politics, a shining example of the consequences of their ineptitude, cowardice, and stupidity. Their bonus for nonperformance is a ticket home.

This is the strategy that Independents need to adopt. Just as the stupor committee should do their job of formulating a plan of action to guide the nation through the deficit, Independents need to step up and hold the political process and parties to account for their inactions. Who knows, perhaps if Congress-men/women were motivated to attend to national interests and values rather than divisive partisan distraction, one or two of them might actually see how to solve some of national problems through creative, innovative and inspired approaches to government. It certainly can’t hurt given they do not appear to have a clue about how to address the economy, jobs, education, health-care, defense or well anything.

I:DEA 3 – I Swear I’ve Never Pledged

Independents have another unique position in the electoral process besides being independent. They don’t have to drink the Kool-Aid that the party faithful eagerly consume as if the tenets of party ideology were the essence of life that you can’t survive without. So when candidates come forth to compete for the favor and endorsement of the party’s core, Independents can see if a candidate steps forward eagerly or reluctantly kowtow to the imperative of signing some moronic pledge to one insipid concept or principle or another.

It’s not that taking a position or stance on an issue or policy is a bad thing for a candidate to do. Having a position would actually be expected of candidates. The problem with ‘taking the pledge’ is that it demonstrates a weakness of mind and leadership. Not exactly what you want in your elected officials. The problem with ‘the pledge’ is that it is defined by someone else, not the candidate; it is established to constrain and confine the thoughts and actions of the candidates, to make them conform; and here is the really bad part, it implies that the candidate is less qualified to use their judgment on an issue than the person who crafted the pledge. The reason for the candidate to sign the pledge is obvious. What it says about the candidate’s principles and values is inconsistent with and unworthy of an American leader, particularly one that the nation needs to rely on to address the difficult and thorny problems confronting us. Clearly the Edmund Burke sentiment applies here.

So Independents should be looking for a candidate that does not relinquish their ability to have the options of using their judgment after engaging in thorough and informed discussion of an issue. Someone who hasn’t pre-judged the answer to a problem before they even know the question and the consequences of applying that answer to the specific issue presented by the world and reality. A candidate that is deserving of an Independent’s votes ought to be someone whose judgment you would trust as being rendered from their intelligence and wisdom. Independents are hopefully looking for someone who is smarter than they are. Who would elect someone less intelligent than their self? History doesn’t give us a lot of comfort here.

When offered the option to pledge, what should a smart politician do? Well, they should lead for one; and then they should ask the obvious questions. Now it seems to me that the politicians don’t seem to know the obvious questions; which incidentally is not a good sign. Don’t you think it’s time that Independents started asking the candidates these questions though?

Independents! Rise up and demand an explanation of why a candidate thought signing a pledge was a sign of leadership, and why they didn’t see the fallacy of their pledge? Then follow-up and ask the questions that illustrate the imprudence of their decision.

Not All Self-Interest Is Equal

Some American concepts are far more complex than the casual observer would expect. The American confidence in the free market is such a concept. It entwines elements of capitalism, freedom, democracy and self-interest in a complex fabric that has woven the most formidable economic power ever achieved to date. And we Americans tend to believe that we are guaranteed to remain in the forefront of economic powers because it is our rightful place in the world. But our economy, our market system and our societal framework did not achieve its success simply because of these structural elements. It has at times been more and less capitalistic than others, it hasn’t always been free in the same way that is it free today, and it isn’t always a democratic operation. So it shouldn’t be surprising that the principle of self-interest hasn’t always been a constant in the marketplace, the economy or our society.

Recognizing and grappling with this complexity is part of the challenge that America must confront to be successful in the competitive global arena. In that regard it is incumbent upon us to know and understand the difference between: Self-Interest and Enlightened Self-Interest.

Self-interest is the term that you will usually hear. It is one of the forces that drives the efficiency and competitiveness of the marketplace. People, groups, companies, states, countries, and multi-national are all considered to work better and receive greater results when they operate under the principle of self-interest. Much of the free enterprise system stems from this mode of operation. A free market doesn’t guarantee that you will succeed; in fact, it is generally indifferent to your success or failure. The free market only assures you that in a level playing-field market that the better, more cost efficient and need fulfilling products and services will win out over their lesser competitors. But self-interest also can drive actions and behaviors that are anathema to the benefits expected of the free market operating in a democratic society.

Self-interest can represent a selective provision place in the law that thwarts a fair and open competition. Self-interest can lead to corruption and abuse that erodes and rots the power of a free market. And in one of its most devious incarnations self-interest can lead individuals, groups, and entities to seek local and/or near term benefits that are actually destructive to those that sought the benefits as well as those that were disadvantaged originally.

The problem with thinking that self-interest is an American principle that has produced the benefits that our economy and society have achieved is that it has produced some of the worst conditions in America also. There is nothing inherently wrong or misguided about self-interest, rather you have to understand that it does not guarantee a positive outcome for you, for others or for anyone.

America is best served when the principle of self-interest is an “enlightened self-interest”. This requires that decisions and policies are examined in terms of the self-interests that are involved. And you have to understand what the self-interests are, and whether they are reasonable, rationale and prudent interests to be served. For example, the America economy benefits enormously when the middle-class (and the lower-class) incomes grow. The reason is that a robust consumer economy increases the flow of money in the nation’s economy, it increases the private sector’s opportunities to grow, and provides for more profits.  The wealth of the country expands the most when it expands for all members of the society. Otherwise, the simplest way to a sound economy would be to place all the wealth in one individual/corporation, which we in America know is just stupid.

What issue confronting America today, illustrates the difference between self-interest and enlightened self-interest? You might as well ask: What issue doesn’t? If you don’t see it yet, one of the biggest is the national budget and its little sister the debt ceiling. And there doesn’t appear to be any comprehension on the part of Congress that understanding the issue is an important part of addressing the country’s problems.

A Calm and Peaceful Purpose: A Government Goal Gone Awry

Now we come to an area of our civil compact in which the government is more often than not, not only ineffective in affecting this state; but given the contentious relationship between the Democrat and Republican parties ( and their various internal factions) is the major engine in the public’s many faceted dissatisfaction with every aspect of government.

We the people have proposed that the government should ‘insure domestic Tranquility’. They are thus tasked with organizing our social structure, systems and endeavors under the guiding principle of a calm and peaceful society. We might also surmise that the Founding Fathers also intended that the government would function in a reasoned and rational manner and not one prone to emotional, confused or agitated actions that disrupt civic equanimity or incite public discord and strife. This is not an unusual or particularly singular American desire. It is commonly shared by most societies. What people do not want to live in peace; where they can raise their families, conduct their business and personal affairs, and live with their lives without threat from neighbors, officials or society?

Regardless of the failures and ineptness of our political leaders and their advisors, our government is still to be held honor-bound to strive toward delivering a tranquil society. This includes the enactment of laws that conform to such a state, to providing law enforcement agencies that protect the public peace and that monitor civil activities accordingly, to establish judicial systems to apply justice based on our laws, and to undertake programs and policies which enhance harmonious social conditions.

This governmental purpose is mostly forgotten or ignored by our political parties and the politicians. What we see is politicians who strive to find divisive wedge-issues and provincial special-interests to leverage partisan and parochial advantages to support their campaigns rather than to serve the people. They renege on their pledge to place the public interest before their own and to be as concerned for the future as well as the present. Is it any wonder that politicians act without reason or judgment? This purpose of our government is no longer considered good politics. Politicians can thus toss social tranquility aside as an expediency to accomplishing their own goals and purposes, instead of the public’s.

Still this does not absolve the government of its responsibility, or the public of its, to advance society toward a pattern of behaviors, laws and organizations that evolve even if in fits and spurts toward a peaceful social existence. Perhaps if the public had a greater expectation or insistence for politicians who were more capable of reasoned and rational approaches to governmental policies, the public would benefit from the wisdom embedded in the Constitution by the Founding Fathers; rather than the greed and corruption that our politicos have rendered us to date.

A Just Purpose for Government

“Establish Justice”, seems like an obvious purpose for our government; and it is contractually binding. Certainly you would not reject that goal. You wouldn’t agree that you are less entitled or not entitled to the same rights that any other given person in our nation is granted under the law. I suppose there might be some individuals who are, let’s say, less cognitively capable or who have some self-esteem issues which leads them to think that they do not deserve the same rights; but you don’t think of yourself as somehow unworthy of equality within in system. Besides under our law we have definitively determined that you are not allowed ‘under the law’ to abandon, relinquish, or in any way give up or forfeit your basic rights. So like it or not, you are entitled to justice in America; in fact, equal justice. No less and no more justice than anyone else. And here’s the part many of you will have a hard time with, everyone else has the exact same claim and right to the same equal justice. That’s part of the contract we agreed to.

Now not many of you remember signing the contract, but there are some who do because they did. But for the rest, the binding agreement is an inherited obligation handed down from generation to generation; additionally it is a verbal contract commitment that you made when you first claimed for yourself any of the rights granted under the Constitution. Even before that the rest of society granted you those rights as a citizen of the United States when you were born. All in all, there is no way out except complete forfeiture for citizenship and leaving. So the government owes you justice.

The difficulty with the justice purpose of government is that once we all understand that justice is part of the guarantee of our democratic system, being a part of the contract doesn’t convey what justice entails. I completely understand this problem, because it is really hard to define what justice is as it applies to our societal framework.

Given the constitutional covenant which fundamentally addresses the laws that unite us, justice would be principally the realm where we interact with each other under our laws. The government’s purpose with respect to justice is to insure that laws are applied uniformly and equitably. This includes protecting citizens’ rights by providing the governmental infrastructure that administers justice: the courts, law enforcement, and god-protect us government lawyers. It includes the legislature’s duty to make laws that abide by the principle of justice, no matter how bad they are at it. Thankfully we have the checks and balances within our structure that provides the opportunity to limit and correct their errors of judgment, intent and foolishness.

The societal questions that abound around treating citizens fairly is the most difficult aspect of justice. The problem here is that determining what is fair is often not a legal issue and not related to the law. The purpose of justice when it comes to questions of fairness is for the government to be able to justify to the people and all branches of government that what is deemed fair, is deemed far under the law. So a progressive tax rate is often argued as unfair, but the principle of justice is not the basis of determining whether it is fair or not. Justice only requires that it is within the legal jurisdiction of the government and that the tax laws do not violate the obligation to apply the law justly to all.

In a democracy, Justice is a core purpose of government. If the government does not insure and deliver justice then the government will ultimately run afoul of its other constitutional contractual obligations; and the consequences of this failure are emblematic of our very founding.

The Union Purpose of Government

It’s not that we have forgotten the purpose of our government; it’s that we probably never learned it. In the second installment on the purpose of government I thought the starting point might logically proceed from our covenant. If my meaning doesn’t spring immediately to mind, perhaps the following snippet from our contract will help: “form a more perfect Union”. Yes, the U.S. Constitution which many consider the seminal document defining our government and perhaps even its purpose.

On the supposition that the preamble serves to set forth the general purposes and goals of our government then an examination of the preamble is a rational point of departure for a discussion. How then is a “more perfect Union” a purpose for our government?

The Union referred to is the collection of states that determined that their individual interests and futures, and the interests of their citizens, would be better served if they redefined the confederated government that they had been working under into one that established the federal system we have today. This is how it was formed but doesn’t explain what its expected purposes are. So let’s begin and see what it is that we have by way of expectation in the purpose for our Constitutional government.

The ‘more perfect’ is the salient semantic component of this constitutional goal. After all, we already had a Union with the Confederation; the problem was that it was not an effective and viable governmental structure. The immediate and local individual states’ interests were trumping the national needs and interests of the Confederation. Even at the start, we had difficulties in reconciling the local, state and regional versus the national views. The ‘more perfect’ sets forth a purpose and vision for our government, our union; that entailed a cohesive force that provides a single national means to deliver upon the contract. While admitting to the impossibility of delivering a ‘perfect’ Union, our Founding Fathers chose to incorporate the aspirational goal to insure that it was better at achieving it other goals.

Beyond that very American ambition, there is still more in the simple word: Union. Whether they understood it or not, the Founding Fathers encompassed a societal purpose to our federal government that it was to extend fundamental equality of rights within the nation. As the nation has matured and endured this notion of equality has broadened and strengthened as an essential principle that is both a guarantee and an obligation. This is one of the purposes of our government. Within the framework of our federal government, we have established the individual and the collective responsibility to recognize the mutual rights we are obligated to respect and grant each other; and which the government is empowered and directed to maintain in the execution of our laws. The governmental purpose imposed by the ‘Union’ context is to hold individuals, groups, states, regions, and the nation itself to abide by the equality of rights and of responsibilities that our laws delineate. This purpose includes the government’s responsibility to insure that no laws are enacted which inherently violates any other guaranteed conditions of our Constitutional compact.

While we instantly demand our rights, we rarely and reluctantly acknowledge the ‘mutual’ responsibilities required of our democratic system. It’s not hard to see how the divisive and antagonistic mentalities of our political parties have contributed to the failure of working toward are ‘more perfect’ Union. The political parties represent what the Founding Fathers had to overcome in creating the form of government Americans were willing to and still die for, the short-term and local interest over the national and societal interest. 

Field of Schemes

America has recently raised a new hybrid variety of genetically modified politicians across a number of the nation’s political fields. This domestic crop of representatives has yet to be valued in the public marketplace as to whether they are to be a productive and useful commodity, or just another field of weeds that will have to be up rooted in order to plant another variety in the next political season that might bear some nutritious fruit. We only have to hope that if they are indeed weeds that it doesn’t turn out that they destroy the land and leave it unsuitable for productive use or worse, lethal to the public.

New Jersey has given us one particular example in Governor Chris Christie. He has made some headway in becoming one of the new conservative poster boys and hard-nosed players on the national political scene. Certainly there is a lot of huffing and puffing, and then there is the occasional decision and its corresponding justification. Or, in more cases than not, these rationalization just sounds like a reason though they are in fact really not. You’ve all heard the proclamations that almost ring true, but upon examination of what the decision was you are left wondering if you might deserve a teaching moment or more pointedly a visit to the shed. You know the quotes: “I was sent here to make the hard decisions.”, or “This is what the American people expect.” After hearing these, it often occurs to me that I didn’t find the decision hard, but rather just stupid or wrong; or that it wasn’t what I expected of a leader but rather that of a politician as we have come to know them.

In this season of the crusading conservatives who have come to save the profligate states from their foolish ways, Christie has stood up and challenged many opponents. Some he has vanquished, others he has pronounced “Mission Accomplished” proclamations against even if he has somehow not actually managed to confront or defeat them, and there are always the battles that he fights and loses which then aren’t talked about because it would tarnish his prodigious armor. But sadly today, this is the way of politicians. It’s more how you say it looks than what it actually looks like. Given the fiscal disaster that he had to grapple with in New Jersey, he has taken actions which he has had no choice but to take. Given a knife to cut the budget, he cut the budget. Of course, was he a skilled and knowledgeable surgeon cutting away the tumor, or the quack recklessly maiming the patient? Fortunately for him, more often than not the quality of his decisions will not be determinable or attributable to him even long after his is gone.

But there are moments when the world presents an opportunity for the public to demand that such politicians stand and deliver. When the decisions that they are going to make for the ‘public good’ can be tested against the man’s/woman’s character, judgment, intellect and wisdom. Such a moment exists now for the citizens of New Jersey with regard to Governor Christie. This same moment also exists for many other Governors in other states, both Democrat and Republican.

What an opportunity! These political leaders can stand up and be counted. They can directly show the public and the nation their personal integrity, their own confidence in their judgment, and their willingness to be responsible and accountable for their decisions in office. How fortunate to be a politician in such a time. How lucky to be able to stand before the public and show them right here and now, that they ‘put it all on the line’ in their service to the people. Surely history will remember them for being the type of statesman/woman who epitomizes the American values and ideals. How could they shrink from an opportunity like this, unless they were not really conducting themselves as public servants?

What is the opportunity? Well, one case is the natural gas fracking issue. Governor Christie has indicated that New Jersey needs to proceed with gas explorations and the use of the fracking process for the good of New Jersey. He may not be a scientist, engineer or particularly knowledgeable about the subject, but he believes that providing affordable and domestic-sourced energy is vital to New Jersey and the nation; and if the process of fracking will provide that then he believes that the state should support and encourage the business. Many New Jerseyians agree and support this view, and many do not; that is why it’s a political issue. And here is where Christie can move to the forefront, here is where he can be the leader that New Jersey and the nation needs.

All that is required is that Governor Christie pledge to accept the consequences of his decision. He only needs to take a simple and easily accomplished promise; and then he must do what so many politician always fail to do, he must abide by his promise and fulfill his oath. Now if the Governor or no one else has figured out what the pledge is, I would only ask that you take a moment to think what would be an obvious, direct and immediate action that he or any other governor or politician could take. And now that you’ve thought about it, I am sure that you see it as clearly as I do.

If you don’t recognize it, well perhaps you might seek assistance from your friends and neighbors, from your colleagues and party members, or from those whose opinions and judgments you respect. And if this fails, I am sure we can find a way to provide the answer. The ‘ah ha’ moment will be well worth it.

Government – Purpose: Do They Have One?


We think of ourselves as living in a time when people are questioning the purpose of government; and we are right, we do live in such a time. The reason is that if you are alive, you live in a time when people are questioning the purpose and the role of government.

Now there are many answers to this question which explains why it never goes away. But more importantly, you can’t answer it with any useful value until you recognize that this is a question that cannot stand alone. When you answer the purpose question as the starting point, you have left the starting line before the pistol went off and without realizing what distance race your about to run. In other words, it’s an incomplete question.

So let’s answer it anyway. What is the purpose of government?

The purpose of some governments is to maintain the social order and maintains the power structure of those that are entitled, deserving and anointed to guide their society. Other governments are intended to maximize the equitable socio-economic condition of their citizens. And some governments have defined their purpose as systems of laws to ensure and guarantee their citizens a set of rights that are universal. The purpose of government then is dependent upon how the government is established, organized and controlled.

I am going to go out on a limb and assume that when an American asks: “what is the purpose of government”, that they mean “what is the purpose of our American government?”

Now, even here this is probably too simple a statement of the question and of the potential contextual space that should be considered when trying to answer it; but I suspect it will be unlikely that most people will have the patience to explore the question of the question. So I will go farther out on the limb.

Side One of the purpose of American government is simple. It is a system which is structured to organize our social life around a public space and a private space, between a commercial arena and a civic arena, and between the interests of the majority and that of the minority. And the purpose of this system is to deliver the opportunity for each citizen to live their lives according to their own design, direction and desires without intruding upon the same rights of every other citizen. That is a terse statement of our government’s fundamental purpose. It is also completely inadequate to insure that Americans would agree on what this purpose means in almost any area or on any issue that confounds, angers, frightens, inspires, or unites Americans today.

Personally I consider the purpose of our government to be the agent that is responsible for enforcing the principle: Everything that you believe you have the right to expect and demand of everyone one else in our society, you agree that they have the right to require of you.

You may think you like that principle, but I should warn you that you haven’t thought it through. I can guarantee that you will not like what it requires of you, even though it is a basic tenet of our democratic system.

I guess this will have to continue in future entries.

Why Politicians Deserve No Credit

The sage insight and wisdom provided this week by recognized leaders from both the Republican and Democratic parties will be tossed aside by the self-absorbed politicians striving to enshrine themselves as demigods of their respective political philosophies. While it is more indirect, assessing the position that Tea Party members would take is likely to place them at immoveable odds with key aspects of the guidance being offered as the life-saving medicine for our nation. For a party that advocates fiscal responsibility, I suspect that in their heart-of-hearts tea party members mean they want to have what they want, and they want it now; but they don’t want to have to be held responsible for anything. Particularly they won’t be accountable for what they benefitted from in the past that they never paid for. You can hardly blame these weak-tea patriots, they have only recently been required to face the facts or consequences of their inattentive lifestyles. And even here, they managed to turn their mind’s eye inward on a utopian view of their future, where they expect anyone who is willing to lie to them to fix everything by promising to go forth and do what they want as long as it doesn’t affect anything that they see as good for them.

Who are the enablers of these irresponsible Lazarus-es of the American “Do Nothing” party? They are our politicians! Be they Democrat, be they Republican, or be they Tea Partyites or any other fractal variant of a party; these media crafted, sound-bite limited, issue distorting, bloviating sychophants are the bane of our democracy. These politicians always have the solution but never deliver it. They always promise to restore America to its rightful place in the world, but seem to do everything in their power to diminish, degrade and debase the vitality of America and its values.

Every politician in office today and those shortly to join the ranks of the incredibly incompetent will continue to avoid their primary responsibility; they will evade their responsibility for protecting the nation as obligated by their oath of office. The country is in debt. For decades politicians, particularly Congressional politicians, have been the sole builders of the debilitating debt deadfall that increasingly threatens America’s very way of life. Our politicians have done this by actively and knowingly passing budgets and legislation that either directly incurs greater debt or by ignoring the existing debt as if there were no consequences.

So let’s continue to follow these lackluster leaders and their new band of latter-day lackeys in pursuing the preservation of tax-cuts for everyone; thus advancing the day that crushes everyone under the uber-deficit created by their selfish partisans pandering to their respective special interests parasites. But since tax-cuts won’t pay off our debt, this chest thumping exhibition is just another log thrown onto the deficit deadfall we all get to enjoy when the trap collapses.

We certainly cannot depend on our political leaders, and extending them the country’s line of credit is just repeating the same act over again, and hoping for a different outcome. Yes, just going more insane.

If only there were an American value that we could live by, or some example from our history that illustrated the collective sacrifice that Americans made to protect the nation from destruction and preserve our principle of freedom, or even some document that provides some guidance that “as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”. But we would appear to be devoid of any such lessons from our past that might illuminate a fiscally responsible path we must find to escape this labyrinth of self-imposed liabilities.

Let’s Try Something Different – Smart Politicians

Many Americans are confronted with a persistent, periodic and pernicious problem: who to vote for. Most of those assailed by this dilemma of choosing between the lesser of two evils are non-aligned Independent voters. Although there are even some amongst the ranks of the Democratic and Republican parties’ faithful, that actually think before they vote, that are just as confounded and perplexed about whom to support.

There are a number of reasons contributing to this consternation of the electorate, not limited to: distortions and lies in negative campaign ads; pathetic and paltry attempts by the news media to scrutinize the campaigns of either encumbering party; or the enfeebled, addle pated, and intellectually challenged candidates. With this dearth of worthy aspirants to the highest offices of our nation, we can hardly blame the majority of Americans from being disenchanted with the choices they must make among the insipid and misguided standard-bearers of their respective parties.

While it is far too late in this election period to seek out better choices, to quest for worthier representatives; perhaps there is a lesson to be gained from the bleak political landscape we travel. After our populace is plagued by the consequences wrought by these legislative mites, and their myopic societal visions weave their defective governmental fabric; we will have the opportunity viewing the on-going travesty as our American tapestry unravels into another season of self-serving, special interest driven, unreasoned congressional misrepresentation. Whether the Democrats retain majorities in the House and/or Senate, or the Republicans gain a plurality in either; the vitriolic and divisive uncompromising posturing of each partisan tribe will ensure that the American people will be disregarded in favor of power politics and extremist policies. From this corrosive and poisonous atmosphere, our citizenry must find an antidote to this dysfunctional dichotomy of a free society where neither the left nor the right seems to comprehend the basic principles our Founding Fathers conceived of in the establishment of our constitutional democracy.

Recognizing the need for a rebirth of American values in our government, our politicians and particularly our political parties; the independent voters of America, who control the outcome of our elections, need to look for candidates that are worthy of their votes. When polled prior to the elections, if neither party’s candidate measures up then they need to say they will choose from an alternative party but not the Democratic or Republican incompetents endorsed by the cultish rabble of their respective party members. There is only one way to evolve these pandering parties into organizations that strive to serve the American people, and that is to apply the ‘survival of the fittest’ principle to them. The Parties can adapt and respond to the needs of the independent voters; or they can go the way of other dead-end organisms unable to meet the challenges of their new environment.

What qualities should we seek in viable political candidates? Well, if you were hiring someone to work for you in a position that required sound and reasoned judgment, and who was going to determine how to establish the approaches that we would follow to achieve our common interests and goals; then I would advocate that you look for someone who you think is actually smarter than you are. What business man would consciously hire someone for such a job that they think is less qualified than they themselves would be? Would you really want someone who is just able to understand the world and issues as well as yourself? If so, then you have the results of your criteria. The lagging economy, the loss of status and prestige in the world, the deterioration of our national infrastructure, and the decline in America’s standard of living are the fruits of your quality of leaders.

To return America to a strong, vibrant and prospering society we need leaders with sufficient knowledge to know what they do not understand, to see the errors of their (and their parties’ past), and to put the interest of the country and its people before their own. In other words, we need politicians that are nothing like the kind we have today. We need persons who can speak intelligently and meaningfully about the issues that confront us, and not that can barely nor accurately recite the meaningless sound-bite of the day given them by their handlers. We need American leaders, not the Democratic and Republican sophists we are shackled with intent on following some self-delusional path to paradise. In truth, we need the ‘best and brightest’ from amongst us to step up to the task of dealing with our real problems and in protecting our rights and freedom from those who would limit them.

Our nation was founded upon the exceptional efforts that our forefathers made; it will not be preserved by the mundane squabbling of politicians bought and paid for by the highest bidders.

Americans Don’t Give-Up The Fight and Don’t Give-In To Fear, Why Would We Succumb To Hatred?

We take pride in America in our American Spirit, our Yankee ingenuity, and our can-do attitude. Americans rejoice in our commitment to freedom and its defense throughout the world. We acknowledge that “There is nothing to fear, but fear itself.” This is the country of immigrants, where you can pull yourself up by your bootstraps and attain anything; the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Why then do Americans seem to lose the perspective these beliefs should give us on issues involving the Islamic religion? I suppose it could be that political leaders and operatives are always willing to latch onto any issue or message that provides them with the opportunity to get money. Just as we honor the Americans who have given their lives for our country, we generally despise our politicians who generally trade in lies, deceit, graft, and fraud; and we cultishly vote for which ever politician is running under the banner of the political party that we are devotedly aligned with regardless of their consistent and unrelenting failure to serve the public interest.

The conclusion from this philosophical dissonance between our allegiance to freedom and our disregard for supporting the rights that are defined by that freedom is that far to many Americans are willing to trade-in their principles, to abandon their responsibilities and run with the mob rather than stand up and be counted in defense of America. A defense of America by demanding that our laws are applied equally to everyone; that our liberty is preserved for all citizens; and that the rights of the minority are not sacrificed to the interests of the majority with disregard for justice.

Are we really willing to accept politicians who mislead us, who cultivate hate as a means of garnering political power, and who demean the very principles of America in which we take so much pride?

When A Separate Church And State Both Advocate A Common Principle

During this morning’s church service I had a serendipitous insight into a commonality of principle between a teaching of my faith and one of the tenets of our democracy. On the faith side, the homily emphasized the principle that discipline is a salient aspect of life. This insight relates to how that discipline carries not only to my faith but equally to my political philosophy.

Discipline is a normal part of growing up; and then if successfully acquired becomes a life-long lifestyle requirement if we are to endeavor to live righteously (or democratically in a narrower context). The discipline that God brings into one’s life is intended to provide instruction to guide and to strengthen the mind and the body to be able to endure and even flourish in our lives. If we are not taught the principles that we should live by, learn and understand them, and then be held responsible to adhere to those principles even when they are difficult, unpleasant or unpopular then we will suffer the consequences from our lack of discipline. It must cause us to expect that we will not be rewarded with the benefits and blessings that following those very principles provide. Many of us understand later in life that the discipline that our parents imposed upon us in our youth was beneficial to us; some I am sure never come to that realization. But we grew stronger and more prepared to deal with life because of that discipline.

Many people who believe in God also believe that He places trials and burdens into our lives that are also intended to strengthen us. It is often cited that “God does not place any burden on us that we cannot carry”. The take-away from this is that you cannot know what is righteous and gain the rewards that come from it unless you actually lead a righteous life. And that requires the discipline to follow what you believe in; including the fundamental principles that Americans have regarding our democratic system.

The same disciplinary perspective is demanded of a people that are dedicated to being free. The democratic nature of our nation is dependent upon our ability to follow the principles that define our freedom. This includes the principle that we are a nation of laws and not of men. It may be difficult to accept that principle when you see someone or a group doing something that you disagree with, and it may require you to accept the rights of those individuals to choose to act as they have despite your views. And while this may be especially hard where there are emotional, religious or political issues at the point of contention between groups that you don’t approve of or accept into your own view of being American; it is explicitly in these circumstances that your need for discipline is the greatest. It may only be through discipline that we can retain and preserve our freedom. We must as surely have the discipline to hold fast to the principles that we are a nation of laws and that we must uphold the freedom of each and every citizen to their rights guaranteed by those laws.

Thus both the principles of my faith and of my country demand that I have the discipline to live in accordance with those principles. If I do not have the strength or the wisdom to follow those principles than I cannot hope to gain the advantages that they offer. If we do not do what is right according to our laws then how can we expect justice for ourselves? It does not matter if that right is based upon my faith or my politics. To expect a democracy to protect your freedom, it must be a democracy that protects everyone’s freedom in exactly the same way. If our desire to be a free nation is a righteous principle to live by and to live for, then we have to exercise the discipline of insuring that that same freedom is given to all citizens and is protected by our laws and our efforts.

Don’t Ask [the Right Questions], Don’t Tell [the Truth]: The Logic of Congress and Other Special People

Watching and listening to politicians wrangle over the “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” policy regarding gays in the Military is yet another instance of the peoples’ elected representatives failing to deal with the issue in a complete and informed manner. Given the historic homophobic and anti-homosexual biases that have run rampant through our society, it is not surprising that there has been an issue on whether gays in the military are a socially, politically and militarily practical or acceptable concept. But now is not then. Today, Americans are generally aware enough to recognize and accept that being gay is an accepted and protected status under our Constitutional framework and democratic principles. This does not mean that there are not plenty of persons who treat gays as social pariahs and occasions in which they are at risk of being maligned, maltreated, and murdered. So while Congress and the Military leadership determine if it is acceptable for some who is gay to be ‘openly’ gay while in military service, shouldn’t they have raised some pertinent questions on this issue as part of their responsibility to the public that they are expressly dedicated to serve? [I recognize that the following questions may have been asked by someone earlier, but I haven’t noticed that these issues have been given any noteworthy attention by Congress, the Military, or the Media and thus appear to me to be unasked.]

By disallowing gays to serve openly in the military; the Government, Congress, Military, and other like-policy supporting organization/groups are limiting the representation of gays in the armed forces which effectively increases the representation of heterosexual individuals in the Military. Thus the lives of heterosexual men and women are placed at greater risk simply on a statistical basis. And why would the country, Government, Military, and Congress place a lower value on a heterosexual life? There is no way around the fact that excluding one group from the risks that military personnel face places it’s contra-group directly in the position to absorb that risk. Thus injuries to and the deaths of heterosexual military personnel are proportionately increased. If you accept an scientific perspective on evolution, you might want to consider what unintended consequences follow from the current policy.

On another front, why are the Government, Congress and Military creating a security risk for themselves and America? It seems odd that the very people charged with securing the blessing of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are and have been instrumental in establishing a means to coerce military personnel to fear for their life and/or career? It doesn’t take much mental effort or insight to deduce the consequences of a “Don’t Ask; Don’t Tell” policy or harsher previous incarnations of the military’s policies toward gays with respect to the security vulnerability that they directly create. Further, even with their current policy, they haven’t recognized the inherent advantages that their own policy gives them if they established a process for protecting individuals exposed to such threats.

Lastly, what do our governmental and military leaders think the consequences are to expressly and aggressively treating one group of people as unequal and unacceptable in either our general society or even just within our military society. Do they think that such mental and behavioral distinctions will have no consequential implications for how the broader governmental and military policies will view other groups: be they racial, gender, ethnic, or religious in nature? When we accept that it individuals can be treated unequally for one dimension of their being; is it not easier to treat another group in some other rationalized unequal manner?

In our society and system of government, we should be striving to have everyone held to the same high standard of freedom, liberty and responsibility. While it is not simple or easy to live and exist in a pluralistic society, and I struggle to be open-minded about many groups myself; I don’t see why I can’t find a way to accept lifestyles that I don’t personally identify with. Perhaps it has helped to have lived through some of the turbulent social changes that America has struggled through over my life. Is extending the inclusive principle of our Democratic way of life any more unreasonable for gays than it has been for race, gender, nationality, religion, or even members of Congress?

Civility and Parties: Opening Pandora’s Box

Pardon me if you anticipated some discourse on manners and social occasions, but the topic is slanted toward the political rather than the amiable gathering. We hear Democrats and Republicans alike collectively espousing the importance for everyone to behave in a respectful and civil manner. However their self-righteous lecturing sounds a dissonant cord, incongruent with their regular and bombastic diatribes against their opponents or individuals who hold an independent or divergent view. These Party pillars of political puffery preach that they do not advocate violent action against other because according to them, in America we do not advocate violence as a political means. They then proceed, almost without even a grammatical pause between their pronouncements of civility and respect, to rail against whomever dares to contest their positions or authority on what is right. I believe that the idiom which applies is: That once should practice what you preach.

If this behavior were simply just another characteristic demonstration of their skills, understanding and wisdom then we can hardly be amazed by our political leaders. As they do not exhibit any propensity for ability, comprehension or judgment in their legislative efforts; should we really expect that they would perform any better in their campaign ventures? With their persistent demonization of their immediate opponent, whether that is from within their own party or is on the other side, are these partisan individuals completely oblivious to the motivations and stimulus that they induce in supporters? Perhaps they don’t understand the power that words have to evoke and justify actions which they will later insist that they had neither the intention nor the expectation of propagating. Is this the caliber of intellect that the ‘best and brightest’ of our elected officials are capable of bringing to the table? Apparently so.

Regardless of their objectives in employing their invective oratory to garner the political support of voters and lobbying organizations, they are culpable for the harvest that comes from the seeds that they have sown. Who does not know that breeding hatred and prejudice will bear a bitter fruit? As we see the rancor and hostility that has become the norm between the Parties in Congress, between the Party loyalist in public events, and among position-aligned media entities offering biased and self-serving grist; there can be no doubt that the Parties are the manure that feeds the weeds of hatred and violence that comes from this ignorance.

When party-line adherents begin to take violent actions against individuals or groups that they have been convinced are the enemy or need to be punished for their transgressions, this creates the catalyst for reciprocation. Provoking the ‘eye for an eye’ reaction is too often an impulsive reaction that occurs from that primitive mentality that sees itself being attacked and that defending itself allows for and justifies actions that are contrary to and beneath our American creed. The consequences of politically advocating hate is never going to produce benefits for anyone in the society except the politicians who will gain position and power by feeding the rapacious fear that they engender. The founding Fathers intended that our democratic system would be driven by honorable people striving to serve the people and to deliver to the people peace, health, happiness, prosperity, and liberty. None of these American values are promoted by nor secured through the dispensation of hatred and division; and the politician who rely upon divisive language and behavior are remiss in their duty to America and lack the integrity consistent with American values.

The only recourse for the American public to avoid the dangers and disasters that will and has sprouted from this irresponsibility of the Parties, is to stand-up to the politicians and political groups that fixate on position but not issue, on self-righteousness but not justice, and on rights but not responsibilities. Your decision to participate, support and vote for any candidate must be because they offer solutions to real problems that they explain and discuss sufficiently to convince you that you understand the problem and that they understand the problem and that their remedy is appropriate, effective and rational. Yes, it will be difficult to find a politician that can or will do this; but you do have the one thing that will force them to change their behavior and to serve your interests and not theirs. You have the vote that they desire and require. Without your support they are impotent, unless you are inactive and passively let them proceed without any consequence from ignoring your interests.