Political Parties that Serve Themselves More Than the People

The contention between our two major political parties is gnawing at the nation's nerves. Politics doesn't have to get ugly and political parties need not become enemies. Unfortunately, they usually do. That's one of life's mean little tricks. So, where is a Yellow Brick Road to follow?

The Founders intended that there be no political parties to create mischief and mayhem on the national scene. The electoral college was to save us from that. Selected individuals from each state searched the country for people they deemed to be presidential material. If their combined efforts produced a majority candidate, the search was over. If not, the Senate and House voted on the spot to fill the two executive slots from the list of nominees. That was it--no campaigning, vitriolic verbiage, roadside signs, or flagrant finances.
Though innovative and practical, it lasted but a political heartbeat on the national scene, thanks to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. These devoted patriots each feared a different Apocalypse on the distant scene. Adams wanted a strong federal government to restrain unruly states who could swallow the federal government. Jefferson wanted strong states so a voracious national government could not render states helpless. Either could have been right, but not both. History went with Jefferson. In the aftermath, the electoral college waned, political parties drew breath, and here we are.
President Washington warned us. This great man, who could have made himself king or stayed on as president forever, left office after two terms to set a pattern for those who followed. He steered the country through its tumultuous original era and knew, better than anyone alive, the potential for power grabs inherent in a constitutional republic. He cautioned, "Let me ... warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally. They serve to ... put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party (rather than) ... consistent and wholesome plans ...(for) mutual interests." This, then is the great folly of parties: they come to care more for their own power than for the wellbeing of the citizens.
What a travesty! Our Founders had given their lives, liberties and fortunes for American preeminence. When Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania inked the notes of the 1787 Constitutional Convention into a workable document, he penned these words, "We the People .. in order to form a more perfect Union ... insure domestic Tranquility ... (and) promote the general Welfare."
Look at our national political scene. Does anyone see domestic tranquility? How about general welfare, or a more perfect union? All three are Missing In Action in the current political wars. Parties fight each other and dissenters within their ranks. The war is about which party wins, not about giving the American people what they inherited, what they want, and what they repeatedly ask for. The whole political scene is a battleground.

The nation could take a page from the handbook of Utah's non-partisan local politics. Skip the Republican/Democrat thing; local politicians say there's a better way. Gary Garrett, of the Provo City Council, says the workability of the political atmosphere is enjoyable; that it fosters a greater spirit of cooperation to benefit the people of his city. Sharon Price Anderson, candidate for Orem City Council, believes divisions in local politics are more a matter of mindset than political persuasion. While most in Utah are Republicans by registration, there's diversity in the philosophy and practice of government. That variety gives choices. It's not Shangri-la, but politics works better at the local level.
We can see the problems at the national level and appreciate the pattern of more peaceful self-governance set locally. The quandary is this: how do we bridge the gap between local and national? It's not a waltz down the yellow brick road, but the pattern of local Utah politics is a start.

The Game of Modern Politics like the world of Animals?

 Get it Right: Of Donkeys and Elephants, Lemmings and Rabbits

Donkeys and elephants are out. It's time to award new symbols to our two political parties. The old ones -- the smart, brave Democrat donkey and the dignified strength of the Republican elephant seemed to no longer work.
Andrew Jackson was the first politician associated with the now famous Democrat donkey. His opponents called him a jackass and he made the best of it on his campaign posters in the 1828 election. Newspaper cartoonist Thomas Nast took up the symbol, and it stuck. Nast also branded the Republicans with the elephant in an 1874 cartoon.
Our modern political scene demands new symbols that more accurately represent today's predominant political parties: the lemming and the rabbit.
The Democrats deserve the lemming, that animal which blindly follows its fellows -- seeing nothing but the tail in front, scurrying in long lines to its ultimate destination: the edge of a cliff. Impervious to reason, logic, or intellect, it willingly plunges to its death, just because everybody else has. (Never mind that this depiction of lemming behavior is refuted by scientists--the metaphor stands.) Lemming mass suicide accurately portrays those who unquestioningly follow popular opinion, in spite of obviously outrageous outcomes.
Thus, the Democrats. Impervious to the reality of a nation in dire peril as it hangs on the edge of financial and legislative disaster, they scurry forward with economic policies to take this nation over the edge of the fiscal cliff. In a nation struggling with a hemorrhaging job market, they propose health care that will bankrupt small business owners, gut jobs, and perform radical surgery on working hours. In a nation already suffocating from bureaucratic overload, they will heave 25,000 pages of new rules, with their enforcers, on society's stockpile. In a nation whose government should be wed to its founding document, they blithely flout the rule of law. They ignore laws they dislike, write self-serving new ones to replace them, and disregard the blood and tears "We, the People" paid when we signed our constitutional contract over two centuries ago.
That brings us to the rabbits -- Republican rabbits. It has a nice ring to it, don't you think? The symbol of timidity, rabbits are known to cower in fear when menaced. They live in groups and are fragile, hesitant creatures that startle easily. Docile by nature, when threatened they may make noise, lunge and occasionally even bite, but they do no harm. Rabbit lore is pitifully lacking in stories of dominant rabbits who stand up to their opponents.
Republicans have earned the rabbit as their identifying symbol. Their political role is to offer an alternative to bureaucratic overload, crippling taxation, and socialist agendas. Timid and inadequate, they cower before Democratic offensives, protesting impotently that the job is too hard -- it can't be done. They whimper ineffectually over the political advantage seized by their opponents, who bypass constitutional law in order to rewrite the country's national character. Courage and constitutional fortitude have been bred out of them as they crave the opiate called "I need to be re-elected." The art of compromise too often becomes the art of capitulation.
So, if the donkeys have become lemmings and the elephants have become rabbits, what have "We, the People" become? In times past we have soared like the eagles, with prosperity and freedom on our wings. Today we are the lambs, being led to the slaughter.

The Value of Opposition- Can we Just Cooperate?

The Value of Opposition

 Conservative, Liberal or What?

Conservatives bash liberals and liberals rant against conservatives. The diatribes continue unabated in the media and often become decidedly uncivil. Occasionally temporary exhaustion sets in and the rancor cools, but inevitably it surges again, fueled by a new topic. While I plead for civil conversation, the need for dialogue is very important.

It is easy to forget that we often gain the most from those who disagree with us. Those who challenge our way of thinking open our minds and create open dialogue. Without opposing views, civic conversation can easily become bland, boring reiteration. Those who disagree with us render us great service.

The willingness to evaluate, consider, and tolerate opposing points of view is a sign of maturity. There is a critical purpose to differing opinions—they give us choices, without which we grow narrow. They make us think, and provide a springboard against which we can strengthen our own ideas and convictions. It is an act of courage to put yourself “out there” with an opposing point of view and then take the heat for your opinions. 

In order for opinions to make a significant difference, others must hear them. Writers write so that readers may read, and speakers speak so that listeners may listen. They need not, however, agree with each other. The exchange of ideas takes place to consider new information. We sift, sort, evaluate, and keep what’s useful to us. Contrasting opinions, like exercise, strengthen our mental, moral and psychological muscles as we push against them.

Some fear contrasting voices. Unless the ideas presented by those voices are debauched, that is unwise. Provincial and immature though it is, we often want everyone to agree with us because we think we are right. In the end, however, contrast heightens the look and feel of ideas and brings them into focus. The strong are made stronger by contrast. Conservatives, for instance, can become more secure in their conservatism when they nibble at the liberal banquet fest.

For many conservatives, it is unlikely our well-tested, tightly screened ideas will change. They are part and parcel of our life experiences, woven into our core. There is, then, a real danger of sinking into the boredom of sameness and apathy. We need people with opposite views to give variety and expansion to our horizons. Not all of us take the same journey and watch the same scenery, therefore we end up at different destinations. Who can begrudge that—the world is full of destinations. We need not, do not want to be, and must not be all the same. We can benefit greatly from asking ourselves, “What is it about this opposisng opinion that unsettles me, and how can I justify my disagreement?” That exercise is invaluable.

Ronald Reagan once said, ”This is a wonderful time to be alive. We’re lucky not to live in pale and timid times. We’ve been blessed with the opportunity to stand for something.” Those who challenge our conservative opinions help us determine what we believe and why. There is a place in our lives for gratitude to those who disagree with us. Without them, we would be less than we are.