Treacherous Politics

Treacherous Politics
This post was published on the now-closed HuffPost Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and posted freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email.

Anyone who has read Founding Brothers, or any other great read about the men who founded this country, can't help but be blown away by how different politics were back then. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, the Federalists and anti-Federalists, were locked in an epic ideological struggle, the result of which has shaped the entire development of this nation. At the end of the day, neither Adams nor Jefferson wanted to surrender the rights that the Americans had fought so bravely to secure. Jefferson believed that the largest threat to these freedoms was a strong national government, and Adams believed that both external and internal threats, combined with the weakness of the early nation, could inevitably lead to the fall of the United States, dissolving the American dream in cataclysm. Somewhere along the road, the debate became more defined as the tension between liberal interpretation (loose, spirit of the law, pragmatic) and the conservative interpretation (strict, cautionary, individualistic) of the Constitution of the United States. The Federalists believed that the best way to secure liberty was to ensure strength, security, and prosperity for the people of the United States. Problems and threats were to be treated pragmatically in order to form a more perfect union. The anti-Federalists feared the construction of a dragon that would devour itself, a strong centralized government that would replace the King with a bureaucracy and special interests. Trading big government for security and prosperity was not a risk the anti-Federalists were willing to take.

I could write about how neither the modern Democrats nor the modern Republicans fit the liberal nor conservative label. After all, it is the "Conservative" party that would like to define marriage, revise the 14th amendment, mandate English as the official language of the United States, and even change the way senators are elected. Perhaps the most glaring departure from strict interpretation would be the method that congress has used to wage war without a declaration of war by congress, and this is made even more striking when wars are waged preemptively. On the other hand, proponents of gay marriage are very happy that our founding fathers didn't define marriage in our founding documents.

Instead, I had a conversation during this past weekend with some friends that reminded me what this debate should be about. One friend, a social worker, was complaining about the conservatives who wanted to shut down unemployment benefits. She went on to complain about the callous nature in which people were angry about giving aid to Pakistan in order to help with disaster relief efforts. She spoke of the human toll of this disaster, and how the racist/Islamaphobic hearts of the world, and this country, were masking the humanity of the poor who were suffering. It was a heartfelt argument but, as her brother pointed out, one that had no bearing on the issue of whether or not our government should give out "state-mandated charity" without the consent or control of the individual tax payer. He talked about how he, an entrepreneur himself, wanted to give money to charity, but he still felt that the government should not be involved in mandating the giving of charity. The merits of objectivism were praised as he explained that the government's role should be limited to the maintenance of roads, fire and police services, basic law and order, and defense of our borders. Anything else is the slow encroachment of the government on the rights of individuals.

Who did this guy think he was messing with? I had a pretty well planned argument about how social services, welfare, unemployment benefits, and even foreign aid, were all important parts of a system that strengthens our economy and our national security. I had the stats and figures rolling in my head, especially about unemployment benefits, so that is where I started. I was interrupted shortly after explaining how unemployment benefits stimulate the economy, however, by an unexpected argument.

He agreed with me, and he didn't care. The government should not be in the business of mandating charity, regardless of its benefits. He was arguing from an ideological standpoint, one that refused to compromise ideology for pragmatism, and that was all there was to it. While his politics weren't Jefferson's, his principles were.

I suddenly realized that this entire conversation had exposed the fundamental flaws of both the Republicans and the Democrats. The Democrats argue too often from the heart, a strategy that is dependent on the emotional AND ideological point of view of the audience. The Republicans too often depart from their ideological standpoint, and too often lie about the objective outcomes of certain policies in order to win on both counts.

The Democrats have become afraid to challenge the structure of their own policies for fear that they will be repealed. Reforming the liberal agenda is an almost impossible task because the Republicans will use any sign of weakness or problem within a government program (Medicare/Medicaid, welfare, stimulus, ect.) as a reason to eliminate the program. On the other hand, and perhaps in attempts to avoid the "bleeding heart" label, Democrats have increasingly shied away from a liberal agenda despite the pragmatic gains such an agenda might derive. For instance, the elephant in the room during Wall Street reform, and healthcare reform, was corporate greed, one that was ignored by Democrats for fear of being called "socialists." The liberal voters, on the other hand, are so engrossed in the emotional reasons for their beliefs that they are incapable of even speaking or debating with the opposition. Therefore, Democratic politicians are increasingly spineless and Democratic voters are increasingly losing their cool with, and their ground to, their conservative counterparts. The result? Compromise without cooperation, as the Dems give away their progressive agenda in order to stem the loss of blood to the growing anger and discontent. Just like Al Gore ignored the Clinton legacy in order to avoid the wrath of the Christian Right, the left wing is avoiding their own agenda today in order to escape the (often misplaced) wrath of tea-party anger.

The Republicans, instead of maintaining the ideology of small government and individual rights, have bargained away personal freedom for national security, given away wealth for imperialistic goals, become radical in both their adherence to and opposition of certain aspects of the Constitution, and they have lied about the objective accomplishments of programs like social security, unemployment benefits, and the merits of their own tax cuts.

So the Democrats are weak, and the Republicans are lying and conniving snakes in the grass? There are reasons why I had a great respect for a 2000 John McCain and a 2007-2008 Barack Obama: pragmatism and honesty. While coming from different ideological camps, and having different ideas on when government was going too far, both McCain and Obama weren't afraid to break from the mold, or at least stress different reasons for believing what they believed.

Let's take Obama. In one of the opening chapters of his book, The Audacity of Hope, he spoke about the need to seek middle ground on perhaps the most divisive wedge issue, abortion, because both sides should recognize that abortion is not healthy for women and families. He wrote about the need to bridge gaps, and avoid widening them, by working practically to improve the situations of the women having abortions. In Illinois, Obama was often considered the consummate compromiser, and he has brought some of this into the White House. A prime example was the last minute executive order banning abortion funding from his health care bill (despite the fact that there was no funding for abortion in the bill anyway). How about the fact that the healthcare bill incorporates many ideas that Republicans have long espoused, the fact that the idea of mandates is one that Mitt Romney takes credit for, or the fact that single payer was never really on the table? These are all moves that trade idealogical gains for pragmatic gains: classic John Adams. There are plenty of other examples of Obama's pragmatic compromises, despite the outcry of the opposition and the accusations that Obama is a "socialist," or a Muslim, or whatever else they're calling him now.

However, Pragmatism can often overstep its bounds, and it is up to the strict Constitutionalists to ensure that the freedom on the American people is not impuned. So now let's look at John McCain. In 2000, McCain said that he was;

"...like "Luke Skywalker fighting the Death Star," he would not only defeat Bush but reform a party corrupted by 'big money' and, as he later put it, 'agents of intolerance.'

In other words, the Republican party, according to McCain, had become a place with a mixed agenda, infiltrated by greed and hate. So what did he do about it? On substance, John McCain used logic, a cool head, and a lot of economic theory to campaign against George Bush in 2000. I considered voting for him in the primaries (I regret voting in the Democratic primary instead, an option independent voters have in Massachusetts). While a conservative in values, he was more moderate, less ideologically inconsistent or reckless, and far smarter than George Bush. It didn't surprise me to learn that his people had been in discussions with John Kerry about running on the same ticket in 2004.

It should surprise the supporters of the 2000 McCain to find that his ideologies had changed, as had his tactics, by 2008. From mis-characterizations or misinformation to outright lies, McCain had entered the business of winning at all costs. We now have a Republican party that is synonymous with this kind of thinking, and John McCain was the most vocal critic of this approach only 10 years ago, or even more recently.

McCain and Palin ran a campaign that suggested Obama was "palling around" with terrorists, he might not have been born in this country, he might be a Muslim, he had to return large sums of money from Pakistani donors... McCain's campaign slogan became "Who is the real Barack Obama?" Very Jeffersonian stuff.

Things haven't changed. Now we have notorious liar, Sarah Palin. She is rapidly becoming the spokesperson for the resurgence of the right wing, and she continues to solidify her position as liar-in-chief of the United States of America.

So, if the Democrats are weak, and the Republicans really are committed to intolerance, misrepresentation of the truth, and demonizing of opposition, then who is having the serious discussions about the future and direction of this nation, and of the world? Who is making sure our government programs are working? Who is balancing pragmatic gains with the bigger picture, our freedom.

The American people deserve better than the current ilk of Democrats and Republicans, and they certainly deserve better than those new-fangled libertarians who are really a cross between anarchists and neo-conservatives. We deserve real media coverage of these issues, less distraction and more progress. That is something that ALL of our founding fathers would agree on.

Popular in the Community

Close

What's Hot