Bored, Yet Political Debate Is Important

Yeah, I’m bored with the election rhetoric along with most folk. I’m even bored with my own writing where I go over similar stuff all too often. But, it seems necessary to continue the dialogue and so I’ll slog along. I am also amazed at the seeming lack of political memory that appears to exist in this country.

Political debate today, and perhaps in most eras seems more like folk choosing athletic teams to cheer or boo. Athletics are exciting to many, illicit great emotion and excitement and passion, but in the end it’s just not that important. Folk won’t being going hungry, criminals won’t be reformed, and economic imbalance will not be affected because we Cheeseheads won’t be going to the Superbowl. Fun and makes a ridiculous amount of money for a few, but it’s not a big deal in the long run. Our political structure and its implications are a big deal and should be treated with seriousness and open debate based upon fact, ideals, and reasonable passion.

I also think that in politics we typically make mountains out of molehills. There are differences between the political parties, and there are differences between liberal and conservative points of views; important differences; but there is more similarity that dissimilarity.

In a previous article I spoke about the basic beliefs of liberals and conservatives. I think for the most part, reasonable folk agree in the importance of those beliefs in both parties. Conservatives are known to treasure tradition and to be cautious and support family values. I’m a liberal and I treasure tradition. I love reading history and think it is essential to the republic to keep us from repeating past mistakes. I have also always been a fiscal conservative, perhaps too much so, I don’t like risk, but applaud entrepreneurs, risk takers that do make better mousetraps; we need them. And as for family values, who on earth is against family ties, except for those who come from seriously dysfunctional families? It is a human value of the greatest importance.

I am also convinced that my conservative friends belief in traditional liberal values: “ board minded and tolerant of different views and behaviors of others,” As I quoted before. Progressive people want life to improve with each generation.

It is the degree of these things which we disagree that the heart of disagreements, I believe. For instance, “big government” is one of those words that triggers the emotion of conservatives. But do they really think liberals wants big government just for the sake of big government. Some say they want no government, but that just makes them out of touch with reality and would push us back into the caves and make civilization crumble. Civilized societies are those that take care of community members, take care for their brothers and sisters, that go beyond the survival of the fittest. The question really is what is the least amount of government necessary to protect the overall needs of society. For example, President Eisenhower, a Republican conservative, saw the need for interstate travel and how it would benefit the entire nation. He saw it as a beginning step in building a strong infrastructure to would benefit the whole. Unfortunately, we have lost his vision and our infrastructure is crumbling. Now, would be a good time to invest in it, to create jobs, lower unemployment and stimulate the economy and it would mean creating more debt as FDR did with the New Deal (which worked by the way.) But false ideology gets in the way of that thinking. And so the rhetoric begins about national debt and the burden we put on future generations; an argument I have heard my entire life. Conservatives conveniently forget that it was the Reagan and Bush administrations that created the largest debt ever. Clinton is the only recent president that had a balanced budget but Newt Gingrich wants to take credit for that. But it took a president and a congress that worked together to make it happen.

It is that ability to work with each other today, to compromise in order to work for the common good that we lack today in political debate. As I have said before, there seems to be for the first time no common ground between the most conservative of the liberals and the most progressive of the conservatives; and the nations suffers. It is why we have deadlock and do nothing congresses.

We also live in a world of instant gratification. President Obama is condemned for increasing national debt, bailing out big corporations and Wall Street, and not getting the economy back on its feet during his time in office. But the problems took a long time evolving and will take a long time to rectify. We easily forget he inherited most of these problems and their solutions.

Here I will take a position. For 35 years we have used supply side economics that Reagan introduced. That if the rich are turned loose with very few regulations the economy will grow and the money will “trickle down” to everyone and the country will grow. But that didn’t work and now we have the greatest disparity of income distribution in this country since 1929 and great depression. Demand side economics, Keynesian economics has a proven track record that we need to which we need to return.

We also need to remember our history, particularly the 1800’s when the economy was basically unregulated and we had frequent wild fluctuations in the economy. The government stepped in at that point to put in needed regulations to lessen these fluctuations and for the most part they worked. That is Keynesian economics. It was an economic system that both conservatives and liberals could support and use for the good of the country. It was also a time when the parties could work together, to be the public servants they were elected to be.

The time I am talking about is also when I believe we had good leadership in the country, statesmen versus “politicians” (politicians here defined as those who just examine political polls to find where the political winds are blowing so they can get elected.) Statesmen were persons of character whose beliefs they declared openly and honestly and let the electorate make up their mind as who they wanted to lead them at that time. Leaders are people of vision, and they are people who were to develop leadership in others. In my days as a pastor I called the local government body of my church, the session, the dreamers for the church, and committees were to be the dream capturers turning the visions into realities as faithful disciples of Christ and as servants to the world. In the secular world, the first election I recall vividly was between Dwight Eisenhower and Adlai Stevenson. Both were good men and would be what I would call statesmen. I have written about voting for Barry Goldwater because I was enthralled by his clear vision and honest. And the president that caught my imagination the most was John Kennedy, who gave vision to a country as well as anyone in the 20^th century.  

With the huge amounts of money being raised by candidates and PAC groups and their values of expediency I have talked about, I see as a real danger to our country. Fear mongering has replaced reasonable debate and clear political positions. It is hard for voters to make up their minds with conflicting statements candidates make catered to a particular event, and we grow bored and angered by the process. Given my druthers I would limit all campaigning to a dollar or two designated for such on your tax return.

I realize this is a bit lengthy, but politics is important and sound bites inform us little. If I have helped the debate, good. If it just is more stuff to you, I apologize.

I know folk will disagree with information I put forth, but I try to be a factual and honest as I can. And I hope they will see keep all I say in the context in which it is written