As many know, I grew up in a household full of debate. Debate is a fine artform today, but there was a time where it was the general rule. Families sat around dinner tables and discussed things. There wasn't a barrage of television shows and movies on cable, satellite and the internet to numb our minds and abilities on 24/7. We didn't have recorders to catch even the most mundane favorites to watch later minus the commercials. No, there in fact was a time that people had dinner talking about day's events, then sat and listened to the radio, read and had further discussion on various topics. I'll dare say it was probably a far more interesting time. Debate was the norm in these more leisurely times for the more congenial and certainly for the more gentile sort of folks. It was a time where opinion had to be formulated with facts and sufficing to say that it was the way it was...well, that was what the children were told. We didn't really grow up in those times, and much of the Silent Generation is gone. So there aren't a lot of people wandering this planet that even vaguely recollect those days. They are the same days of course that some people were pentance, worked 16 to 18 hours a day, to go to a bar and carouse the tiredness with various vices. Even those would debate over the topics of their time. One of the most famous of a simple disagreement and debate over the Civil War erupted in the most ugly and famous family feud in American history--the Hatfields and McCoys. So, it is not without sadness that I must admit that most Americans believe what has become our political system has healthy debate. The majority take in only what they like and refuse to even bother to read what they have simply assumed is not what they want or agree with. I am amazed and dumbfounded. Have we really come from a place where healthy society debated to where the only outcome leads to unfounded opinions, to then insults if you don't share someone's opinions, to sheer ignorance, rants, and possibly feuds so unredeeming as the losses experienced by the Hatfields and McCoys on a much more larger scale?
I have so many friends that choose a side of the fence simply because that is the side of the fence that they think, not know, will benefit them most. Some conservative friends accuse me of being a liberal with far left convictions. Yes, I believe we must do more for the environment. Yes, I believe in equal rights for all. Yes, I believe in women's rights. Honestly, those first two are not "just" Democratic Party beliefs. Ducks Unlimited is pro-environment, and I know plenty of conservatives that join so I'm pretty sure it doesn't make me a liberal. All those government regulations about not polluting the water and regulations aren't necessary? Well, the regulations protect us from gross water and 3-eyed fish. Lake Erie and the Maumee River were digusting growing up. I mean I didn't realize it until I was in my teens, but seriously. In my teens they were still disgusting. The government was desperately trying to clean up decades, probably more like over a century, of industrial dumping into the water flow. I don't want my children and grandchildren to see that. Hell, it's only been in the last 10 years or so that most of Lake Erie is starting to actually look blue again. Equal rights for all? This is a fundamental American belief, guaranteed in the Constitution and subsequent Amendments. I find it hard to believe anyone, conservative, liberal, far left, far right, should ever accuse another American that they don't believe in equal rights for all simply because of their political, religious or other views. The fact that I don't believe that anyone should be judged on race, education, religion, etc. doesn't make me liberal. I believe it makes me American. Women's Rights? I think it's hard for most to understand what it's like unless they've walked in another's shoes to know what "women's rights" are. But you'll never convince me that most conservative women don't know what it is and that only liberal women do. They often have different opinions of how to reach those goals...much like Susan B. Anthony didn't agree with the militant approach in her day and time. But, please spare me that Bill Clinton knows anything about "women's rights". A philanderer, a drunk, well educated and redneck at the same time simply knows nothing about "women's rights" other than I'm pretty sure he is ok with legal prostitution since he frequented some in China (or at least the Chinese goverment saw fit to bring some to Air Force One). And, certainly, no man that actually "respects" women would embarass so many: Hillary, Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, and of course the intern, Monica Lewinsky. (Gotta hand it to the Kennedys. At least they kept their dirty laundry out of the spotlight--well, excepting Marilyn and that nasty Chappawhatta thing). Obviously, I would have a much higher opinion of Billy Boy if I were actually a liberal.
Likewise, I have liberal friends that will accuse me of being ultra conservative, because I believe in fiscal responsibility, free commerce, gun rights, and of course because I served in the military, I support a strong foreign policy that protects our military, our allies and our citizens. Believing in fiscal responsibility and not "spreading the wealth" to those that refuse to help themselves makes me a bad person in their eyes. But they don't want to give their money. Who's money do you want to give? I worked for mine and you want me to give it to someone who didn't, isn't and won't? I find this disheartening. Why work then? I mean honestly, (we're going to go into politics a little now), Governor Romney is the "founding father" of healthcare reform. Yes, yes, he actually is. Massachusetts through Romney's leadership was the first state to institute healthcare reform. In fact, Obamacare stole some ideas from it--which is why Romney says he would keep those parts. But I'm not a b*tch, ignorant or illogical when I say take up a little of your time and read his plan which is in fact what Massachusetts invoked. Not some more of the tax and spend sh*t that I can't afford anymore. Obama was advised by his own cabinet and his VP that pushing through his healthcare at this critical time in the economy might kill the ability of the middle class to sustain themselves and force us into a depression. His own advisors. (Can you say a tad narcissistic? For another blog though.) Free commerce, well, honestly, the liberals definately don't always agree with me on this, and a lot of times neither do the conservatives. Those of us that went to college generally have taken courses in macro and micro economics. When we view all of the current financial systems from the academic point of view, then free commerce is truly the only way to go. Unfortunately, it's the real world and nothing is the ideal academic view. However, when tested over the last few centuries, the closer to free commerce we have been (human beings in general), the better our societies have thrived. The Roman Empire was built on conquering, yes, but it thrived because it opened up the flood gates of free commerce not only around Europe, but Asia and Africa as well. The Roman Empire learned defeat because of the shutting down of the free commerce, the greed of Rome and its several emperors (all commerce was funneled through Rome), and of course, an abundance of bickering over petty laws and taxation. (Sounding familiar, j*ck*sses in Washington?) Gun rights are a fundamental fabric of American society. Yet, most don't even know why. They argue against a right that they don't even understand why we have it. Gun rights aren't because we wanted some wild west to play out (the far liberal point of view) or even that we wanted to be able to rise up against the government if needed (the far conservative point of view). No. Neither side has any idea what the hell they're talking about. It's simple. A little history lesson, one that most kids forget the summer after 5th grade; one that even most US History 101 classes skip in major universities (or maybe we're all drunk and some professors actually do cover it). It's part of the American psyche. The founding fathers gave us the right to bear arms so that no one, government or otherwise, could take our property from us. No one has the right in the United States of America to come into your home, rented, owned or mortgaged out the *ss, and take anything from you--least of all, the government or its representatives. We've added just cause issues--like if you stole it from someone else. But that's just it, the right to bear arms is one of those rights that defines us from all other nations on this planet. We don't believe that anyone should infringe on you or your belongings. It's what actually caused the most outrage in World War 2 and the only reason that we entered the war. Japan, another country, came into our home--even if it was some island in the Pacific--and killed our own, destroyed our own, and if they would do that, how much further would they come? We entered the war because we don't take kindly to anyone infringing on our freedoms, our homes, our families, our country. As for foriegn policy, well, frankly, I've observed first hand that no one respects you if you don't respect yourself. The fact is that when you look at our country we have been a bit of the strong arm of the world. We saved Europe in WW1. We saved them again in WW2. It was the right thing to do. But like now, the general populace didn't want to enter the war, didn't want to stay in the war, and generally was happy when it was over. The difference is that over years history is written by the winners. That's a fact. Regardless of what really happened. Do you think that Hitler would have taught British school children that Winston Churchill was a great Prime Minister if England had fallen? Most certainly not. Do you think that if Eisenhower had not insisted that the concentration camps be completely documented, do you honestly think that the world would ever have understood the horror? We wrote the history books. History is simply the final version of a foriegn policy. Consider this: Are you proud of our President for apologizing for what Libya and our allies have called a terrorist attack planned months in advance? Are you proud that is the first thing that he did after he took office? "Experience proves that the man who obstructs a war in which his nation is engaged, no matter whether right or wrong, occupied no enviable place in life or history." Those words have bore out in every instance of war. No coward has ever succeeded in protecting anything. Great leaders don't want war, but they don't show fear or weakness. It lessens the ability of those that follow them to continue with the fight, to succeed. Apologizing for stupid civilians that had nothing to do with our government, not only basically admits fault, but weakens those who must continue to fight. It's scary that our current foriegn policy doesn't understand that. We've lost Seal Team 6 members and now an Ambassador because of weakness. The sharks are swimming in the water and the President simply gave them more chum.
I have history. I have facts. Yes, I'll agree to disagree, and I'll even change my mind. If you can present facts, an opinion--well thought out and based on facts, that have some substance behind them. But I am tired of the facts being "well he's smart"--lots of people are smart. Doesn't mean they have any common sense. "Well he's done something no one else has." Well, yes, as far as I can tell, he's the first African American decent President, beyond that he's pretty much like any politician. "I adore him." (Sorry, I have to use it.) Really? I love Johnny Depp, but I'm not sure a free spirit like him would be a good President. "He's charismatic." Yes, so was Hitler as was my favorite President--President Reagan. That seems kind of like a flip of the coin to me. General Grant gave a great analogy of two other Generals. One was very charismatic and the other not so much. But they were both great leaders. Charisma is not the reason to choose a leader unless you seriously have nothing else to go on.
The choices we make should be based on not just what we understand in our own lives. Our individual lives are much smaller than that. When we make a decision to do something, like vote for a certain person for President, it's not what we hear from the people that we like and agree with us that help us make an informed decision. It's the people that disagree, that present a case, and the ability to hear what they are saying to make a decision not based on sheer emotion, but on what the possibilities are. The individual is important, but it is the whole that will ultimately have to live with each individual's decisions.
No comments:
Post a Comment