Living in the San Francisco Bay Area, I get a lot of exposure to Leftist politicos, radicals, anarchists, and wing-nuts. I walk relatively freely between mainstream culture and the very margins of society. What I have noticed is that those on the fringe of society are there for a reason - they either think far ahead for their time, or they are complete crack-pots. (I can only hope that I am not one of the crack-pots!)
One of the primary differences between liberals and conservatives is the relative importance put on tradition versus progress. Conservatives tend to want society to run along traditional norms, while liberals want to break down many of these norms. Both sides believe that their way is the best way to achieve happiness and prosperity for all.
Personally, I believe in throwing out what doesn't work as soon as it stops working. Otherwise, it would be like keeping a VCR on top of your TV despite the fact that it hasn't been functional for 10 or 15 years. Why not throw it out and get a Hi-Def or Blue-Ray DVD player instead?
At the same time, I have to acknowledge that tradition has its place, too. It keeps you connected to your roots, and how can you know where you're going if you don't know where you've been? What's more, tradition has a stabilizing influence on society. When so many hippies of the 1960's left "the grid" to live communally on collectively-owned land, what would have happened if the entire country had joined them in their experimental living? It would have been an unmitigated disaster! Most of those communes failed within a few years, mostly because living communally is a lot more work and a lot less satisfying than its participants would have supposed. If the rest of the world had not hummed along without them, continuing to live their "boxy corporate lives," there wouldn't have been a society for these hippies to come back to.
In addition, although there are many hyper-intelligent visionaries on the liberal side of politics, there are also a lot of barely functional psyche-ward cases. For example, Ted Kaczynski. Conservative resistance to change might cause unending frustration for the visionaries, but it also protects us from the potentially destabilizing influence of the wing-nuts.
In the end, the tension between progressive vs. conservative principles is not inherently good or bad. Depending on the players involved and the political climate of the day, on the negative side it can result in either gridlock or wild swings between vastly different political policies; but on the positive side it can give us progress at a pace that matches both what society needs and can easily digest.
To get less of the negative and more of the positive, all sides need to respect each other. We need to work honestly towards the betterment of society, and assume that our political complements are doing the same. Only then will we be able to forge compromises that both move society forward, and keep us grounded in the best of our traditions.
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Monday, February 16, 2009
The Trap of Bipartisanship
I am a big fan of cooperative governing. I believe it is the people's right to have a government that actually governs - After all, it is our taxes that pay their salaries.
But unless you live in a dictatorship, leaders don't lead alone. Even authoritarian governments like China's need coalitions to run things effectively. In our two-party system, it is rare for one party to have enough members to rule without challenge, and when it does happen and the party in power is the Democrats, getting a coalition together can still be like trying to herd cats.
Therefore, bipartisanship is absolutely necessary to get things done in this country. The people know that, which is why they elected the most credible bipartisan candidate they could find. The Clinton name is popular among Democrats, but our memories of the Clinton years of partisan bickering are still too fresh to think of Hillary as viably bipartisan. John McCain has a history of working with Democrats even when it annoys others in the GOP, but over the last 8 years he aligned himself with the once-popular Bush and his hard-line tactics, and as a presidential candidate he spiraled down into the most despicable of race-baiting and partisan rhetoric, so he lost the moral authority to claim bipartisanship.
Barak Obama, as a fresh face with a clear vision of an America that is not divided by its "Red" or "Blue" ideology, convinced the American people that he could do bipartisanship (or as he calls it, "post-partisanship") better than anyone else, and now he is in the White House.
There is only one problem: In order for bipartisanship to work, both parties have to want to do it. What's more, if the rubric you've given the country to judge your success is based on how effectively bipartisan you are, then all your opponents have to do to create your failure is what they want to do anyway: oppose you at every turn.
This is, as we've seen, exactly what the Republican strategy is - Set up Obama and Congressional Democrats for failure, and wait to reap the rewards in two to four years.
Fortunately, America seems wise to the ruse. The people recognize that you can't find compromise with those who only want to be in control and have no desire to co-govern from the junior position. According to recent polls, most Americans give Obama high marks for reaching out to Republicans, and they give equally low marks to Republicans on the same topic.
Of equal good fortune is that Obama is on top of this. As he said recently, "I'm an optimist, not a sap." This is the mistake that mean-spirited people make all the time, confusing a bright outlook on life with gullibility and a "kick me" sign on your back.
Only time will tell if Obama is an effective bipartisan player, but if this opening act is any indication, in two years' time the American people will lay any failure of bipartisanship at the feet of those who refused to play along. As such, with any luck by 2010 we will either have a truly bipartisan government, or the obstructionists will lose even their last toe-hold on national power.
But unless you live in a dictatorship, leaders don't lead alone. Even authoritarian governments like China's need coalitions to run things effectively. In our two-party system, it is rare for one party to have enough members to rule without challenge, and when it does happen and the party in power is the Democrats, getting a coalition together can still be like trying to herd cats.
Therefore, bipartisanship is absolutely necessary to get things done in this country. The people know that, which is why they elected the most credible bipartisan candidate they could find. The Clinton name is popular among Democrats, but our memories of the Clinton years of partisan bickering are still too fresh to think of Hillary as viably bipartisan. John McCain has a history of working with Democrats even when it annoys others in the GOP, but over the last 8 years he aligned himself with the once-popular Bush and his hard-line tactics, and as a presidential candidate he spiraled down into the most despicable of race-baiting and partisan rhetoric, so he lost the moral authority to claim bipartisanship.
Barak Obama, as a fresh face with a clear vision of an America that is not divided by its "Red" or "Blue" ideology, convinced the American people that he could do bipartisanship (or as he calls it, "post-partisanship") better than anyone else, and now he is in the White House.
There is only one problem: In order for bipartisanship to work, both parties have to want to do it. What's more, if the rubric you've given the country to judge your success is based on how effectively bipartisan you are, then all your opponents have to do to create your failure is what they want to do anyway: oppose you at every turn.
This is, as we've seen, exactly what the Republican strategy is - Set up Obama and Congressional Democrats for failure, and wait to reap the rewards in two to four years.
Fortunately, America seems wise to the ruse. The people recognize that you can't find compromise with those who only want to be in control and have no desire to co-govern from the junior position. According to recent polls, most Americans give Obama high marks for reaching out to Republicans, and they give equally low marks to Republicans on the same topic.
Of equal good fortune is that Obama is on top of this. As he said recently, "I'm an optimist, not a sap." This is the mistake that mean-spirited people make all the time, confusing a bright outlook on life with gullibility and a "kick me" sign on your back.
Only time will tell if Obama is an effective bipartisan player, but if this opening act is any indication, in two years' time the American people will lay any failure of bipartisanship at the feet of those who refused to play along. As such, with any luck by 2010 we will either have a truly bipartisan government, or the obstructionists will lose even their last toe-hold on national power.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Politics and the Evolution of Consciousness
My politics are neither Left nor Right. I was born in 1975, so the incessant clanging of the culture wars had faded to a lingering echo by the time I even knew we had a president. Growing up, I found history to be more informative than the contemporary politics of Washington.
While I believe that democracy is the cutting-edge of political systems, I do not believe that it is the final evolution of human self-governance. Our system is deeply flawed, as evidenced by ecological degradation, unconscionable disparities between rich and poor, the wars we wage, and the concurrent rise of both health care costs and illness. Despite having a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, enormous amounts of political and financial power are still held in the hands of a super-elite minority. Democracy is better than its predecessors, but it is not the end of the road. Not by far.
However, I do not advocate the overthrow of this young democratic movement. The fatal flaw to this system can not be found in its structure, but in its components: human beings. We are the fatal flaw in every political system. If not for human greed and arrogance, monarchies would be a perfectly viable system of government. Monarchs are supposed to protect and serve the people and are given the power they need to do so. This isn't a problem until the power they are given is used inappropriately.
Our system of governance does the same thing that monarchies did - it puts power over vast populations into the hands of a few, so that they might govern us effectively. By converting to a democracy, we made those who govern accountable to the people, rather than constantly conveying the power of one despot to his despotic children, regardless of the wisdom or altruism those children may or may not have.
Unfortunately, while this built-in accountability has diffused some of the worst excesses in government, we clearly still have a top-heavy power structure that exploits the masses. This isn't because the structure is inherently prone to abuse of power, but because the human spirit has not evolved beyond the need to abuse power. How else can we explain the corruption that we see in our elected officials - the people we ourselves chose to be in positions of power!
When George W. Bush was campaigning in 2000, he promised to be a "uniter, not a divider" and to bring a new brand of "compassionate conservatism" to Washington. I never believed him. My own politics aside, I could see that he was a man of politics, power, and ego; it seemed obvious to me (and to anyone who cared to pay attention) that he was completely incurious when it came to good governance, and wanted only to be powerful, to be liked, and to implement his ideology. Yet not only did he get his party's nomination, but over 50 million people voted for him. Four years later, when Bush's popularity was below 50% and John Kerry's best campaign message was "At least I'm not Bush!", President Bush actually won and got more than 62 million votes. He has now left office as perhaps the most hated president since Herbert Hoover.
Out of those 62 million people who voted for Bush after he had four years to show us his mettle, how many do you think blame themselves for the state that this country is in? With a voter turn out of 60.7% in 2004, how many of the 39.3% of eligible voters who didn't vote do you think take responsibility for not using their power to hold him accountable? We have the leaders that we have for a reason, and it comes down to what we value - not what we say we value, but what we actually value.
Things are changing, though. We've just elected our first Black president, one who managed to fend off scurrilous attacks on his character due in no small part to the people being unwilling to be manipulated once again. Willie Horton ads are - hopefully - permanently a thing of the past. Obama's victory, as he reminded us on election night, is not his victory but ours. We overcame our past prejudices, we let go of our need for infantile leaders, we chose not to give into our fears - in other words, collectively we evolved in spirit.
Our continued evolution will be measured in terms of our compassion for others, our increasing inclusiveness, and our ability to choose what is right over what we want or what we fear. As our leaders continue to reflect that evolution back to us, we should be mindful of what we see. When our leaders are blustering, ego-driven, and full of vitriol, we know that we have failed ourselves. When they cooperate with others, act selflessly, show humility, and find common-ground solutions to our nation's problems, we know that the human spirit has evolved into something that we can be proud of.
While I believe that democracy is the cutting-edge of political systems, I do not believe that it is the final evolution of human self-governance. Our system is deeply flawed, as evidenced by ecological degradation, unconscionable disparities between rich and poor, the wars we wage, and the concurrent rise of both health care costs and illness. Despite having a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, enormous amounts of political and financial power are still held in the hands of a super-elite minority. Democracy is better than its predecessors, but it is not the end of the road. Not by far.
However, I do not advocate the overthrow of this young democratic movement. The fatal flaw to this system can not be found in its structure, but in its components: human beings. We are the fatal flaw in every political system. If not for human greed and arrogance, monarchies would be a perfectly viable system of government. Monarchs are supposed to protect and serve the people and are given the power they need to do so. This isn't a problem until the power they are given is used inappropriately.
Our system of governance does the same thing that monarchies did - it puts power over vast populations into the hands of a few, so that they might govern us effectively. By converting to a democracy, we made those who govern accountable to the people, rather than constantly conveying the power of one despot to his despotic children, regardless of the wisdom or altruism those children may or may not have.
Unfortunately, while this built-in accountability has diffused some of the worst excesses in government, we clearly still have a top-heavy power structure that exploits the masses. This isn't because the structure is inherently prone to abuse of power, but because the human spirit has not evolved beyond the need to abuse power. How else can we explain the corruption that we see in our elected officials - the people we ourselves chose to be in positions of power!
When George W. Bush was campaigning in 2000, he promised to be a "uniter, not a divider" and to bring a new brand of "compassionate conservatism" to Washington. I never believed him. My own politics aside, I could see that he was a man of politics, power, and ego; it seemed obvious to me (and to anyone who cared to pay attention) that he was completely incurious when it came to good governance, and wanted only to be powerful, to be liked, and to implement his ideology. Yet not only did he get his party's nomination, but over 50 million people voted for him. Four years later, when Bush's popularity was below 50% and John Kerry's best campaign message was "At least I'm not Bush!", President Bush actually won and got more than 62 million votes. He has now left office as perhaps the most hated president since Herbert Hoover.
Out of those 62 million people who voted for Bush after he had four years to show us his mettle, how many do you think blame themselves for the state that this country is in? With a voter turn out of 60.7% in 2004, how many of the 39.3% of eligible voters who didn't vote do you think take responsibility for not using their power to hold him accountable? We have the leaders that we have for a reason, and it comes down to what we value - not what we say we value, but what we actually value.
Things are changing, though. We've just elected our first Black president, one who managed to fend off scurrilous attacks on his character due in no small part to the people being unwilling to be manipulated once again. Willie Horton ads are - hopefully - permanently a thing of the past. Obama's victory, as he reminded us on election night, is not his victory but ours. We overcame our past prejudices, we let go of our need for infantile leaders, we chose not to give into our fears - in other words, collectively we evolved in spirit.
Our continued evolution will be measured in terms of our compassion for others, our increasing inclusiveness, and our ability to choose what is right over what we want or what we fear. As our leaders continue to reflect that evolution back to us, we should be mindful of what we see. When our leaders are blustering, ego-driven, and full of vitriol, we know that we have failed ourselves. When they cooperate with others, act selflessly, show humility, and find common-ground solutions to our nation's problems, we know that the human spirit has evolved into something that we can be proud of.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)