The Big Election is tomorrow, & I'm dreading the aftermath---regarding whoever gets elected, how people from the losing side will react, & the direction this country is going.
Talking politics is like talking religion: In both subjects, people are very set in their views, & they are not interested in changing them... They hear something they don't agree with, & they shut their eyes & cover their ears, & say "Nope, that's not something I believe, I'm not gonna listen to it"... They turn it into a black & white "us vs. them" situation... They interpret anything someone from "the other side" says in the worst way possible... They villify "the other side", & always presume ill intent... Politics & religion---our civil liberties & the proper role of government, and moral right & wrong and the fate of our eternal souls---are probably the 2 most important subjects that people could discuss, yet they're the 2 subjects that people tend to make themselves the least capable of discussing civilly & intelligently.
Here are my thoughts on this Election Season & tomorrow's Election:
1- Villification of the Opposition
2- The Role of Government
3- The Outcome
2- The Role of Government
3- The Outcome
1- Villification of the Opposition:
More than I've ever seen before, people outright villify "the other side". But I'm not talking about the candidates doing the villifying---they've always done that. More than I've ever seen before, so many average citizens talk about how the "other" candidate is a flagrant liar & a horrible person. Some think both are. I've seen most of the "evidence" for both, & most of it can largely be dismissed as presuming ill intent, taking things out of context, or things just not going how the candidate intended. I think both candidates are quite wrong about a lot of things, but I haven't seen any concrete, would-hold-up-in-a-court-of-law evidence that they're flagrant liars.
It's naive to think there isn't corruption in politics, but the thing is, there are plenty of politicians who aren't liars---they've simply built themselves on flawed principles. And to reconcile themselves with the problems that these faulty foundations create, they've developed a warped view of things. They've adopted beliefs like "the ends justify the means", or that certain things apply in one circumstance & not another (when from a more objective point of view they apply to both), or that it's okay for the "good guys" to have unchecked power, or that it's okay to force the "right" decision on other people, or lots of other things. Opponents see the problems in a politician's views, & interpret ill intent & deception, when far too often, the politician is simply wrong.
And this becomes a huge problem when you attempt to discuss politics with others. If you say "The politician you support is a liar", you're implying that the politician they support is a horrible person. And by extension, you're implying that anyone who supports that politican is a liar & a horrible person, or at the very least "ignorant" & "foolish". When you start sending out insultive messages like that, people close their minds, become combatative, & for both people it simply becomes a battle to "defeat" the other person, rather than about coming to a better understanding of the truth. Which approach would make someone more willing to engage in intelligent, civil, open-minded discussion: "The politician you support is a liar", or "I think that the politician you support is wrong"?
And the thing is, what trait is shared by both liars, & those who are simply wrong? They're both wrong. And it's all-around much easier to convince someone that a politican is wrong than it is to convince someone that a politician is a liar. Even if the politician is a liar, it's often very difficult to truly prove, & a combative, offensive approach only hardens feelings & deepens narrow-mindedness---on both sides. Combativeness begets combativeness, & civility begets civility. That's the only way we can get anywhere.
2- The Role of Government:
So many people, on both sides of the political divide, seem to think that the government's job is to force an "ideal" situation on everyone. But that is the exact opposite of what government in a free society is meant to do. And both sides have it wrong in different ways.
To the Political Left, I say this: It's not the government's job to do everything for us. It's not the government's job to give everything to us. It's not the government's job to provide all of us with money, food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, & employment. The government's job is to ensure that every one of us has the safety & freedom to obtain all of those things for ourselves.
To the Political Right, I say this: It's not the government's job to force people to do the right thing. It's not the government's job to police morality. It's not the government's job to impose moral, political, or economic ideals on others, at home or abroad. The government's job is to maintain an environment where individual rights are upheld, and where justice & recompense are enacted when individual rights are violated.
Government in a free society does not exist to force an "ideal" situation on everyone---government in a free society exists to secure individual rights. The United States is not a pure Democracy---it is a Democratic Republic. A Republic exists to guarantee the rights of every individual. And that includes the right to choose. Yet so many people are willing to try to take away the rights of others in an attempt to force their idea of utopia on everyone. You can't force people to do the right thing, or not to do the wrong thing. You can't legislate morality, or equality. Government cannot---repeat, cannot---create utopia. Only families, communities, & societies can. Mistakes and wrongdoings should bring consequences, which consequences should be known beforehand. But people need the freedom to choose. And force is the opposite of freedom.
3- The Outcome:
Just because you support either of the primary Presidential Candidates, that doesn't mean I think you're a bad person. It doesn't mean I think you're stupid. It means I think you're wrong---very wrong. Both candidates, whether either or both of them are liars or not, are simply wrong. They're trying to force ideal situations on both the U.S. citizenry, & on the world populace, & they're willing to take away people's individual rights in their attempts to do so. In regards to the military, health care, the economy, jobs, & virtually every other major issue, they're far more alike than they are different. They've fallen under the alluring deception that government can solve all our problems, when in reality, government intrusion has enhanced most of those problems.
To those who will vote for either of the primary Presidential Candidates because you truly believe in their methods & ideologies, I once again say this: Force is the opposite of Freedom.
To those who will vote for either of the primary Presidential Candidates simply out of fear of the "lesser of two evils" winning, I say this: The broken, 2-party system will never die if we continue to support it.
And to all those who will vote for either of the primary Presidential Candidates for any reason, I simply say this (courtesy of Despair.com, & w/a hat-tip to Ghostbusters):
LIBERTY OVER LEGISLATION
COME AND JOIN THE
RON PAUL 2012
"When the government's boot is on your throat, whether it is a left boot or a right, is of no consequence."
