Stereotypes: Impact on Political Climate

It's an obvious fact but bears repeating: each individual is unique.  We all have different talents, characteristics and opinions.  This is true even among close families and groups of friends. It is also true among members of larger organizations.

Members of political parties, for instance, often have different views from that of other members. Some of these views may even be shared with members of an opposing political party. In America, that is sometimes the case as Senators and Representatives primarily reflect the interests of their constituencies and shape their judgement accordingly.

In a presidential election year, however, the pressure to present a united front is paramount.  That is due to the fact that the office of the modern day presidency holds a great amount of power. It is a prize each party dearly wants. Add to this ingredient a sensationalist 24/7 news/ talk show media with the power of money and the result is an atmosphere of vitriol and divisiveness.

In such an atmosphere, the temptation is to demonize your opponents, to brand them in a fixed and unfavorable image. In a word, to stereotype.

You will hear in the upcoming campaign various stereotypical descriptions of political opponents such as "leftists", "rightists", "misogynists", "racists" (or similar) as well as others. Such name calling does a grave disservice to our country, the democratic process and to the honest men and women who choose to run for public office.  But it is also a disservice to the independent thinking members of the party using such tactics since it pressures them to conform to the group thinking: "if you are not with us, you are against us".

As voters, we need to be aware of such tactics and resist them.  We should insist on a discussion of the issues based on fact and what is best for the country. As an independent and free people, we should each use our own critical judgement in casting our ballot. Our country deserves no less.

Stereotypes

We have all heard of the typical stereotype. It can apply to persons or groups of persons of different countries, ethnicities, geographic areas, political persuasion among others.

For instance, residents of Vermont are generally thought of as being liberal although that hasn't always been the case.  To carry the example a step further, we generally picture Vermonters as wearing sandals (with socks in cold weather) and enjoying their brie and wine (preferably foreign and organic).

But this kind of classification can get confusing.  I'm sure Vermonters would man the ramparts if their way of life were threatened. In defense of the status quo--now that could be a conservative position.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are often pictured as wearing shoes without socks (in warm weather) but not the open toed type. But I also know conservatives who wouldn't dream of wearing shoes without socks and prefer beer and salsa. It can get confusing.

For instance, on the subject of hair care. Conservative men are said to prefer short hair whereas, if you see  a man with long hair, you might assume that he is liberal. For women, conservatives are generally seen as using a hair stylists whereas many liberals are imagined to be less demanding. I even heard of one self described liberal who cuts her own hair. Now that could be labeled as frugality, a trait near and dear to many conservatives.

In short, stereotyping persons or different groups is not a slam dunk. Individuals or groups who are labeled as "liberal" or "conservative" may have several different outlooks and many times those outlooks intersect. That is also true of people of different ethnicities, geographic areas, genders or color of skin. More about that in my next post.

The 2012 Election Presents a Clear Choice--It's Time.

In this presidential election year, our choice is clear, the issues serious and the outcome important. Emotions will be high and it is likely the debate acrimonious. One wishes the opposite would be true; an important election especially should be held with a serious debate based on issues.

In hindsight, the debates in 2008 should have been more meaningful and the choice clearer. That they were not was due to the controversy over the war in Iraq, an inept Republican organization and a Democratic campaign based on vague promises of "hope and change".

After more than three years of the Obama presidency, we now know what "hope and change" really means and where the President wants to lead the country. In this year of 2012, the choice before us is very clear. Are we to have a society headed by a large and powerful central government or are we to have a smaller, limited government with enumerative powers and a meaningful federal system as the Founding Fathers intended?

For make no mistake, the reelection of Barack Obama will put us further down the road to a larger, more powerful national government to the detriment of the Constitution, our liberty and our very future.

The State of the Union under President Obama

From the time he first entered the national stage, Barack Obama has been an enigma. We knew very little of his background, his accomplishments or his beliefs. During his election campaign, we learned a few facts: that he was a community organizer, supposedly intelligent and a great speaker. He ran on a platform of hope and change which were left undefined.

After three plus years of his presidency, we now have some basis for judgement. We now know his bias for government solutions, his antipathy toward free enterprise and those who excel in it, his unconcern for constitutional principles which interfere with his agenda, his seeming indifference toward an unsustainable national debt, his penchant to divide us and not unite us and his tendency to view America not as "a shining city on a hill" but a country for which he must apologize.

Through his policies and actions, he has made a bad economic situation worse. Unemployment and underemployment remain high. The housing market has not recovered and there is no prospect that it will  for some time. The cost of energy has risen affecting not only travel but the costs of everything we buy. And the national debt keeps rising, a problem for us and future generations as well.

We will not improve our economic health by redistributing wealth in a static economy. The government's role should be to establish the conditions under which free markets and free individuals can function to the benefit of all. We do not need or want a government that seeks to "transform" America and which imposes unconstitutional mandates.

Much of our problems are due to the fact that we now compete in a global economy in which we are not competitive. To fix it, we need less government regulation, not more; less taxes, not more; less government spending, not more; less special interest favoritism, not more and less debt, not more.

The Constitution: Relevant Then & Now.

A short history from a conservative perspective---

At the time of the American Revolution and our country's early history, most citizens held their allegiance first and foremost to their respective states, that is the former colonies. These were a widely diverse group ranging from slave holding states to those where commercial interests were well established or religious groups were predominant.

The colonies were loosely organized during the revolutionary war and through 1988 under the so called "Articles of Confederation". But it was apparent that it was ineffective if only for the reason that it could not impose direct taxes on the country's citizens but relied on state legislatures to provide their funds (or it had to borrow the money).

The debate to approve a new constitution was acrimonious. Citizens remained suspicious of centralized government after a hard fought battle to win their freedom from a despotic king. The Constitution was only ratified after numerous assurances that its functions would be limited to those specified in the document. The first ten amendments ("The Bill of Rights") were put in at the insistence of the States in order to insure that state authority and individual sovereignty would remain paramount.

That started to change in the last half of the 19th century. As a result of the Civil War and the subsequent constitutional amendments to guaranty individual freedoms, it was the federal government that was seen as the primary protector of the people's rights, not the states. This process continued throughout the 20th century as a result of the Depression with its New Deal and later in the 1960's with President Johnson's Great Society programs.

It is now in the 21st century that we realize the dangers of government power that goes too far. The current expansions of federal authority are beyond those granted by the people in the Constitution and its amendments. It is impossible to justify such mandates as requiring individuals to buy health insurance, to dictate local education policies or to interfere in the free markets without a perverse twisting of the Constitution's words and meaning. The federal government is now viewed by many not as a defender of individual liberty but as its antagonist. It's as if the Constitution were turned on its head.

It is time to return to the sound constitutional principle of limited and specified powers.  A freedom loving people cannot and should not accept anything less. The future of the Republic as we know it is at stake.

The U.S. Tax System and Political Reality.

At this time every year, we are faced with the reality of a very dysfunctional tax system. It is dysfunctional  on two levels.

First, the reporting requirements are so complex and byzantine that only someone with a vested interest in the current system could love it. Just try reading a few pages of any of the many instructions covering innumerable forms and complex calculations. (For instance, just one booklet of instructions (for form 1040) is nearly 200 pages long and includes numerous schedules and mind bending computations.)

Second, the system is complex and dysfunctional because politicians have made it that way. They have manipulated the system to their benefit by providing tax advantages to their friends and supporters who in turn supply the funds and vote for their re-elections.

Recently, President Obama has launched his re-election campaign on the issue of "fairness". He was referring to situations where some of the very rich pay less taxes than what he deems "fair". What he doesn't mention is that the tax system he is criticizing is one which he and other politicians (of both parties) have supported and sustained.

A recent article by Thomas Sowell ("Tax policy 'fairness' amounts to fraud", The Times-Union, Feb. 23, 2012) states the following--I quote in part:

     "While talking about 'fairness' may provide a fig leaf to cover politicians' naked attempts to grab more and more of the nation's resources to spend, there is no assurance that raising tax rates 'on the rich' will result in any more tax revenue for the government. High tax rates have too often simply caused wealthy people to put their money into tax-free securities or to send it overseas."

     "High tax rates in the upper income brackets allow politicians to win votes with class warfare rhetoric, painting their opponents as defenders of the rich. Meanwhile, the same politicians can win donations from the rich by creating tax loopholes that can keep the rich from actually paying those higher tax rates--or perhaps any taxes at all."

Any and all comments are welcome.


    

What Does it Mean to be "Presidential"?

Of all our presidents, which stand out and why?  Is it character, accomplishments or both---or something else?  How we judge a past president (or choose a new one) says a lot about who we are as a nation.

Most of us would agree that both Presidents Washington and Lincoln should be held in high regard. Both were patriotic, courageous and were men of high personal integrity. We admire their selflessness and dedication to performing their duties in trying times. Neither were petty or petulant.  Both were generous in their relations with others including their adversaries. They each had the ability to inspire others with their calm, astute and principled leadership often at great sacrifice to themselves and the nation.

In modern times who would measure up? I would submit three: Presidents Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan. Like Presidents Washington and Lincoln, these men were patriotic, courageous and had the ability to inspire and lead the nation. Each of them had respect for the institutions of government and especially for the Office of the Presidency. In the performance of their duties, they acted accordingly and with dignity. On a personal level, we remember them as men of principle and personal character.

Each of these five Presidents, as well as others, have demonstrated character traits and abilities that define what it means to be "presidential". We should remember their examples in choosing our next president.