Trimming the Trees of Political Views

Conservative politics is a term that has gained a menagerie of meanings, and many of them should be detached from the term for the sake of preserving the important meanings of the term. Conservative politics nowadays refers to a set of political views that includes supporting religion, supporting gun rights, and a number of other views which similarly do not deserve to be attached to the overall idea of conservative politics. There are a number of individuals who may hold political views which might fall into the penumbra of conservative politics, but they are loathe to admit so, because they do not wish to have their own views associated with ones which they do not hold. To this end, it behooves us to attempt to define what conservative politics are, such that the term may be used more safely.

Fiscal conservatism is already used as a differing term from standard conservatism. Fiscal conservatism refers purely to conservative policies concerning money. Generally, it refers to “a fiscal policy that advocates avoiding deficit spending.” Primary goals of fiscal conservatives including decreasing debt and overall spending, and balancing the budget. These goals are completely separate from many of the other political views slapped onto the term “conservative politics,” and as such are often described separately. Those who do subscribe to conservative politics may often be fiscal conservatives, as well, but fiscal conservatism is not oriented on political views so much as economic views. The conflation of conservative politics with fiscal conservatism is one that needs to be taken care of.

Beyond this basic idea of fiscal conservatism, most conservative political views are detached from anything that can be labeled as conservative, as opposed to being labeled for what it really is. Conservative politics in America, for instance commonly refers to support of religion, specifically Judeo-Christian religion. This sort of support is not conservative at all, insofar as one takes the meaning of conservative as being reluctant to change. It is only conservative given that God, belief in Him, and religion in general have always played an important role in American politics, and therefore those who hold conservative political views are reluctant to see this changed. But as is often pointed out about the American political system, religion and government are held to be two fundamentally separate bodies, and one’s religious views would seem to be separate from one’s political views. As a result, for a political party to be so defined by a trait which seems utterly detached from politics then undermines the credibility of that political party and of conservative politics in general.

That voters are concerned with certain elements of political candidates, because those elements will influence the candidates’ voting patterns, is perfectly fair. After all, it is certainly a fair political issue to ask a candidate whether or not he or she supports a woman’s right to choose, or whether or not a candidate would support the removal of the Ten Commandments from public buildings. But these particular aspects of a candidate’s political actions can be considered separately from such aspects as simply being religious. That would appear to be a non-political issue, and therefore should be detached form political ideologies such as conservative politics. Doing so would do much to bolster the overall credibility of conservative politics.

The Problem with Politics

Politics have become increasingly more polarized in America over the years, as party lines have been drawn in the sand, and etched deeper and deeper. Nowadays, politics are detached from anything more than a most basic form of ideology to which people can subscribe. Politics have become more focused on irrationality and attachment to arbitrary parties, than they are on those things which should actually matter: good ideas and qualifications.

Someone in the political sphere should, hypothetically, be aiming to prove his or her value as a leader among men and women. He or she should be coming up with good ideas for how to improve whatever body it is that he or she will be governing over. These ideas and leadership attributes should be the determining factors for any political race, as opposed to simple party lines. The fact that politics has become a contest between two factions, with neither side of voters fully grasping exactly what they are voting for, means that this battle of merit which should be making up the majority of political struggle has been undermined and buried.

In an ideal world, democratic politics would be focused not on how people look, how well they woo voters, or how incisive their rhetoric is; politics would instead be focused on the words being said, content of what the politicians are arguing for and against. The problem with this ideal world is that politics are, in actually, made up of a tremendous conglomeration of issues which overlap, twist around one another, and create a nigh inseparable knot of confusion. For any given voter to understand every strand of that knot would be a very difficult thing, requiring a great deal of time, effort, and even education. This is where the problem of our current political system lies. The majority of citizens simply don’t have the time to gain the necessary understanding for our political system to work properly. As a result, they do not vote in the originally conceived fashion, wherein they are voting for the candidate they genuinely think is best, based on a rational consideration of the candidates opinions and plans. Instead, they vote based on one factor, or two, or they vote based on factors that are entirely unimportant for the overall political process. Political offices become filled with individuals who genuinely do not belong there, because they managed to essentially hoodwink the voters by taking advantage of the voters lack of time.

The political system of America needs a dramatic revamping. How to do this in an age of television, Internet, and other forms of mass media, which allow for simplistic and manipulative tricks to be used against the voting populace, is a nigh-insurmountable problem for the repair of our politics. Any solution would essentially necessitate a tremendous adjustment to America’s entire social and media sphere, as well as America’s political system. This is not impossible, but it is unlikely to occur; any shift that dramatic could likely only be caused by a major event, something unplanned and unforeseen. Until any such major shift occurs to allow for a change in the political paradigm, however, it is up to the voters of America to begin voting with their heads, and not their hearts; it is the only way that we can make a difference to America’s political troubles.

The Plague of Private Donations

In today’s world, for a politician to have even the slightest chance at getting into office, he or she must embark upon an arduous process of establishing a political campaign for the office. One of the primary issues plaguing America’s current system, however, is the problem of political campaign donations from private sources. These donations are somewhat necessary to political campaigns, if only from the perspective that money is necessary to run them, and that money has to come from somewhere. It could come from the candidate him or herself, but the amount of money spent on most political campaigns is enormous, and would likely be more than any candidate would like to spend. As a result, receiving donations from private sources, like companies or industries with ample money to spend, seems to be the most effective way to make the necessary amount of money to run a successful political campaign.

But most of the time, these donations to a political campaign do not come free of charge. They come with a price, which is often that the policies of the candidate be modified in order to be more in accordance with what the private donor might want. In this way, the political campaign is essentially spurred on not by the ideas and ideals of the candidate him or herself, but is instead shaped and progressed by the desires of private lobbies.

A recent action on March 26, 2010, in a US appeals court, struck down a restriction on how much money any individual group could contribute to political campaigns, be they political campaigns in favor of a candidate, or against a candidate. This ruling opens up the door for a tremendous amount of money to be donated to political campaigns in the coming congressional elections, as well as in the 2012 presidential election. Before this, there was another ruling that allowed for corporations to “spend freely to support or oppose federal candidates.” These rulings together allow for significantly more manipulation of political campaigns by parties and interests that should not truly have a say in the political process. But they will have a say, because they wield the tremendous sums of money necessary to affect American politicians.

Why do American political campaigns require so much money, anyway? Why can’t political campaigns simply function independently of these massive donations which come tethered to specific corporate interests? The answer is one of best explained via the tenets of game theory. If both political campaigns were to agree not to use donations, then yes, the overall political campaign system would likely improve. But any given political campaign could realize that if it did “cheat” by obtaining corporate donations, then it could have a significant advantage over its competing campaign. As a result, that political campaign will seek donations, which means that, in order to stay competitive the other campaign will, as well. Thus, the overall system is injured by both political campaigns trying to stay at pace with one another.

The answer to this problem is not a simple one, but it would seem that the first step would lie in repealing decisions like these that have been made in America’s higher courts. These decisions are quite clearly detrimental to the overall system, even though they do support the First Amendment. Coming up with a better compromise between the decision to support the First Amendment, and the decision to keep political campaigns clean and worthwhile, would be an important step in the right direction towards fixing America’s political campaign system.

The Party That Never Ends

Political parties, while important tools for the overall benefit of America’s democratic system, have become overblown and exaggerated, and have lost the efficacy they once held. Nothing proves this so much as a historical look backwards at what America’s political parties have looked like. America has seen many political parties over the years, some of which dissolved over time, others of which transformed into completely new and different shapes, completely unrecognizable from their original forms. The fact that voters in contemporary America cling so tightly to party lines, while these political parties are so subject to change and restructuring, simply lends perspective to how ludicrous modern American political parties are. After all, when the Democrats once believed as the Republicans do, and vice versa, it clearly shows that the political parties of America are not necessarily as definitive as one might have originally thought.

A quick history lesson on political parties: The Democratic Party of America today actually found its origin in the Democratic-Republican Party of 1792. This original political party was founded with a focus on states’ rights, farmers over bankers, industrialists, merchants, and the like (taken from Wikipedia.com). Eventually, the party split into other factions. But in this original form, the political party certainly sounds closer to the Republican Party of today, than it does to the Democratic Party of today. The Republican Party, on the other hand, was originally founded as a very anti-slavery party, with a focus on “free labor, free land, free men.” The Republican political party did not secede from the Union during the Civil War; thus, according to history, the Republican Party is more associated with the north than it is with the south. But in today’s world, the South is generally considered representative of Republicans, and the North of Democrats.

Just these few facts about the political parties which are so powerful in modern-day America clearly shows some of the difficulty in attempting to assign to them any sort of consistent traits or being. Beyond this, modern day political parties hold so many opinions, positions, and beliefs that seem antithetical to the overarching idea of the political party in question that one must examine the whole political party system with a critical eye. The Republican Party of today, for instance, has become dominated by many traits, including a focus on 2nd Amendment rights protection, a focus on religion being endorsed and left unhindered, and a focus on “small-town America,” as best represented in the sayings of Sarah Palin. Simultaneously, the Democratic Party has come to stand for a secular, if not atheistic, viewpoint, coupled with socialist tendencies and a desire for too much government regulation. Of course, all of these ideas about the political parties are likely incorrect, as the political parties span such a vast and varied group of politicians and ideologies that to attempt to define the political parties in any such way is to do them a disservice. But regardless, they often capitalize on these overly simplified, stereotypical images in order to serve their election-based purposes.

In the end, the best way to explain the flaw of political parties is that they serve the American populace very well, right up until the point at which they don’t, though it is very tautological to say so. The two major American parties have come far from what they once were, and have now become somewhat caricatured versions of what they should be. The political parties of America need to be trimmed back into less polarized, more realistic forms, and perhaps the system needs to be opened up to genuinely allow for other political parties to compete with the dominant two. Otherwise, the political parties of America will continue down a path towards creating more trouble than they prevent.

Internet Political News

In the world of the Internet, print media is obviously losing steam with every passing day, as fewer and fewer people go to it for their news. Even television media are finding themselves being affected by the Internet, if only because it’s often easier to watch “television” on the Web than it is to watch it on the actual TV. The effects that this transition of focus onto the Internet will have on political news, among other types of news, are interesting to note, if dangerous in practice.

The primary problem that one can see arising with a transition to reliance on political news on the Internet, as opposed to on the television, lies in the very nature of the Internet. The Internet user seeks out news, as opposed to simply being able to flip on the television and hear about it. Whereas on the television, a viewer may find him or herself encountering political issues that he or she may not have normally been interested in, on the Internet, it is all too easy for a user to narrow his or her vision down into a myopic view of political issues, focusing only on those things which the user thinks are most important to him or her. Furthermore, it is all too easy for a user to only find those opinions and facts which will support his or her own thoughts, thanks to the nature of the Internet. It is easy to avoid any possible competing opinions, and therefore it is all too easy to become a terribly unbalanced person, without any sense of reasonable arguments that might be made against his or her own opinions. The Internet news media could then easily lead to political news being spread only to those for whom it confirms their own beliefs, which would lead to a general decrease in the complexity of America’s opinions and understanding.

A secondary problem to news being on the Internet primarily lies in the form of argument. As previously mentioned, it will be all too easy for Internet users to find news only on the subjects which matter to them, and ignore everything else. Similarly, it will be all too easy to find a website on which one or two proponents of a position must fend off hundreds of thousands of angered Internet users who attempt to shout the proponents down via angry language and irrational rhetoric. Political issues will no longer be debated with intelligence and sagacity; they will be treated irrationally, without debaters having the proper, calm, rational mindset for useful debate.

The Internet does have the potential to provide forums for discussants to meet and debate political issues in some friendly environments; indeed, that would be the ideal use of the Web for political issues. But unfortunately, it is entirely likely that such pleasant, rational forums will be the exception, and not the rule. Much more likely is that polarized writers on the web, who do not have a strong understanding of the political issues being discussed and simply use incisive language in order to get readers to agree, will become the norm for discussing political news. As these writers can put their thoughts up on the Internet for free, without needing to go through a filtering process like a corporate news site might have, the Internet will become filled with unfiltered, unconsidered opinions on political issues, designed merely to provoke, and not to increase discourse. One can only hope that this will not be the case for the future, but at the moment, this picture seems to be the one we are painting.

Tea Party, Republican Party

The Republican Party is a diverse thing, allowing for both business leaders who hold fiscally conservative policies and for small-town farmers who have no interest in larger business to lay claim to membership. But perhaps no greater example of the Republican Party’s extended membership exists than the Tea Party activists, in all their enraged glory. Technically speaking, at Tea Party rallies, it is made clear that the Tea Party has nothing to do with either the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, but it is also then made clear what the objectives of the Tea Party activists are: unseating the Democrats whom they blame for the unfortunate situation in America right now. It is also clear who the Tea Party activists are: as reported by Ari Rabin-Havt of the Huffington Post, there were no cheers when the speaker asked for Democrats present, and there were ample cheers when the speaker asked for members of the Republican Party who were present. The most cheers were, of course, from when the speaker asked for Americans present.

The Tea Party activists represent a growing body of Americans which is really separate from the Republican Party to which most of them belong. It is a strange group of Americans whose primary shared trait is anger, outrage, and an almost dangerous passion for change, without an understanding of exactly what change to implement, or even what change is desired. In essence, whereas some important politicians in the Republican Party can genuinely outline and explain their plans and desires for America, the Tea Party activists are infected with the irrationality which is so representative of the popular image of the Republican Party today.

In essence, these people are not truly part of the Republican Party; or rather, they are, but they are to the Republican Party what a sword is to feudal knight, or what a gun is to a modern-day soldier. The group is a weapon, unthinking, unknowing, and dangerous, but capable of being directed towards a target and used to great and deadly effect. And the reason they are the sword of the Republican Party is that it is several high-ranking, powerful members of the Republican Party who have learned how to direct this powerful and dangerous weapon towards a goal.

This isn’t to say that the Democratic Party is without its similar group of people, people who are easily incensed, without necessarily coming to understand the issues about which they hold such strong opinions. But the Democratic Party wields its equivalent group of people with a subtler touch; it does not use them as a striking attack, in which barely anyone thinks about the next blow. The Republican Party, however, seems to have unleashed a weapon and force that potentially it cannot control anymore. As has been mentioned, the Republican Party still counts many of these people as members, but more and more they are dragging the Republican Party away from its perceived status as the legitimate, rational opposition to the Democrats.

It seems that perhaps the best option for the Republican Party may be to let the Tea Party activists go. Many powerful strategists of the Republican Party would likely look down upon this option, but this is only true because cutting loose the Tea Party activists, letting them form their own party, would significantly deplete the Republican Party’s ranks. But it would also prevent the Republican Party from moving down a path towards irrationality, a path that has at its end a conflict not between liberal and conservative, but between thinking voter and non-thinking voter. That is a conflict that any political party would do well to be on the correct side of.

The Plight of Republicans and Sarah Palin

Republican politics have changed ever since Sarah Palin came to town. To think that prior to her nomination as the Republican Vice President, no one knew her name except those in her own state, is startling, to say the least. Now, she is as prominent a player in Republican politics as anyone, and her name is known in households across America. What remains terribly unclear, however, is whether or not her presence and the dynamic shifts in Republican politics that her presence has brought are for America’s good or bad.

No one can deny that Sarah Palin has her own unique idiom and style. No one can deny that she is memorable. But the methods she uses in order to obtain popularity are, to some extent, the embodiment of what upsets many supporters of Republican politics, and what turns away many who would call themselves conservative Republicans if only there were certain changes made to the nature of conservatism in the Republican Party. Sarah Palin attempts to use appeals to emotion, and appeals to more subconscious, irrational elements of a human being, in order to gain the support of conservative Republicans. Her allure lies not in what she thinks or believes, though she ensures that her opinions do remain in line with those of her supporters, those of Republican politics in general; her allure instead lies in the emotional invective she uses to gain support. It lies in the fashionable ways she dressed. It lies in the way she attempts to present herself as a simple, small-town American, so that she can appeal to the broadest base of conservative Republicans.

In essence, her tactics embody the logical fallacy of the appeal to emotion. She is attempting to win the hearts, not the minds, of voters. Not for even an instant does she appear dishonest, nor does she appear to be sneaky and underhanded; of these things, she certainly cannot be accused. Her tactics, though manipulative, are likely used with good intentions, and perhaps without even realizing it. But she uses them nonetheless, and Republican politics become less rational as a result.

This is what turns away many who are close to calling themselves conservative Republicans, as opposed to simply conservatives. They do not like attaching themselves to the perceived irrationality and emotionality inherent to Republican politics. A movement towards irrationality has marked much of the rhetoric throughout Republican politics for years now, with a greater emphasis on appealing to the hearts of the voters than on making logically coherent arguments. Sarah Palin is the embodiment of this movement, and as a result, any would-be conservative Republicans who find themselves uncomfortable with the general irrationality of Republican politics will likely be unwilling to move into supporting the party directly until she has changed her tactics, or until she is genuinely out or the spotlight of Republican politics. At the end of the day, Sarah Palin may be able to pave her path into higher office by using these irrational techniques which she ahs so ably mastered, but it likely will not keep her there for long with the support of voters more interested in substance over style.

Republican Woes

Republicans in America are hoping to seize control of the House and Senate in the mid-term elections this year, and they are going to have a difficult time of it, not least because of the latest issues to arise out of political impropriety. Michael Steele, the Republican Party’s chairman, recently was found to have visited a bondage and S&M club on the money of the Republican National Committee. This money had been donated to the Republican Party for the sake of these upcoming elections, and was instead “repurposed” by Michael Steele for his own amusements.

This was a doubly harsh blow to the Republicans, as not only did it bring scandal and dishonor to the party and its chairman, but it also highlighted financial issues that the Republican party is facing this year. The Republican Party has significantly fallen behind the Democratic Party in terms of raising money for the mid-term elections, and when it turns out that Steele has spent nearly $2000 of the money which the Republican Party so sorely needs for the elections on strippers, it only makes the problem all the more acute.

The Republican Party espouses fiscal conservatism, technically, and the fact that its chairman exhibited such unethical exorbitant spending patterns casts a tremendous amount of doubt on the party as a whole, much to the Republicans’ chagrin. There have also been further numbers which seem to discredit the Republicans’ conservative economic policies, including the fact that they spent $43,828 for a trip to Hawaii for the Republican Party’s mid-winter convention. Michael Steele had even previously “raised the issue of buying a private jet for his travels” (taken from www.theage.com.au).

The Republican Party’s rather questionable spending practices do not bode well for the party as a whole. Indeed, in terms of Michael Steele, the only possible course of action to salvage the situation for the Republicans would seem to be to throw him out into the cold. The Republican Party likely cannot afford to defend Steele in any significant fashion, for doing so would only cause them greater trouble with public perception, and would likely cost them even more money which they need for the upcoming elections. Beyond Steele in particular, however, these events indicate a rather troubling trend for the Republicans, and indeed, American politicians in general. The misuse of power and governmental funds for private entertainment has always plagued politics, but the most flagrant abuses are generally found out and dealt with. The real problem arises from the more subtle abuses, the kind which can remain unknown to most of the voters. For instance, out of those spending sprees that have been mentioned above, it is perhaps the tremendous amount of money spent on having the convention in Hawaii that is much more insidious than Steele’s spending. Obviously, Steele was wrong to spend as he did; the flagrant nature of his spending, however, is what made it likely he would be caught, and now he will likely suffer for what he has done. But spending so much money on the convention in Hawaii isn’t as clearly wrong, isn’t as clearly a misuse of power and funds. As a result, it’s much more likely to either go unnoticed, or be forgiven, such that the same misuse can be committed again, and again, and again. For all that Steele’s actions are clearly wrong and deserve to be known and dealt with, we cannot afford to overlook the “misdemeanors” of power misuse either, not among the Republicans, and not among the Democrats.

David Frum against the Republican View

The Republican view of the world is not as uniform and united as Republicans would have us believe. Indeed, Bruce Bartlett, who was a domestic policy adviser to Ronald Reagan, and was a Treasury official under George H. W. Bush, proves the point quite eloquently, simply with his track record. This is a man who has served his country well and intelligently, who clearly holds certain conservative ideas, but does not necessarily endorse the monolithic Republican view which is controlled by the party’s leaders. He disagreed with several of the policies of George W. Bush, and wrote a book, Impostor: How George W. Bush Bankrupted America and Betrayed the Reagan Legacy. The book criticizes Bush’s policies, and his faux-conservatism, which was really just a way to obtain more votes in an election. Bartlett, then, is a would-be Republican who has remained apart from the party, because he does not share the general Republican views on many issues. His falling out with the Republicans took place in 2006, when the book came out.

Now, there is someone else to join him as a thinking Republican who simply did not share the official Republican view of matters, and therefore was cast out. David Frum, a Canadian American conservative journalist and former employee of the American Enterprise Institute, was recently fired from there. Bartlett has commented that he believes the reason to be linked quite strongly to David Frum’s Waterloo post on his blog, www.frumforum.com. In his post, David Frum commented on the recent passing of the health care bill, and why it was such a huge blow to conservatives and Republicans. Specfically, Frum says, “A huge part of the blame for today’s disaster attaches to conservatives and Republicans ourselves.” Needless to say, this is a huge departure from the standard Republican view of the health care bill and its success. Most vocal Republicans have been commenting that the bill will do very little good, and will even come to doom America’s economy even further, both claims which can be borne out over time. The idea that Republicans themselves are to blame for the health care bill’s success is most certainly not a part of the Republican view. Frum goes on to blame the most vocal and racial members of the party for the passing of the bill, without any kind of alignment with conservative ideals that could have made the bill much more acceptable to Republicans.

Shortly after posting this article, Frum was fired from AEI. It’s unclear, even to him, if he was fired for writing the article, although the timeframe would seem to suggest it. Indeed, most of the facts seem to lend credence to the position that Frum was fired for having shirked the Republican view and expressed a differing opinion, one which the Republican Party leadership did not want their voters to hear. It is sad, not least because Frum clearly supports Republican and conservative ideals. The fact that even such a prominent Republican as he could be punished for having voiced any kind of disagreement with the Republican view of the world simply bodes more ill for the Republican party in general.