Honesty!
I know that was a little anti-climactic, and it probably is not what you had in mind. I bet you thought I'd say abortion or affirmative action, something juicy from recent news headlines. No, that's not my style. This post aims to uncover the most controversial topic, which is so controversial, even those who claim to support it use it only in moderation.
When it comes to the media, they have been shown to be friendly to neither side. Recently, the mainstream media has become a bit more friendly to our friend, one Hon. Mr. B.H. Obama. He is, however, an anomaly, the media wants what sells advertising dollars, which in his case, happens to be praise instead of constant smear campaigning. It would hardly be argued by either side that the major news outlets are ubiased in their treatment of the different parties, however. Fox News is conservative, when compared to CNN and NBC. Fox doesn't make an effort to destroy God, the Republican Party, conservatism, and family values, so I would say that makes them easily more conservative than MSNBC, which is well known for attempting to mutilate said values/groups. CNN, however, I find to be only slightly biased to the left-wing, except for certain anchors/hosts, which is fine enough, Fox has some extremely conservative anchors (I'm talking about you, Sean Hannity. Give the other side a chance every now and then, will ya?). I believe both CNN and Fox make a concerted effort to actually report the truth. Maybe not the whole truth. But as close as it gets in the mainstream.
So, that's not what I really meant by the title of the post. I'm talking about politicians. Not one, all. And everyone who's probably ever been involved in politics and won. They are dishonest (Shocker!). I say this because your general voting public has no idea the dealings and behind-the-scenes work which even the most noble, helpful bill to ever pass a legislature went through to get there. It went through lobbyists, which is not a bad thing, they exist to inform legislators about specific issues. A legislator is a generalist, while bureaucrats and lobbyists could be described as specialists, ever if they work with several different specialties. It also went through committee, which is fine, that's a necessary step too. I'm not complaining about the steps that it went through, I'm complaining about what the legislative body thought about it. Can I get this to help my district more than the others? Can I get a net gain from this Bill? Will this help me get reelected? These are all things which the bill is subjected to. What occurs when people consider these is that they lose sight of the respective Constitution which governs their actions, which represents their social contract with the people, and is what should truly be guiding their actions unless they are in the process of changing it. So, while it might gain votes in a Democratic (read: liberal) district, it is still just as unconstitutional to pass gun control (I'm talking to you Barack, you should know better. Harvard Constitutional Law.). The same applies to abortion. Also, in Republican districts, voting against gay marriage, as well as lowering taxes are always a plus, while I consider them to be good in some cases, only with the proper coating of liberty before you pass the law (AKA eliminate state-sanctioned marriage, cut taxes AND SPENDING). The point I make is, if what the people want is not best represented by your views, you might want to sit out on politics.
I know someone must no tell me, "but Christian, noone exactly agrees with your views! Why would you want to get involved in politics?" Good question. A majority of America is Christian. Some have no idea what that really means, but that's fine, there's still hope for them, and the message is nothing that would turn people off, it is a message of love and peace. Secondly, I do not want to stop people from doing things which do not harm others. I believe this is an extremely reasonable position, and that it is possible that even atheists could take a liking to my style of government. I see the problem with the Republican Party brand today is that it is unwilling to try and sell conservatism to urban populations, racial minorites (which is complete bull, the only reason the Democratic Party has a lock on the minority vote is that they have been told they need affirmative action and welfare, so the Republican Party is not a viable option for support), and civil libertarians. I will go there. There are plenty of people who just want to be left alone, kept free, and taxed very little. I'd say that's a majority of America. I'd also say a lot of Americans didn't vote on November 4th, and the ones that did had no workable option for liberty. Bob Barr had no chance of winning, statistically speaking. Neither did Ron Paul. What the Republican Party needs to do is what they honestly know to be right, which would be to run on staying out of people's lives, like they have always promised, lowering taxes when possible, now is not the time, when we have 11 trillion building up in debt, we have to at least keep taxes at the same level and slash spending, something Congress sucks at. This is the truly courageous position, and I would run on it. You can't cut taxes with all this unnecessary debt. If the party opened itself up to real talk about liberties and took away the ACLU's claim that they are the defenders of civil liberties, this election would be a hard fought battle, but would be totally winnable in every district, everywhere in the United States. This is what I believe, what I work towards. Well, I hope some of that made sense to you, and if not, I'd love to get specific on specific issues, which I will do later on in further blog posts. If you want to know where I am on a specific issue, email me. I promise I'll answer honestly, even if it's inconvenient, or against the Party, or detrimental to my reputation. Bring it on, the truth does not cause damage, lies and deceit do.
So my final question to the reader is, what do you find offensive about my philosophy, about my writing, anything? I saw I've got a few people who read my posts and disagreed completely. Is freedom so disagreeable? Is God so disagreeable? Is the message of hope spread by Jesus so offensive, or is it my message that we need to help each other willingly as opposed to being forced to do so by the government? I must admit, I'm confused about how any American could disagree completely with my views, but that's the point. So comment, email me, find me and come talk to me, I want to know. Who knows, you might just change my mind, I might become a secular progressive totalitarian socialist if you are convincing enough.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment