foolmenot.comA chat with a friend inspired some thoughts...
Although this is a touch off beat from my usual comment on the news of the day, I thought you might find the following interesting reading. You decide...
The other night after dinner my friend and I discussed politics vis-à-vis world oil depletion and the environment. It probably should never be that we have these discussions, but he can’t help bringing it into the conversation in a way that encourages me to respond; and I eagerly cooperate, some might say that perhaps even tend to instigate. I love to discuss politics; there is no subject that is so critical to daily living yet invokes such inane behavior on the part of otherwise intelligent adults.
My friend describes himself as a Democrat; someone who is very concerned about the environment, etc. In popular terms, one would say that my friend is a Liberal and I am a Conservative.
For purposes of this article I think it’s important to give you an interpretation of what I believe it means to be either a Liberal or Conservative… In a critical sense Liberal thinkers are often accused of approaching an issue with a; “I don’t care what it costs, this program is needed; we can always raise taxes to pay for it” attitude. On the other hand, Conservative thinkers are often accused of not having a caring attitude when they respond by saying; “this looks like a good program; let’s first figure out a cost/benefit ratio!”
Now then; the only connection between being a Liberal or Conservative to a particular political party is merely one of expediency. By that I mean the mind-set of an individual will take that individual to whatever political party that currently supports what they believe to be so. (This last sentence is very important in understanding how a political party gets its power and is the basis for a phrase that probably hangs on the office wall of every politician; Reality is perception – Perception is reality)
The Democratic Party, starting after the 1968 Democratic Convention in Chicago, has become a party that derives the bulk of its power from “groups” rather than individuals. (I should add that the word “progressive” is becoming popular in describing one who also leans Democratic. Some say it is an attempt to scuttle the “Liberal” label; I don’t know.) The “group strategy” works only if groups realize a benefit, therefore, it puts a lot of responsibility on the political party to keep those benefits coming. Unions, social activists, environmental activists, etc., are among the groups in this category.
This new focus was a dramatic change from the pre-1968 convention era Democratic Party and must take responsibility in why the Party has arguably moved farther to the Left. Evidence is in the context of speeches comparing folks like Jack Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey with speeches given today by Ted Kennedy, Howard Dean and John Kerry.
In somewhat the same vein, conservatives, including Libertarians, attach themselves to the Republican Party because today, that party best represents their point of view. Because the ideology is so much different, “group strategy” has not been integral to whatever successes that party has enjoyed. Herein lays the inherent basis for the difference between the two parties. Ideology is philosophy, thought, creed, etc. It is awfully difficult to live one ideology amongst so many different groups who often can be at odds with each other. Not that the Republican Party does not contain “groups”; it is more-so that the Republican Party considers “groups” as a tactic within the framework of a strategy while the Democratic Party considers “groups” as a strategy in and of itself. For the most part, the ideology of the Republican Party has not experienced any dramatic change for decades.
Attempting to stay competitive with the Democrats, the Republican Party has felt threatened from time to time. George Bush, the senior, probably lost his bid for a second term because of the Ross Peroe third-party influence. (I’m tempted to go off on an explanation of why there will always be only a two-party system with minor third-party interruptions, but I’ll save that for another time).
Continuing the conversation with my friend; he and I spent more than an hour discussing world oil depletion, Iraq, George Bush, Dick Cheney, etc., etc. Notable in the conversation is that my friend seemed to be in constant attack and blame mode, while I wanted to draw a line and figure out a plan to fix everything; such a plan would not be forthcoming. We did however agree on many goals; those being development of alternative fuel, not liking war, etc. These issues are what he refers to as the “higher purpose” of things; this is important because it is an element of agreement. However, the larger problem always seems to be the plan to get there- popular criticism from the Right portrays the Left as all complaints, never a plan… It is a valid observation!
As we move closer to the 2008 elections, presidential hopefuls are jockeying for position; notable among them is Hillary Clinton. I believe husband Bill Clinton to be one of the most successful politicians in U.S. history. With Bill always in the picture, and with the phrase; Reality is perception – Perception is reality always in mind, one must always be on the lookout for a sneak attack. Now it may be too early, but I don’t put anything past those two. We know that triangulation has started with Hillary sounding in some instances like a Conservative; supporting the Iraq War, etc. Might there already be more to this triangulation thingamabob?
A real conspiracy theorist might believe that the three or four demonstrators showing up at some recent Hillary speeches would be some sort of plant designed to encourage “fence sitters” to believe Hillary really is a centrist and thus vote for her in 2008. Now that would be a great triangulation move, wouldn’t it???