Political confessional
Aug. 21st, 2004 04:36 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
vicarz1. I don't know much about Kerry besides his military record. I just hate Bush, and think Kerry is the only way to get Bush out this term. I am taking on faith from other people's opinions, including my mom who is very on top of politics, that he does not totally suck. I do know many of the Bush policy decisions and agency actions - many of which have not hit the headlines (it really helps to read the middle pages people) and feel my disdain of his administration is justified. It's only recently that I faced my own ignorance of the opposition. In this case, I'm trusting my enemy's enemy. For now.
2. I think I found a reason to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage - it puts discrimination of gays etc. in the history books forever. When you scan the US Constitution, you cannot avoid seeing, laid out in black and white, the issues of slavery and female discrimination, and even prohibition. For as long as this nation exists, those pathetic mistakes will be remembered by school kids over and over again. If we ban gay marriage, something I think that will eventually be allowed, it will forever be etched into our collective memory that yes, this country was that stupid, prejudiced, and spiteful. When people ask why there is legal protection of gay rights, there will be the answer in black and white.
3. It might actually take a village. I am only now realizing how much of the constitution has been stretched to incorporate different political agendas. I've wondered how people have stayed so ignorant of politics, how people who seem like decent human beings support Bush and other right-wing bungholes. As I've moved closer to the center, I've opened up to concepts such as fiscal conservatism and trying to face the inherent problems of big government (moral hazard issues come to mind, such as treating tax revenue as a victimless resource).
If the constitution had been carried out as intended, the states would be distinct entitities. Perhaps CA, MA, DC, and other states would have gay marriage while other states would not. Perhaps Missouri would be big on welfare while MD would not. We could move to different parts of the country based on how similar our beliefs were, or how it benefited us in other ways. Would this be good or bad? One argument I would make is that if you actually felt your vote counted on the issues you voted on affected you directly - such as a major tax to pay for metro, or no tax and no metro, that we wouldn't face such ignorance and apathy.
At the same time I like the benefits of a large country, and the ability of the states to pull together in times of national crisis. I just don't see the states as relevant in today's society, and fear the prejudiced insanity that would occur in KY and GA should they not be curtailed by Federal intervention.
I wish we could just agree on some basic standards of morality, and argue about how to achieve goals rather than treating differing viewpoints as enemies to be fought by any means (justified by the ends). I find I can pretty much get along with people who believe:
1) we need to preserve the environment and species in it (balanced with need for industry - the balance being the most-often source of disagreement)
2) people should be able to fuck whomever they want however they want (balanced with protections against victims like kids and the abused)
3) opportunity for all (but I reluctantly admit that the ability to pass wealth on to subsequent generations is a motivator which inspires work, innovation etc.)
4) freedom of religion, and from religion
5) freedom to get high, drunk, commit suicide, eat chocolate, suck milk-shakes, and otherwise destroy your body as you see fit (balanced with the recognition that some people are sick and may in rare cases benefit from forced intervention - also balanced with the touchy issue of impacts on society and health-care costs)
6) have a country relatively safe from violence and crime (balanced with civil rights and the need for kids and other idiots to blow off steam and have laws they can break w/o destroying their lives or the lives of others)
Edited to add 7) equal rights regardless of (everything)
8) abortion always allowed (why is this an issue?)
That's all that comes to mind at the moment. Is that so extreme?
Since I'm all ranty I'll throw this in:
Israel - are you fucking nuts? They're not Indians, you don't just mow them down to build townhouses. They're people with homes and lives. I thought the US learned from its historical mistakes with the natives, but then 'we' support 'you' for reasons that escape my understanding.
Palestine - stop allowing members of your society to blow stuff up, or at least non-military stuff up, and celebrating in the streets when they do.
2. I think I found a reason to support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage - it puts discrimination of gays etc. in the history books forever. When you scan the US Constitution, you cannot avoid seeing, laid out in black and white, the issues of slavery and female discrimination, and even prohibition. For as long as this nation exists, those pathetic mistakes will be remembered by school kids over and over again. If we ban gay marriage, something I think that will eventually be allowed, it will forever be etched into our collective memory that yes, this country was that stupid, prejudiced, and spiteful. When people ask why there is legal protection of gay rights, there will be the answer in black and white.
3. It might actually take a village. I am only now realizing how much of the constitution has been stretched to incorporate different political agendas. I've wondered how people have stayed so ignorant of politics, how people who seem like decent human beings support Bush and other right-wing bungholes. As I've moved closer to the center, I've opened up to concepts such as fiscal conservatism and trying to face the inherent problems of big government (moral hazard issues come to mind, such as treating tax revenue as a victimless resource).
If the constitution had been carried out as intended, the states would be distinct entitities. Perhaps CA, MA, DC, and other states would have gay marriage while other states would not. Perhaps Missouri would be big on welfare while MD would not. We could move to different parts of the country based on how similar our beliefs were, or how it benefited us in other ways. Would this be good or bad? One argument I would make is that if you actually felt your vote counted on the issues you voted on affected you directly - such as a major tax to pay for metro, or no tax and no metro, that we wouldn't face such ignorance and apathy.
At the same time I like the benefits of a large country, and the ability of the states to pull together in times of national crisis. I just don't see the states as relevant in today's society, and fear the prejudiced insanity that would occur in KY and GA should they not be curtailed by Federal intervention.
I wish we could just agree on some basic standards of morality, and argue about how to achieve goals rather than treating differing viewpoints as enemies to be fought by any means (justified by the ends). I find I can pretty much get along with people who believe:
1) we need to preserve the environment and species in it (balanced with need for industry - the balance being the most-often source of disagreement)
2) people should be able to fuck whomever they want however they want (balanced with protections against victims like kids and the abused)
3) opportunity for all (but I reluctantly admit that the ability to pass wealth on to subsequent generations is a motivator which inspires work, innovation etc.)
4) freedom of religion, and from religion
5) freedom to get high, drunk, commit suicide, eat chocolate, suck milk-shakes, and otherwise destroy your body as you see fit (balanced with the recognition that some people are sick and may in rare cases benefit from forced intervention - also balanced with the touchy issue of impacts on society and health-care costs)
6) have a country relatively safe from violence and crime (balanced with civil rights and the need for kids and other idiots to blow off steam and have laws they can break w/o destroying their lives or the lives of others)
Edited to add 7) equal rights regardless of (everything)
8) abortion always allowed (why is this an issue?)
That's all that comes to mind at the moment. Is that so extreme?
Since I'm all ranty I'll throw this in:
Israel - are you fucking nuts? They're not Indians, you don't just mow them down to build townhouses. They're people with homes and lives. I thought the US learned from its historical mistakes with the natives, but then 'we' support 'you' for reasons that escape my understanding.
Palestine - stop allowing members of your society to blow stuff up, or at least non-military stuff up, and celebrating in the streets when they do.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-08-21 02:25 pm (UTC)And only land-owners would vote. And we'd have no standing army. And states would have the power to discriminate on the basis of race, sex, whatever. Hell, there might still be slavery.
The main things that lead to the expansion of Federal power were the desire to provide equal protection, and to keep maintain some degree of economic stability. Sure, it's kinda snowballed from there, but we have enough trouble getting southern states to let black people vote as it is...
no subject
Date: 2004-08-21 03:22 pm (UTC)My argument is not that we should 'revert to the ways of old' but that perhaps more focus on local communities and less focus on this ambiguous mass of the US might serve the mass of the US.
I do not know how you then battle the horrid problems inherent with majority rule and the warlord mentality. It's easier to control smaller groups of culturally similar people?
no subject
Date: 2004-08-21 05:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-08-22 07:47 am (UTC)I worry about that problem as well, that SC bars blacks. That's one of those areas where it is proper for the US Gov't to step in, which is exactly what happened when racisim was institutional in nature in the south - and only military action got the states and population to adhere to the federal laws. The problem is defining how much power each should have. I worry that the central government has too much, and the population is too out of touch and too under/un - informed to make judgments regarding who and what they vote for.
no subject
Date: 2004-08-22 02:10 pm (UTC)