A Time to Talk and a Time To Listen

Anything worth doing is worth doing right, unless you can afford not to. Nowhere is this adaptation of the old adage more appropriate than in the discussion of American government. Rife with powerful interests both industrial and social, the American political landscape is one of peaks and valleys, with those of means upon the peaks and the mass of the American population in the valleys.

Now as far as what is right, who is to say? Ideas and beliefs held throughout the ideological continuum almost all have points of validity to be sure, and when discussing the concepts of lobby and influence, there is a great deal of positive things to be said about the ability to redress grievances and promote particular values within government. Moreover, the Constitution guarantees us the freedom to say what we please and to promote the causes which are dearest to us. However, in our century’s long experiment with government by popular consent, this nation has lost something in the way of its proper function and has in turn, given rise to a new breed of activists and insiders which to our profile, stands to pose the gravest threat to our popular sovereignty since the days of King George.

As our economy, technology, multi-nationalist business presence and internal wealth have grown, so have the efforts to secure controlling interests in the bodies which govern them. In times gone by, a simple visit to the home of a government official by an interest for a chat and a handshake was often enough to secure their desires. Modern influence peddlers however, have stepped up their game, using the massive fund raising and marketing tools at their disposal to sway elections and buy legislative preference after the fact. While there are countless examples to choose from, none goes as far as demonstrating the modern practices and inherent dangers in this than the military industrial congressional complex.

While this moniker is at least familiar to most, the specific wording posed here presents one of the first steps taken to secure the power of the complex against public rebuke through the use of clever politics. In his farewell address, President Eisenhower issued a stern warning against the continued establishment of what he dubbed the “military industrial complex.” While this is well known to any who pay attention, what is less discussed is the drafting of the address and the changes made for political purposes.

Initially named the “military industrial congressional complex,” Eisenhower was met with apprehension by his staff for the inclusion of the term “congressional.” Stating that such a reference could endanger the party’s chances of holding onto power and could alienate the legislature for future administrations, the word was removed from the final version of the address. For decades to follow, the true dangers of collusion between the defense industry and government went both passively acknowledged by those who understand what this means and completely misinterpreted by those who don’t.

Much akin to other industries which have grown around civic needs, such as prisons, medical care, telecommunications and energy, the defense industry has made an art form of lobbying and influence. From stacking the regulatory deck with industry insider appointments to lucrative employment offers made to various government employees who play ball, the temptations of wealth and power are but the tip of the iceberg in regards to what drives the influence in Washington. However as Defense is an industry entirely built around an element of the state, the means they’ve devised to secure their will are outright brilliant.

Having diffused their labor and production bases throughout the country and various congressional districts, their ability argue for expensive projects which often serve no practical purpose in light of modern security threats, are enhanced by their ability to control employment figures in the respective areas they operate in. When this is then coupled with the enormous amounts of money both donated to current campaigns as well as that promised for reelection efforts, the comprehensive scope of dependency which the industry creates within government and individual politicians becomes clearer.

When one proposes a cash cow weapons platform which is to be built in separate parts throughout the country, or demands a no-bid contract to provide logistical services to military elements in theater, the efforts to secure these desires are aided by the ability to threaten the economic stability of a district through “necessary down-sizing,” as well as exert the always productive pressure that campaign funding arrangements can create. Between these and countless other strategies which the titanic industrial forces use to exert their will in government, it is no surprise that the very nature of the very contracts themselves operate in such a curiously generous manner. Enter the no-bid, cost-plus-fee contracting system.

Imagine you decide to tile your kitchen floor. Now the average sensible person would take bids from given contractors, determine the best value presented and award the job to whichever company or professional posed the most attractive offer. This is not only a sensible business practice, but one of the more virtuous aspects argued in favor of capitalism altogether. The biggest bang for your buck.

Now consider the following in contrast. Instead of bidding out the job, you instead give it directly to a company who previously helped you out in the past, whether financially or in some personal endeavor. Such arrangements are not totally outlandish, or ethically questionable, but then add to this the demand by the company that you pay for every cent spent by the workers during the tiling of your kitchen, up to and including their wages, the price of their lunch, insurance for their private vehicles, the rent or mortgage they pay and reimbursement for every mile driven while under contract, in addition to the fee they’ve demanded for their service. Then consider what it would mean if the tile company had the final say on what tile would go in and how. Starting to sound bit like the only decisions you have to make regarding your own kitchen is what is for lunch tomorrow.

This is but one small part of a larger problem we face. With this gaming of the system rooted in the support structure which corporate America provides for elected officials and the stranglehold they have on the US economy, the very serious matters of, in this case war and in other cases medical care, communication, energy production and so on, all become marketplaces in which the benefits and risks posed are not measured to fit public good, but rather that of the profiteers who run the game. But the corporate world is not entirely to blame for slanted policies or narrow minded legislation.

Quite to the contrary, its traditional opposition, the grassroots activist, also has a hand in this perversion of popular sentiment. While activism was originally the core method for a redress of grievances or a call to action by the population to the government, its modern form is more akin to commercial public relations and marketing than that of action born of civic virtue or proper cause. As the ever increasing entrenchment of the partisan divide continually plays out in the media and popular discussion, many issues of concern ranging from taxation to environmental protection, have been co-opted by private firms in the efforts to convert them from valid causes to simple political ammunition.

Throughout our modern history, social interests pushed by entities such as organized labor, antiwar movements and various groups promoting social values such as traditionalism or social justice, have often made up the bulk of political activism in the US. While these same groups and messages still do exist in mainstream debate, the manner in which they are promoted has changed dramatically since the days of flowers being placed into trained rifle barrels. With countless public relations firms and political consultancies having opened nationwide, many formerly organic grassroots style movements have now become professionalized campaign and lobbying strategies, implemented using the same techniques at work in the corporate sector, which the core supporters of popular movements once decried.

And while the successes of progressive social legislation under Democrats and the steps to institutionally preserve traditional social values under Republicans do stand as a testament to the effectiveness of these new strategies, the end results of these actions within the voting blocs themselves, have only served to further enhance the phony popularized political differences. Voters are by manner of popular association, cast in one of two absolutist camps politically, which in turn both make single issue voters out of many and serve to bolster the bipolar nature of their political options. Then media then steps in and the explosive and generally hyperbolic fringe differences of opinion then become the norm, leading not only to a loss of intelligent discourse, but a challenge to up the ante regarding the controversial and vitriolic.

These polarizing, professional marketers carve up the body public like a Thanksgiving turkey and make out like bandits for doing it. Through vicarious self associating policy demands, slanted polling, an intentional blurring of contexts and focus group tested rhetorical argument, these professionals have turned what was once the only effective avenue that average citizens had to challenge their government with, into just another commercial marketplace, with the political equivalent of Walmart drowning out the sounds of ma and pa activist, who are screaming for help. The options are scaled down until elections are nothing more than the Pepsi challenge, just short a blindfold and a refreshing beverage.

So now, constructs and political machinery have taken over. The often absurd fights between activists come to embody willful popular debate and America’s national business interests dictate the uses and needs of our collective resources. Once every two years, the public is given a set of options and once every two years, they fail to recognize the players at work who are dictating what those options will be.  If they do recognize it, they either throw their arms up in surrender, figuring there is no real fighting it, or scream at the top of their lungs until their voices mesh in with countless others and are promptly shouted down by the privatized establishment.

And so what can be done?  Some would say nothing. The machinery is too powerful, the people too divided and the game too well rigged for anything to effectively counter the problems which plague our system.

Others would say we must fight with every ounce of strength and with every breath we take, lest we passively approve of what we know to be wrong. They’ll cite the rights of redress and the US Constitution as all we may need to protect ourselves, but what if a true solution lays in a violation this very doctrine in pursuit of a greater good? What if what we need is a time to talk and a time to listen?

It’s a dangerous idea and a potentially slippery slope to be sure, but it is still one which demands honest consideration. Our elections are how we establish our government. Our government is what establishes our law. Our law is what keeps and protects us from the savagery of anarchy and the oppression of tyranny.

In light of what we face today, amidst the evolved corruptions and throws of power, we must consider reformatting of our elections and political system entirely. The special interests have cheated their way to the heights of power as weeds overtake an untended garden, and it is now time to dig out the roots once and for all.

To start, private political election campaign financing must be eliminated completely. From the major corporate donors who bankroll both sides of given elections, to the individual contributions made via internet, telephone, check, money order, cash and credit, every private cent donated detracts from matters of policy and backs the matters of flash. And while pomp and bluster will always have their place in politics, the abilities they have to distract us are solely dependent on the financing available.

A standardized election financing scheme utilizing set dollar amounts of public funds deters this and when coupled with mandates that election advertising and debate structure maintain a policy orientation with fact checking made available prior to and after given ads and debates, it provides an environment where as opposed to career politicians, true statesman have a chance to win the day. Added again to this, a more defined primary period in which any registered party with a certain number of active registered members, can qualify for ballot status. In this, the United States will for the first time in decades, have a genuine chance to abandon the intellectually dishonest bicameral partisan system and its limited options regarding her future.

But what then of the PACs and issue campaigns which infest our airwaves, mailboxes and doorsteps constantly during each and every election and in some bizarre way, sway the body politic towards whichever candidate has the most pizzazz? What is to be done with them? Herein lies the true problem, for in addition to curbing the monitory expression of individuals and private enterprises, this proposal also requires a direct prohibition on public free speech.

In order to restore popular sovereignty and return power to the people from the hands of the interests described in this essay, sacrifices will need to be made. In this case, the sacrifice is the near absolute freedom of speech guaranteed by the first amendment to the US Constitution. For in this proposal, it is would be required that at no time during the designated federal election periods, which themselves are to be standardized into four year increments, thereby reforming the terms of congressional offices, that no PAC or private political campaign may promote specific goals or ideas by use of the postal service, public airwaves or solicitation of citizens at their homes, so as to ensure the validity of debate and statesmanship in given elections.

These groups and campaigns will of course be free to hold demonstrations to promote their ideas, so long as they are not held on public land and will not be restricted from internet campaigning, as this remains a private endeavor. Furthermore they will also be free to solicit and campaign at their will freely, during anytime other than the designated campaign and election season for federal or state offices. The freedom to express one’s grievances and concerns is both a basic natural right and a fundamental necessity to a free society, and it must be protected.

However as the inequities which exist between the free people of this nation and powerful interests have pushed the balance of power out of the hands of common citizens, our statesmen have become nothing more than television spokesmen. Steps must be taken to ensure that this imbalance is corrected. In light of these facts, there appears no real alternative but to take into serious consideration the radical actions such as are proposed here.

Though highly controversial, these proposals would not only give further legitimacy to our elections by ensuring a policy oriented debate, but would also effectively eliminate all outside election season influences from the narrowly focused interest lobbies, who skew public debate into absolute hyperbole. While questions about endangerment of free expression are unavoidable in the most honest and objective thinking on this, the greatest danger posed by a proper and thorough adoption of regulations like these is really only boredom in the absence of an expensive dog and pony show.

Between a complete elimination of private campaign funding, a regulated and transparent election process and a careful management of interest lobbying efforts, this nation can once again become the land of government by popular consent which it was intended to be. While the Constitution was drafted to protect popular political sovereignty, it is the popular will of people of the present day to govern themselves as they see fit, which truly defines the concept. For as the alternative is to do nothing but complain, blame our partisan counterparts and to allow inaction to remain our default disposition, real political change will remain the as much a pipedream as transparent government and functional democracy are today.

American Mythology

(Note: This piece was first published last July in an online political forum I frequent.)

When discussing politics or national affairs with someone, it isn’t uncommon to hear arguments which use the “founding fathers” and the original 1787 version of the Constitution as the basis for their positions. Many take these arguments on face value or will often counter with their own quotes and articles from the later half of the 18th century, but is this really a good and proper way in which to discuss contemporary America? Whereas the old adage of “those who fail to learn from history are bound to repeat it” does carry a valid notion about historical consideration, the modern popular hisotries and points of interest used in debate should not be without due consideration about their total implications.

The first and most obviously pressing matter regarding historical contexting, as many of you will likely agree, is inevitably the validity and relevance of hisotrical quotes, assumptions of character and association to modern matters. Recently, historical researchers and portions of the academic community have begun a “debunking” of sorts, regarding many of our national legends. The ride of Paul Revere, Molly Pitcher’s heroic deeds and even the revolutionary character archetype of Samuel Adams have all begun to wither in the face of new historical data.

We are now beginning to see that much of our historical understanding regarding revolutionary times and the heroes we idolize is largely rooted in simple myth. Much in the tradition of religious texts, our history and heroes come not from contemporary works which last through the ages, but a progressive series of afterthoughts, some made as much as a century after the events and persons involved are all but memories.

As these myths and legends from our past begin to give way to the true, widespread social democratic nationalist movement and revolution that was our founding, the reference of romantic quotes such as “O’ what a glorious morning for America,” become less relevant. So it may be fair to say then, that to try to contextualize modern events through the prizm of what we are learning to be a largely romanticized series of epic fables, perhaps it is time that we consider ourselves for a moment and remember that we ourselves are capable of coherent political thought which we can filter through our own understanding and experience.

Another point, which works off of this first one, is that in our consideration of our heroes, we should remember that Mr. Adams, Hancock, Warren, Jefferson, etc…did not carry either the movement, nor the leadership alone. Countless of other brave patriots, many of whose names are lost to history, aided equally, if not to a greater degree than the icons we celebrate publicly. Beyond this as well, we need to remember that even prior to many of these men’s direct efforts, thousands upon thousands of noble patriots, dressed not as gentlemen, but as farmers and peasants, rallied with their neighbors to create the true backbone of the revolution.

In our idolization of a select handful of men, we do a great disservice not only to ourselves, but also to the true founders and forefathers of this nation, the organized masses. We need also remember that it was through their combined efforts, working together, that they were able not only to throw off a foreign oppressor, but to build the very nation and it’s Government. When considering our places in society, our passions and positions and how we come to our conclusions, it should be considered that it was people more akin to ourselves than any of our leaders, who, working together truly found, took and held the power to make change in their country.

When asserting positions and invoking the “founding fathers” as the backing for it, it is also important to remember that even prior to the Declaration of Independence and event prior to the 1st Congress, that the politicians, merchants, activists and pre-revolutionaries all, like today, had different agendas, opinions and even parties. This being the case, the very invocation of “the founding fathers,” or reference to their “liberal” or “conservative” stances on matters in essence only reaffirms the inevitable political divides which exist today. As such, the justification or line of reasoning designed to support a given point in essence is only a comparison of situations, in that while an argument is going on now, one was going on then as well.

Likewise with the Constitution, we need to remember that this was not the perfect work of a body of men seeking to enshrine forever a series of eternal and unchanging commandments, but rather a document forged of compromise, to set up a general framework for the Government and legislation to come. Rather than an order given to their children, it was a project framework handed down continuously throughout generations, to be kept relevant and purposeful as times change, while at the same time establishing a clear record of general intent for government. As many of the signers were initially unsure of the wisdom of creating a constitution in the first place (for fear that one generation would continually rule the next and remove the spirit of Democratic self government for the society as a whole) the document was left open and adaptable, so that we as a people may govern ourselves, as opposed to living according to the will and wisdom of centuries ago.

And so here we meet the crux of historical revisionism and vicarious modern associations. While learning lessons from history is a valuable consideration, we must not forget that this is our country and always has been. It was not Samuel Adams, John Adams, John Hancock, Warren, Washington or any of them who began the revolt, met and talked of matters of state as the mattered at the time or began the true founding of this country, but rather the contemporary everyman, united under the general principles of liberty* and sovereignty**.

It is up to us now as citizens of today’s America, to take our ques, not from the legends of centuries past, that we find to agree or support our position, but on the logic and facts of our time.

* – To be a free people in a free and civil society

** – Not only the national soverignty of a free nation, but also that of a free people who rather than following the leaders as legend tells, took their local and regional self Government as seriously as the national government.

“Common Sense”: The Moron’s Panic Room (a short op-ed on conversation)

Are you having trouble selling stupid ideas to people by using the words “constitution” and “founding fathers” in rapid and pointless repetition? Do you encounter difficulty at convincing those around you of the impending communist plots at work to kill grandma? Does it seem sometimes as though all those smarty pants with their educations and their critical thinking skills just can’t stop oppressing you with valid argument and credentials?

Have no fear…for now there is common sense! Thats right, common sense! With “common sense” you can make any one dimensional logical fallacy into your own common knowledge, just by dropping the words in periodically throughout a discussion.

“Well I have a degree and years of experience in the field and frankly, I think you’re just wrong.” “Well fuk dat, I’m gonna go to college one day and I’ve got common sense!”

Or,

“GAO reports show that the program is working rather effectively with limited amounts of waste since the new oversight reform measures have gone into effect. So why do you think government needs to be eliminated?” “Cuz they’re lying. Its so obvious. Its common sense.”

Common sense might just very well be most overplayed, poorly used term in modern conversation.

Beyond the pedestrian applications of ending every persuasive sentence with “it’s just common sense,” there is a far more sinister use in play which is eroding the value of basic human intellect. This is, what I have affectionately come to call, the moron’s panic room. The Moron’s Panic Room is a safe and inscrutable place tucked somewhere in the moron’s mind just between “the Jews did it” and “Ron Paul for President.”

This “panic room” as I call it serves as the self defeating cheat code for political enthusiasts who talk before they bother learning. Whenever backed into a corner about their credentials, knowledge base or intellect, they are able to whip out “common sense” and regardless of whether or not it applies, provides them with a further level of self delusion with which to continue pretending that an absence of an education and an opinion is equal to an informed and enlightened perspective.

Regarding conservative opponents of single payer or public health care…

Seems the arguments against nationalized care are still solely in the “government is bad” and the poorly informed “it’ll cost me too much money out of pocket,” arguments. Its almost as though they draw obtuse lines between costs and expenditures. They’d rather pay more for a service they can imagine is their own private property, they’d rather sacrifice others in order to maintain this illusory feeling of self reliance, they ignore the basic concepts of health care coverage plans and support systems that limit access and service in the name of profit maximization and worst of all, they use xenophobia, nationalist superiority, a presumed and hostile classism and a faux moral highground to support them. All the while waving the flag, pretending like the cold war is still on and spouting talking points devised by insurance industry lobbyists to try to distort the raw facts regarding health care in this country.

Its as though every man thinks he is an island, with only himself and those close to him to consider. They ignore and actively disregard the inherent social pacts which make us a nation and civilization as well as the affects that the injustices and inequities faced by others have on them vicariously. If they bother to notice these, it is simply to gripe and moan about what lower orders of citizen they are for having not achieved the same level of personal mediocrity and illusory security that they did.

As it is, private health care systems not only leave millions without recourse when faced with illness and injury, but they exploit the needs of our people as a whole by choking off and commercially rationing the care available. Those who receive but cannot afford treatments for medical issues not only drive up the costs of health care for everyone, but also suffer significant personal injury by means of the credit rating and reporting affects that massive unpaid medical costs can create. If the societal danger in this is not enough, it is in due course of reason then to consider what a nation faces when grand swathes of their populations are not only sick and without care, but in debt and impoverished with an increasing amount of obstacles in their way.

People who cannot afford health care or who cannot obtain it through their employers are not lazy, nor are they stupid or immoral or any other manner of description which the modern “holier than thou’ attitude which permeates the self important conservative right wing can come up with. Life and success is not merely a matter of grit, but a combination of circumstance, determination, luck and yes, hard individual work. One cannot pull ones’ self up by their boot straps when they haven’t shoes to begin with. Your horatio alger fantasy of life in America, while apparent perhaps to yourselves, is not a universal truth and while poverty and social-economic inequality is something that can never be completely resolved, the active ignorance of the matter on the part of those against single payer health care or public option reform measures will only make things worse. And if the call for concern over society cannot trump the limited and short sighted self interest which dominates the thinking of some, than they would do well to consider the bigger picture anyway, if only in terms of the rippling affects that continued exploitative inequity can have, which in time will lead right to their own front door.

Smoking my Liberty

Lets talk about liberty for a moment. And before anyone starts in on Ron Paul or some Libertarian claptrap about the inherent evils of Government, I’m going to ask that we direct our attention to our prisons. According to NORML the United States has arrested and imprisoned twenty million people since 1937 for marijuana, as of the 2008 election season.

According to their stats, over 99.6 marijuana arrests are made every hour by federal, state and local authorities in their endless and futile “war on drugs.” And for those of you hoping for the change that our dear President/Sell-out in Chief (who has admitted to smoking pot and despite it, is still President) promised in regards to this fundamental corruption of law, I wouldn’t hold my breath. Gil Kerlikowske, the new White House Drug Czar has already made it clear that “decriminalization” is not in his vocabulary. Though he’s called for an end to the war on drugs, a close examination of his statement and position shows that he appears to favor a rebranding of the war, rather than an outright end.

Why could this be though? A quick Google search of Kerlikowske shows an interesting history in terms of his past relationship with the Seattle police and public in general. Already having having a no-confidence vote against him and an investigation regarding his interference with internal departmental investigations, we really need to wonder who Obama has placed in charge of this, one of our most expensive national endeavors. Then again, given the hordes of other interested parties, its no wonder that the machine seems primed to keep chugging along.

With a majority of prisons and jails in the US actually being privately owned by prison corporations, its an easy leap to assume that the prison industry itself has a vested interest in the continuation of record setting incarcerations. And with the hardcore authoritarians in the law enforcement and legislative community who simply love mix the words freedom and values into discussions about needless social controls, it should be no curious matter as to why the development and influence of our prison industrial complex continues to grow, even in this our time of “newer, smarter government.”

Now many may accuse me of having a bias as I regularly enjoy marijuana whenever possible, however is it not fair to say that my bias is one in the interest of my own liberty, while those against me are set to maintain either ideological traditionalism or outright profit? Forgetting for a moment the hardline law and order hawks, one must consider the pharmaceutical industry. With billions of dollars being made from everything from pain medications and anti-depressants to sleep aids and anti-anxiety drugs, is anyone so blind as to not recognize that this billion dollar industry with its countless lobbyists and endless influence, might just be feeding the anti-marijuana efforts in Washington? I certainly hope not, for if they are, I’d say the should stop taking so many of those drugs and come back to Earth for some raw common sense.

So what can be done? With every effort or statement made against the growing and frighteningly militant police state being shot down with a slogan about being “soft on crime” (or some variation thereof,) it would seem that the majority of public opinion is supposedly on our side and the mass appeal of decriminalization or legalization of marijuana is almost universally ground beneath the wheels of the “law and order” authoritarian moralist set. Add to this the plethora of other pressing issues, and those which are not so pressing but championed by those obnoxious enough to be heard, and it would seem that the issue of drug law reform, specifically regarding marijuana is bound to remain on the back burner (or possibly even in the freezer awaiting defrosting.)

The need for drug policy reform is, in my opinion, one of the most pressing issues facing the United States. We are home to around five percent of the global population, yet our laws and our justice system currently incarcerate over one quarter of the world’s convicts. The effects of an overreaching law enforcement and prison-industrial complex present the United States with a question of civil liberties which strikes at the very core of our national identity.

As there has never been a solid Constitutional authority which allows the Government to regulate what an individual may consume privately, the ideological and industrial interests who have come to benefit from the blanket prohibition of drugs and marijuana demand an intelligent and aggressive opposition. But where is it?

With groups like NORML and the MPP having stepped off from outright legalization in favor of the easier and more publicly palatable measure of medical marijuana, we find our champions sorely lacking in this area. And with almost all celebrity and political support being sidelined by the opposition as either cliche’ stoners or outright wack-jobs, we find the increasingly pressing matter of reclaiming our liberty sidelined as well.

Even if one doesn’t smoke marijuana, the arguments regarding the legal status of alcohol and tobacco versus marijuana and their detriments to public health and safety are abundantly evident and too logical to discount. It is time then friends, to take a real and comprehensive look at ourselves and our laws. We can shed blood to spread freedom and democracy across the globe, yet where is the fight for it here at home?

I remain waiting friends, for the time when we can say as one that we will not tolerate the restriction of our freedom to do with our bodies as we please. I remain waiting for the silly partisan divisions to fall away, even if just for a moment, so that we may recognize that “freedom” and “liberty” are not just about getting McDonalds and Starbucks into foreign countries and holding showpiece elections, but actually still mean something here at home. I’m waiting friends and I’ll be here waiting until you are ready to join me in this fight.

The Death of American Liberalism

Liberalism is on the march! Or is it? With the election of Barack Obama and the Democratic takeover of both houses of Congress in 2008, I found myself feeling momentarily optimistic about the future of this country. I found in myself a hope that things very could actually improve and that the mistakes and disasters that the previous government had brought upon us could be undone or at least effectively managed. Yet this moment was short lived, as the hopes I had held for real change were  soon replaced with the troubling question; what happened to American Liberalism?

Well, to be honest, its not much to wonder about, especially when the modern equivalent of liberalism is examined for what it is. Recently, the word “liberal” has existed almost solely on the lips and minds of the conservative right, who having lost in terms of electoral power, still retain significant political leverage in that their opposition seems hell bent on pandering to them. I’m speaking of course of the modern “progressive” political mindset.

Never before has such a detrimental compromise been made in terms of American philosophical or political division. Now whereas the term “compromise” generally entails a certain meeting of the minds, the Progressive version of compromise is not one of meeting half way, but one of caving in the face of stiff opposition at every turn, while keeping the appearance of disagreement bubbling softly on the surface. Where once there was an opposition which stood boldly in the face of ideals which were counterproductive to social good, we now find ourselves beset by a weak and timid club of insiders, all of whom are generally more interested in self promotion than standing for real principles.

This is most evident in the very adoption of the new label itself. Once upon a time there were two sides to this coin. Liberal and Conservative. Yet now, due largely to the left’s acceptance of right wing criticisms and a complete lack of backbone, the term “liberal” has become a dirty word in political discourse. Likewise, the principles of equality, consideration of fact, intellectual honesty and a devotion to open and effective government have all but left and in turn, have been replaced it seems with those of political expediency, interest and industry pandering and an inability to stand up and say to the opposition that they are simply wrong.

What happened to the debate? Where is the opposition? Whereas the right, to their credit, will never hesitate to fight over matters they feel strongly on, the left seems to be intentionally lacking in champions of cause. But is this due to a lack of intelligent, forceful voices, or could it be that the left has given into the lures of political marketing to such a degree that polls override principle?

While working for a DNC friendly PAC organization a while back, I, in the course of conversation with one of the senior staff, made the mistake of using the term “liberal” to describe what I presumed to be our side. No sooner had the word left my mouth than a direct and intentional correction spilled from the lips of the staffer. “No, not liberal. We’re Progressive,” he said, with as much strength as his little voice could muster.

It was here that I first came to actually consider how and why the left would fail, despite the recent victory for what I would come to consider “lipservice hope and change.” Though a desire for real change existed in one form or another in the hearts and minds of the Democratic party base, the left itself could never be capable of delivering on these ideas if the operatives and activists who promote it are too timid to stand up for a simple word. With decades of slanderous and baseless attacks on the principles of Liberalism being promoted by the conservative right, the continual lack of real pushback has created an environment where one side has given all power over the course of debate to their opposition. When the right began treating “liberal” is an insult, the liberals ended up passively agreeing with them through adoption of the new term “progressive.”

As the term itself took root, the philosophy of caving in the face of their detractors and critics became commonplace. The promises of transparency in government have seemed to have been conveniently forgotten and the apparent cult of personality that has sprung up in it’s place grants a passive permission that continues to hand all power in the argument to the minority opposition. Political expediency rules the day to such a degree that almost all classic liberal policies and positions have either been augmented to placate opposition or abandoned entirely.

With healthcare, single payer has been replaced by a pandering market solution which allows the health care industry to continue gouging the American people for a basic need. On matters of defense, no mention of the military industrial complex or the continued profiteering from global warfare is made, but instead a four percent increase in the defense industry’s blank check budget is now called a cut. And while our civil liberties are trampled upon and our prison and law enforcement industries continue incarcerating millions for crimes such as drug possession, not a single voice rises above the cacophony of legislative debate to question this, for fear of appearing “soft on crime.”

So where, I ask, is the opposition to the conservative and neo-conservative political machines? How long will Liberal ideas remain absent from popular discussion? When will the directors, presidents and chiefs of staff of supposedly leftist PAC organizations finally take their jobs seriously and stand up for the issues they claim to advocate for, rather than playing follow the leader in this, the Obama era?

I am still waiting for change. I am still looking for hope. But neither seems to be in the cards for this, our “new America.”

Why arguments against gay marriage fail.

An argument against the argument against “the gay agenda”… If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married…its pretty simple. Otherwise, how about holding your nose and tolerating something you have a personal feeling of ‘icky’ about and standing up for those real American principles of free to do as you like so long as it doesn’t affect the freedoms of others.

The argument about plant/dog/object marriage is a failure because none of those things can consensually enter into a legal/social pact with another consensual mature adult. The argument against pedophilia is a failure because once again the matters of legal mature consent still stand opposed to it, as well as the matter that it is already codified law that sexual activity with children is a crime, whereas sexual activity of most any sort between adults is not. Therefore from both a legal and rational perspective, comparisons between homosexuality, which is a personal matter and pedophilia which is a criminal matter are a failed argument.

The endangering of traditional unions doesn’t hold water because any danger posed to heterosexual married couples comes not from outside influences really, as much as from whatever destructive underlying conditions that exist within that specific union itself. The fact that gays can marry will not stop Jon and Jane Doe from falling in love and marrying, nor will it in any realistic way contribute to their splitting up.

The argument about it costing money and hurting the economy is a rather silly argument as these family units that will be created will strive to work towards the same upper or middle class standing as the straight couples will and will in essence have only a marginal beneficial impact on the economy overall, if any at all. The GOD argument fails because the pious have no greater right to stop me from blasphemy than they do to affect the behavior of any other free individual. Furthermore their judgment and condemnation of homosexuals and the unions they seek, by the tenants of their own faith, contradict their lord’s word, as only god may judge a human being and by the words of Christ is it not the duty of a good Christian to love and respect even the lowest of their neighbors?

The only practical question I see arising in terms of the legislative argument about gay marriage is one of the religious institutions and how they are to handle them. Obviously it would not be proper for Government to dictate to said institutions as a whole who and what they must do and respect, however on the same token, were Churches allowed to discriminate against homosexuals on the basis that their lifestyles are antithetical to the church’s respective faith, would this not be a violation of said homosexual’s civil rights? If it is reversed and the church is obligated by law to respect and accept the homosexual union or lifestyle, does this not constitute a violation of the religion’s constitutional right to free practice?

In summation, I would say that the only legitimate concerns or arguments against gay marriage are those of the specific legal implications and limitations therein. No realistic social detriment exists, nor is there any “slippery slope,” nor as some on here may claim, are there any public health risks (that has to be the dumbest anti-gay argument I’ve heard). The arguments posed by those opposed to gay marriages are simply bigotry, religious orthodoxy, personal emotional revulsion or any combination of the three, none of which have any practical or legal standing in the eyes of US law, nor should they.