Tea Party Makes Me Happy We Don't Have A Parliament

For a while now I had come to believe that parliaments might be a better system of government than the american two-party system. Parliaments allow a wider range of voices in government, they force coalitions to be formed that can broaden the policies put in place, and they force decisions to be defended against opposition parties. Ever since I've paid attention to politics I felt that the two parties are too similar and it's becoming clear that they truly are very similar in some areas (i.e. protecting investment bankers) to change certain government policies and a parliamentary system would allow more progressive voices that I favor to have a place in government. Of course I knew that this also opens up the possibility of more conservative voices in government also.

It seems one of the great progressive difficulties in America is the ability to accept that logical arguments don't necessarily (or even usually) win at the ballot and are probably even less likely to lose once congress actually tries to implement them. A good example is the current difficulty the Senate is having passing a student loan reform bill, which doesn't really have any downside other than for the executives of the private student loan industry. I think my faith in logic made me believe that in a parliamentary system it would allow for progressives to make logical arguments that would defeat the status quo and prevent conservatives from making any serious headway in american politics. The recent media coverage of the "Tea Party Movement" has made me realize just how wrong I was and the true fear I would have right now if we had a parliamentary system that would allow for a the Tea Party to pick up a decent number of seats in the federal government.

An article by Eric Boehlert shows the hypocrisy of the media when covering the Tea Party's and when covering progressives. Sarah Palin was never challenged by any news organizations for the fact that shared a stage with racists (Tom Tancredo suggested that requiring a literacy test to vote would have prevented Obama from being elected, a policy that had been used during segregation to prevent African-Americans from voting and a statement clearly implying that African-American and Hispanic citizens aren't responsible enough to elect a good president), and homophobs (Joseph Farah has unequivocally stated that homosexuality is a sin and the government should not support "sins") and seperationists (many at this and other Tea Party conventions have called for their states to leave the Union). Boehlert makes the very realistic claim that a progressive could never share the stage with such radical ideas without being destroyed by the media. As shown by the filibuster of the Obama's NLRB nominee a progressive only has to know someone who worked for ACORN (not generally a radical organization no matter how Fox News characterizes it) to be prevented from serving in the government.

To be continued...

The new sabbath

I finally watched Religulous, the Bill Maher documentary on the ridiculousness of religion. While I'm not a big fan of religion and don't believe in any of the established religions I'm not sure that I accept Bill Maher's vilification of religions as the greatest harm to human civilizations, at least not on the individual believer level. But I don't really feel like writing about religion right now.

I think my favorite scene from the movie was his interview with a jewish man that built items such as wheelchairs and telephones that could be used on the sabbath because they didn't actually use electricity or whatever it is that things aren't supposed to use on the sabbath. Anyways, I've been trying to stop being so attached to my computer and cell phone and television for a while now so I think I will try to not use at least my computer or televisions on Saturdays (obviously exceptions will be made, but generally I don't need to use my computer on a Saturday, and I never need to watch TV). Cell phones are a bit harder not to use and I'll still listen to the radio cause I see no harm in that, I think the problem is the more engrossing technologies such as computers that don't allow you to do anything else while using them and can lead to lots of time wasted not really accomplishing anything or even doing anything that's all that interesting...I'd rather go for a walk and listen to "this american life" or RadioLab.

War!

Recent news has been made over the changing face of war. More unintentional civilian deaths but less targeting of civilians during war. First of all, the denial of what collateral damage shows one of the greatest lacks of acceptance in the world today. When you know that civilians will die in an attack but you "aren't targeting the civilians" it is not actually different than targeting civilians. The western world likes to think it isn't a big deal because it is all in the name of war, but the denial that we aren't targeting civilians shows a great lack of respect for the rest of the world.

Secondly, I don't understand how targeting of civilians is a war crime. Throughout history, the idea of a war was either to try and take over another area, which would require to remove the leadership; or to retaliate for something done by another country. In the past it was perfectly reasonable for civilians to expect not to be targeted as they often had no input in the decisions made by the government that caused the war. However, in a democracy this claim of inculpability does not hold the same weight.

TIme for a third party

As the Republic party disappears in regions of the country it is not only a chance for an enterprising individual to create a new party but it is also imperative for the success of our democracy. In areas where republicans are not a viable option it is basically one-party rule with the primary of the democratic party being the decisive race. Poll after poll makes it clear that the population has shifted toward the democratic party's principles, but even within the democratic party there are vast differences of opinion about most important issues (i.e. senators that don't want a public option for health care). A new party would likely take a few elections to truly gain a foothold, but as the republic party declines if another party is able to attract enough votes over a couple of election cycles to be viewed as viable they could replace the republican party as a second option. This would be most successful with a moderate party that takes positions similar to those of conservative democrats, such as newly transformed Arlen Specter or Ben Nelson.

The interesting thing about American politics is that this hasn't happened yet, with both parties moving further in the direction of their base and making moderates choose between two parties whose philosophy they don't agree with. The reason this may have happened could be credited to the republican election gurus such as Karl Rove who made single issue voting an art and taught candidates to drive a wedge between each other on certain issues. If these are issues people find important enough to focus their vote on then the rest of the candidates platform will not matter. While this sounds fine, the problem is when these issues are ones that the general population does not understand very well and therefore allow for manipulation when the media is not impartial. A great example is gay marriage which was strongly opposed by a good amount in the 2004 election but has seen substantial shifts in beliefs in the 4 years since that election. When the focal issues are determined by party leaders it encourages greater shifts away from the center because the leaders will generally be more partisan and therefore although they may encourage a candidate to stake out a moderate position that people will agree with on one issue they will recruit candidates that are more conservative overall.

A new party could fill the void left by these divisive politics and provide for more correct representation of their constituents. The reason most other parties that are already in existence are not a very viable option to fill this void is that they are mainly single issue parties that place one issue so much higher than any others they will not be able to find widespread appeal.

salt or drugs?

New York mayor Bloomberg suggested that an initiative to reduce the amount of salt served in restaurants, this is on the back of New York City's ban on trans-fats from restaurants. The United States have made many drugs illegal going back to the early 20th century based on claims that they are harmful to society and to the individual using them. Even as the push to legalize marijuana is becoming more widespread a hangup is the difficulty to explain why something without a proven benefit should be legalized. The ban on trans-fat seems to based on a similar notion, that it only harms people and although it may make food taste better (e.g. Big Macs are delicious) that does not mean it should be served due to the United States' difficulty with obesity. While it certainly seems that government should pursue strategies that are deemed to be beneficial to the public as a whole the idea of using legislation to reduce individual freedom is a bit disconcerting. Obviously, the government could establish a set choice of diets for everyone in the country that would probably be healthier than what many eat today, but this goes against the very fabric of the freedoms established in the constitution.

My Blog

I've always enjoyed following current events and politics and generally have something to say about items in the news, but rarely do I actually say them (or write them). I also would like to begin writing as a leisure activity rather than only for deadlines, so this will be my attempt at writing about things that interest me and hopefully refining my arguments and hopefully getting op-ed pieces published at some point. I think it was two years ago that one of my new year's resolutions was to get an op-ed published in the New York Times (I love making ambitious resolutions and then not following through). I think I have managed to write one outline for a possible op-ed piece in that time and haven't come anywhere near actually sending in an op-ed. So this blog will be filled with my opinion pieces and if anyone actually reads it they are welcome to submit their pieces also (none will be objected as the goal of this blog is to encourage writing as a way to discuss important issues). Another goal of this blog is to help my chronic procrastination by teaching myself to go ahead and write down what I'm thinking.