The Political Spectrum

Eureka- the essential distinction between dems and reps has come to me. First, values are defined as beneficent values here- ethically and morally good values- and yes, they do exist (Dems are not necessarily relativists). Second, the formula-

Democrats have values, believe in those values, and stand up for those values. They also rarely, but understand it to be necessary on occasion, use those values for political purposes- i.e., to gain political currency to effectuate those values at large. Republicans talk about values and pretend to believe in values but actually only use the rhetoric of the values to accomplish the ends of their own agenda (i.e., what their lobbyists and their financial bases tell them to do). Dems, unfortunately, are having trouble communicating to the general public how much they actually represent their values. I do concede that Reps are more successful at this point in time. Now that we have the overall structure, lets delve into some specifics.

1.) Schiavo. Mr. DeLay- can you make it less obvious that you are trying to woo the public into not indicting you (by a federal grand jury or in the court of public opinion)? Please just go gracefully to prison. Being a Catholic, and a Democrat- yes they can be synonymous- I understand that life IS "precious." That is why I stand up for and represent civil rights and civil liberties. To use a Rep argument- the government has no place in my business- the government has no right in my civil rights because the government wouldn't exist without my consent in the first place. Terry Sciavo's life is precious- and her afterlife is too. Lets face it. This poor woman is no longer with us, regardless of her leaving her vessel behind. Her soul has passed to the afterlife. She is no longer cognitively available here. So this raises the question- why are we keeping her vessel sustained at its present state? Reps respond by hinting at the values underlying her life, but the real message is- "Hey, I'm in trouble with my constituency. Please reelect me!!!" Please stop abusing this very important issue for political purposes. If you are going to talk the talk of values, please also walk the walk of values.

2.) The Second Term. The issue is not dead. In fact, it is very alive. Dems may have slept to recover from the shell shock of it all- we are down, but we are certainly not out. In fact, I really should address this as the mandate that Reps believe has befallen them at their doorsteps. News Flash- there is no mandate. You are not tapping into the Manifest Destiny of the new millennium. What you ARE doing is setting your party up for disarray. Sociological studies have shown that when repressed groups band together for one common purpose (e.g., civil rights actvitist groups), they tend to overcome their majoritarian counterparts (see, e.g., The 14th Amendment; The Civil Rights Act of 1964; The Americans with Disabilities Act). However, once that group achieves the goal it has sought tirelessly, that spirit tends to be directed at its own members. For example, Dems had control of Congress for nearly 40 years. During that time, factions began to develop among Dems, ultimately leading towards Dems becoming the minor party in the Congress. The same phenomenon may occur with labor groups or other organizations with a common goal. Your time is coming soon. You can already see the signs. It makes me happy. Enjoy your brief stay, because your morally devoid policies, your politically charged laws, and your interest-group oriented belief structure will sometime again fall. Enjoy your time where you hoard the world's resources, in your anti-Robin Hood belief structure. Remember, it is on your soul. Oh, and by the way- we will learn from your mistakes and make it another 40 years.

3.) Another distinction between Reps and Dems. Dems sign on to the social contract theory espoused by Locke and Rousseau- inherent value comes from the individual, not from the government- and the source of authority to act comes from the individual. It really is a matter of agency law. When the government acts, it only has the AUTHORITY to act when the majority has granted that authority (standing in the shoes of the individual). Of course, in any particular moment, the ethereal "government" (who can only act through its agents) cannot ask for permission, nor can the real majority give its consent. But let us be clear that the government (both state and federal) has no place acting outside the scope of its authority. Therefore- your choice of marriage, your control of your body, your control of your life- all originate with the individual. The government has no say, unless a clear majority can speak. Of course, there are clearly times when the government must speak and the majority has given its consent- crimes (e.g., murder, robbery, etc.); violations of public policy (e.g., excluding minorities from jobs); and any other balancing of interests. But even then, the existence of a majority ought to be, to steal the phrase, clear and convincing. (I.e., a somewhat questionable win in the State of Florida where your brother holds all the cards is not clear nor is it convincing). Reps seem to not understand the social contract theory. Reps seem to use government authority where it is convenient to achieve their own agenda (e.g., to use the Congress to enhance the coverage of the Schiavo ordeal for political appeal; to elevate the Eleventh Amendment to a position of authority so far beyond its initially intended scope that it deprives private individuals of their Congressionally authorized rights), rather than determining whether the authority exists in the first place. It happens in the Congress. It happens in the courts. And it clearly happens in the Executive Branch. Nor are states immune from attack here.

I digress. The bottom line is this. The real fight is one of good against evil. Dems v. Reps. Even Superman had an arch-nemesis and a substance that made him weak. Fortunately for humanity, he always prevailed. Hubris, my friends, will be your kryptonite. So mandate on...