Let's quickly take a look at the "expert assumption" the with 30% of votes voting for the liberal winner, in the last Presidential election, 27% voting for the "moderate" candidate and 43% staying home. The "majority", according to the experts, are moderate in their political views. But the majority was the group that stayed home. The fact is they were not drawn to the liberal candidate or the moderate candidate.
Many of us can remember history class in school. In the films we watched, they told of the way the country pulled together after Pearl Harbor. It was certainly a remarkable time. It was really the last time we were in a war, that there was a clear possibility of being defeated. September 11, 2001 brought us back to those days, as people turned on their televisions to see commercial airliners slamming into our most well known buildings, on American soil. At Pearl Harbor, we knew who attached us because their planes were clearly identified. A declaration of war immediately followed. With the development of atomic and nuclear weapons, came a deterrent to overt acts of war. Now in a post 911 world, the possibility of nations of the world being toppled by rogue ideologies, clearly exist.
You may be asking, "what does this have to do with getting along?" Again, only everything!
The answer, because we all don't want the same things! Let us look at our differences. Basically, there have only been two broad types of governments since the world began, individualism and statism. The only type of government structure that fits under individualism is capitalism. Other types would fall under statism, including socialism, communism, fascism, monarchies and other dictatorships. The US form of government was formed as a capitalist system which is based on free enterprise.That is, capitalism with courts that enforce contracts and minimal government regulation, the free enterprise system that made America a great economic power.
Some of our current leaders, say that those days are behind us. That we must accept an America that is no longer the worlds leading economic and military power. How did we get here? We were all trying to get along!
The truth is we can't all get along, if we want a system of government which is based on free enterprise and all the economic advantages it brings. Our current leaders, may be right if we all keep trying to get along! What do I mean? There are two broad types of government, individualism and statism. The United States of America from 1776 to the late 1800s, was clearly in the category of individualism. Then we took a turn, trying to infuse this great experiment in individualism, with a little socialism. Our experiment has given us a progressive income tax (1914), a huge federal government and trillions in debt. Over 100 years of compromise has only brought us here. This is not a republican vs democrat or conservative vs liberal struggle. It is individual rights (individualism) vs government control (statism) fight. We must shrink government, remove most of the regulations, elect representatives that value individualism, cut expenditures and balance much smaller budgets. Most importantly, we who believe in individual rights must act now or this great nation will cease to be the land of the free. Long live our representative republic and God bless America!
http://www.iobusa.org/
Look for "Why can't we all get along?" Part 3 - Let's talk about STATISM, the elephant in the room!
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Why can't we all get along?
In today's political climate many are asking the question, "why can't we all get along"? Let's take a look at this question and the assumptions behind it. It is important to understand the opinion of Americans and their thoughts and feelings on a range of political issues.
This question, "why can't we all get along", is frequently being raised by national media outlets, academia and political commentators. Especially, in reference to congress and the way the political parties interact. The assumption is that the American public is moderate in their opinions and morals.
But what is "moderate" in today's society? The definition has certainly changed in recent years. However, the assumption is based in part on the narrow margins of victory in national elections. The thought is that since elections are close and each side has won over recent years, then most Americans must be moderate. This analysis is faulty. When you look at the population in the US of voting age versus the number of votes cast, the percentage ranges from 49% to 57%. On a close race with the largest turn out, let say 30% voted for the winner and 27% voted for the looser. However, 43% stayed at home. Now if you also consider that in the most recent Presidential election, one side had arguably the most liberal candidate in recent history and one had a candidate that was more moderate (claiming that his major strength was his ability to reach across the isle). In fact, Barack Obama's Senate voting record was definitely liberal and John McCain's Senate voting record was moderate. One other factor to consider, when trying to characterize the US electorate, is the ratings Congress gets overall in recent polls at about 9%. Congress is fairly evenly split between liberals, moderates and conservatives. So if the polls are accurate, few are happy with a balance in Congress, that is by definition moderate.
What does all of this have to do with "why we can;t all get along". Everything! We are told by the same experts, that designated the America voters as mostly "moderate", that conservatives need to "moderate" their views in order to get elected.
Let's look at those views. And we will in "Why can't we all get along? - Part 2
Return to IOBUSA.org
This question, "why can't we all get along", is frequently being raised by national media outlets, academia and political commentators. Especially, in reference to congress and the way the political parties interact. The assumption is that the American public is moderate in their opinions and morals.
But what is "moderate" in today's society? The definition has certainly changed in recent years. However, the assumption is based in part on the narrow margins of victory in national elections. The thought is that since elections are close and each side has won over recent years, then most Americans must be moderate. This analysis is faulty. When you look at the population in the US of voting age versus the number of votes cast, the percentage ranges from 49% to 57%. On a close race with the largest turn out, let say 30% voted for the winner and 27% voted for the looser. However, 43% stayed at home. Now if you also consider that in the most recent Presidential election, one side had arguably the most liberal candidate in recent history and one had a candidate that was more moderate (claiming that his major strength was his ability to reach across the isle). In fact, Barack Obama's Senate voting record was definitely liberal and John McCain's Senate voting record was moderate. One other factor to consider, when trying to characterize the US electorate, is the ratings Congress gets overall in recent polls at about 9%. Congress is fairly evenly split between liberals, moderates and conservatives. So if the polls are accurate, few are happy with a balance in Congress, that is by definition moderate.
What does all of this have to do with "why we can;t all get along". Everything! We are told by the same experts, that designated the America voters as mostly "moderate", that conservatives need to "moderate" their views in order to get elected.
Let's look at those views. And we will in "Why can't we all get along? - Part 2
Return to IOBUSA.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)