Tuesday, May 20, 2008

The Dangers of Political Parties

Political extremist refers to a person or group that holds a set of beliefs that diverge from society's norm to a great degree. They show disdain for the rights and liberties of others, but resent the limitations of their own activities. They favor censorship of their enemies but use intimidation and manipulation to spread their own assertions and claims. We Americans should unite for the good of our country and not get caught up in divisive partisan political warfare that causes that solves nothing but rather creates more problems and delaying crucial important decisions that will affect all Americans.

United States government is a democracy which every citizen within the country gets to have a say in what decisions are made. The sovereignty which democracy grants to law (higher than custom or the whim of individuals or the rights of groups) creates a moral problem like must we logically accept a decision of the people to make a law which approves abortion? How to handle people with disabilities? Like for an example, recently, a federal appeals court ruled that the U.S. discriminates against blind people by printing paper money that makes it impossible for them to distinguish the "bills' value". How do we handle this?

The America people are seen as the ultimate source of legitimacy in democracy and while making laws, many cannot all agree to propose legislation. Democracy is very complexed and its not that simple. Democracy is popularly associated with the principle of majority rule and it is the expression of the sovereign will of the people, however there is no easy method by which that "will" is deemed to be defined must consist of majority rule.

Rule by a extremist may easily constitute a tyranny of its own by political parties. In today's Columbus Dispatch, a national columnist named Rowland Nethaway wrote about this very issue. George Washington's warning against political parties and the divisive partisanship that inevitably accompanies party politics.

Here are George Washington's quotes:"the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it."

"agitates the Community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection."

I am very nuetural when it comes to politics. I don't like telling other people what to do with their lives. I hold conservative positions on most issues but have an underlying worldview of what is happening and make decisions based on them. I am against abortion but in relation to my fellow citizens, who am I telling them what to do? I have come to conclusion that being a moderate reminds me that I have no control of what is going on in this world. Christianity will always be running against the prevailing society of individualistic views. Lack of balance is often the direct consequence of over-emphasis on certain topics while ignoring others that are related. There is a fine balance between legalism and liberalism. Both are wrong. Everything is allowable but not everything is allowable. People are really confused the balance between what the world ought to be.

Grace is about loving other people that we have the freedom to do so but at the same time, respect how they practice their beliefs. I just let God handle their beliefs that I disagree with. Christianity seriously while at the same time, understand sins in this world. Sins are discord, disunity, and chaos will always produce great insecurity that leads people to feel destabilize in their lives. I am one Republican who wants to see a return to traditional values that must come from the people, not the government. "We the People" are the true government. Politically, to me idealism is freedom without people telling me what to do or how should I live my life. One of my favorite Presidents of all time was Abraham Lincoln, he had one idealism that lead to civil war. Do you remember what that was? I truly believe this kind of idealism is truth. He wanted to abolish slavery.

Today, political parties have unrealistic expectations and an ignorance of the way things really work in politics which is why they are losing. Idealism basically means holding on to a set of beliefs which are a rigid system of the way life is "supposed to be" or "should be". Belief system you have adopted about how things "should be done" which often gets challenged by the way things are in reality. I also noticed that many idealists find it difficult to fully accept anyone the way they really are and chronically attempt to control them so that they can become the way they "should ideally be" which often leads to become fatalistic, hostile, pessimistic, and negativistic attitudes. I truly believe that "over-idealism" is a control issue and that it is at the root of our need to overcontrol situations, people, places, or things in order to ensure that they come into compliance with our ideal image of the way reality is supposed to be. Adolf Hitler was one example of "over-idealism".

Famous Quote
"Where a constitution, like ours, wears a mixed aspect of monarchy and republicanism, its citizens will naturally divide into two classes of sentiment, according as their tone of body or mind, their habits, connections and callings, induce them to wish to strengthen either the monarchical or the republican features of the constitution. Some will consider it as an elective monarchy, which had better be made hereditary, and therefore endeavor to lead towards that all the forms and principles of its administration. Others will view it as an energetic republic, turning in all its points on the pivot of free and frequent elections." --Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan, 1797. ME 9:377



Great post Jim.

Uburalus07 said...

One thing,at the very beginning you said we are a democracy,no,we are not,we are a constitutional republic. The founding fathers were very much against democracies,although Karl Marx was very much for.