Freedom. We have all used the word at one time or another to describe what the United States of America is about. "The land of the free..." as described in our national anthem. We have 'freedom of speech'. We have 'freedom of religion'. We have 'freedom of the press'. America is synonymous with the word 'freedom'.
But exactly what is freedom? How does one define the word "free" and what leads us to accept our definition of freedom as the true meaning of the word? The answer to the question is a simple one. Our ideology does. Now I know there are those rare people out there who claim to have no ideology. They claim to vote issue by issue, beholden to neither side of the political spectrum. But what drives you to see the side of the issue you see?
Everyone of us has a core set of values. Values that we base our decisions upon. Those values unequivocally drive us to choose one side of an issue or another. That is what molds our ideology. There is no such thing as the political center. There is left leaning and right leaning but the center is a fallacy that does not exist. Let me give you an example. You are either pro-choice or pro-life in regards to the abortion issue. There is no center on a single issue. You may have half left leaning values and half right leaning values but when you break it down issue by issue, there is no center. We all choose a side in regards to individual issues.
Your core values that drives your ideology. Lets take a look at 2 separate ideologies in the perspective of defining the word "freedom". For the sake of argument lets look at it from the perspective of the Progressives and the Conservatives. I think it is safe to say that both ideologies dearly love America and truly want what they believe is best for the country. They both have different perspectives of the Constitution that drive those beliefs.
Progressives believe that the Constitution is a living document and believe that the state can define rights and freedom on an as needed basis if it believes it to be for the better good of the group. Equality = Freedom. The Conservatives believe that the individual trumps the state and that the Constitution is a literal document meant to guide personal freedom and protect the individual from the infringement of his rights by the state. Personal Liberty = Freedom.
Two ideologies, two definitions of freedom. Definitions driven by a perspective that was born from a set of core values each individual possesses.
As I hear many people who claim to be 'in the center' talk about their beliefs I chuckle slightly and ask them about their stances on individual issues. There is no gray area in regards to that. Can you have half left and half right stances on the issues you hold dear? Yes you may but in regards to each individual issue, each of us has a perspective where the center doesn't exist. Try as some will to hold to the center as a whole, their beliefs on issues drive them to one side or the other.
The myth that is bi-partisanship holds true to that statement. True bi-partisanship would be both sides agreeing on an issue. As we all know in Washington there is no agreement. Only trade offs. Quid- pro -quo. You scratch my back and i'll scratch yours. Each side has it's beliefs based on it's personal set of core values. True agreement can never be met. Only compromise. Not that compromise is bad. It is a great thing, but do not confuse compromise with bi-partisan agreement.
Bi-partisanship is a word used by both sides to fuel the fire of division. You never hear of a true bi-partisan agreement. Only the 'want' of each side to reach one.
Only if it weren't for the other side keeping it from happening. ;)
|
|
| |
|
|
It has nothing to do with extreme left or right. The middle is a fallacy. Chronic, you are dead wrong in your abortion example. If you are for one form of the issue but against another that doesn't make you center. You are still FOR abortion. You are just not for it as much as someoneelse may be but advocating any part of an issue makes you FOR that issue. Same with the 2nd ammendment. Bottom line is people have to make decisions. You may be not as far left or as far right on an issue as some, but you still have to be on one side or the other. It is simple logic. The center is a fallacy.
Smashey, you obviouslty view the world in black and white terms. Most people don't. That's why the majority are in the "sensible center." Personally, I'm on the left on most issues, but that doesn't mean everyone is on the far right or far left. If you don't see the difference in protecting the 2nd ammendment while enforcing gun control regulations and allowing everyone to have any kind of guns they want, there is something wrong. Not everyone is on an extreme sides of the issues.
Anon - assuming you're not already a member here hiding behind anonymity, I think it may be very interesting indeed to see what your platform may look like.
You all are a bunch of fucking idiots. God please help the future generations if these people are the voters.
FnG....so you are saying that there is always a middle ground. Hmmmm, lets see what would the the middle ground concerning the war in Afghanistan be? I can only assume that it would go like this....."I want to destroy the Al Qaeda backed Taliban that made 9/11 possible, but I don't want to fight them". That's middle ground for you. It accomplishes nothing accept show that you can straddle the fence better than Humpty Dumpty sitting atop a wall. Either you are for the War in Afghanistan or you are against it. You are either for tax reductions or aginst them. You either like what Iran is doing or you don't. Either you like North Korea playing with neclear capabilities and long range missiles or don't. Taking the middle ground doesn't answer any of those questions. It accomplishes nothing. The only way one can claim the middle ground on such things or that they can claim to be a moderate on such matters is to not have an opinion or to not know about them. You are either for or against things. If you are not than you are indifferent and if you are indifferent than you better not try to be a leader because indifference accomplishes nothing accept make things worse.
U go ask him. And yes people go back and edit their blogs all the time. go to your blog listing you get a list and then click on the title u want and then erase it.
First of all, Erock, if I could fix my blog, I would, but there is NO WAY to edit your blog once it's submitted, or delete it. Go ask Eric Gurr to delete it.
their is not middle ground Smashey is right. U can pretend all u want. But its just not true. Now go fix your blogs.
Nice thoughtful blog Smashey but you are just plain wrong. Everything isn't in black and white. Everyone has their views, but there are many views in between. There is more often than not middle ground.
Sooryyy aboot my typing, I'm quyite fumble-fingered today. By the way, Smashey, I'm taking the Bills this week over New Orleans in the upset of the week.
Yews there is middle gorund on abortion. Early abortions - YES! Late term abortions - NO! Defining life at some point during fetal development would create middle ground. I suggest that when a regular, natural fetal heartbeat can be detected, there is life and the ONLY reason that life could be taken after that would be to protect the health of the mother. That's middle ground.
I never claimed otherwise.
Yes Mr. Erock they are important but to Mr. Smashey's point, those Independents will have to make a choice. They can't vote for a center candidate that doesn't exist. They will have to vote right or left. And they will make those decisions based on issues in which they have either right or left leaning views. One may label themselves Independent, but will still have to make the choice of left or right.
What does exist though are indepandents that are very important in any election.
You are 100% correct in your observations here sir. Many politicians choose to run campaigns on what they refer to as the center of the political spectrum. However they are merely taking a left stance or a right stance depending on the polling on the issue and the geographical area in which they are campaigning. I salute your keen sense of human nature and your knowledge of how it is practically applied in politics today. You are correct my friend. The center doesn't exist. Merely middle left and middle right but even with the word middle being present, so still is left and right. Fine blog.
They are not in the middle. They are still pro-choice. They support an ammendment but are not for repealing roe. That doesn't make them middle, it makes them a little less left. If you are for the 2nd ammendment but want regulations, you are still for the 2nd ammendment. There is no gray on issues, only watered down versions of black and white. There is either abortion or there is not. Tthere are either guns, or there are not. Everyone has to make a choice for one side or the other. All of the ammendments simply make you a little less right or a little less left but you are still right or left. See?
I con sider myself liberal, but I'm moderate on guns. I'm for the protecting the second ammendment but also for strong regulations on guns. The left wants to get rid of most or all guns and the right wants unlimited gun rights. I'm not for either of those. I'm in the middle on that issue. You could be in the middle on abortion too. Some people are for choice but also for regulations like the Hyde amendment. Those people are to the left of pro-lifers and theyre to the right of me who supports the repeal of the hyde amendment. There are plenty of ways to be in the cneter on a number of issues.
I agree Smashey it does make u indecisive. Even if u don't realy care about an issue you should at least be able to say something on it.
Overall you may consider yourself in the center because you have an equal amount of left views as you do right views and that is where most individuals deduce that they are in the middle. However when breaking down views on individual issues everyone has an opinion one way or another. Not having an opinion does not make you in the center politically. It just makes you indecisive.
Ok Chronic so how do you explain the center on the abortion issue, or the death penalty issue, or foreign policy, or the wars or health care? Most people who claim to be center do so because they have some left views on issues and some right views on issues. Issue to issue however, there is no middle ground. You have an opinion on those issues.
I disagree. I'm pretty liberal on most issues, but I'm right in the center on some issues and maybe leaning to the right on others.
Nice blog Smashey. I disagree with you on the center thing though. The reason that Democrats and Republicans often appear like they agree with Libertarians on issues is because a Libertarian always picks the pro-liberty stance which is the right choice all the time.
This is a great statement. I would have to agree that as a person's platform overall may contain a mix of both progressive and conservative views, no one is actually "center ground" when it comes to individual issues. I agree completely, and as I look over my platform, I find that to be true more and more.
That they do I just hope politics don't get in the way of it. Unfortunately history has shown lately that it does. Hopefully the light bulb will go off and someone will get it.
I agree and for me, the next two years will be the period of truth for me inn regards to the GOP. If the realizations about spending do make inroads for the GOP in 2010, the party better not change its tune. If Republicans have not learned their lesson yet and can not be trusted to adhere to their fiscally conservative roots, than there is no hope for them. The tide is turning,, people are beginning to understand but now the politicians have to understand it.
I believe that to be true to an extent. As we get more and more into debt with the many bailouts and takeovers, some people slowly but surely are beginning to see the light. The rhetoric is wearing thin and the reality is becoming a bit more clear to those who may have once not seen where we are headed. Spending will be an issue and those who stood up for it may be in a beteer spot than those who pushed for it.
THat really is a start. Unfortunately politics being what it is they will be depicted as uncaring conservatives who wouldn't accept aid to the needy. That would not be an accurate statement, because as we point out here, the issue is ddeper than that, but politics is has very little depth. It is very shallow and superficial.
I agree Kemp. I have respect for those governors who realized that although they were being forced to take the money, it was wrong to do so. They made it a point to make their point. And it is a good start.
You know why that is? It is because we all have the impression that evryone else is getting over on the system accept for "us". So when the opportunity comes knockin, we say to ourselves, "why the hell shouldn't I take the money! I pay taxes and everyone else always gets it why mot me"? That is one reason why I appreciated the few governors who wanted to refuse the stimulus dollars. We need to set better examples. That was a start. A pathetic one but a start nonetheless.
That is a very true statement. I love the "damn pork barrel projects, quit wastin our hard earned...oh, look a bridge!"
people are happy when money comes to them. everyone cries about pork until it is for them and then it is a great project that just has to be done. this is why i stopped railing against it. it is a lost cause.
That and the fact that although most people polled despise pork projects, they seem to be greatful of the money once it hits their districts.
I agree Smashey but both parties gerrymander to help their folks.
True erock. I saw a study somewhere that even with congresses low approval rating about 92% of incumbents get re-elected. If those voters were truly independent, which most of them claim, the re-election rate would be more in line with that thinking. Instead district alignment is a big reason for those numbers.
also most people hate Congress but love their Rep.
there was a study a few years back about people's political ideology. an overwhelming majority calimed to be independent voters but when you took a closer look at their voting records there was a clear pattern. i think it is only like 2% of voters that are truly independent. i know that i am a liberal even if i am not a dem. i can accept that. the chances of me voting for a republican are slim (except this year if my governor tries to run i may be forced to vote for the R) i think your take on this is correct. now onto the part about finding some common ground on issues that can help unite people in some way. for example, Kemp and i rarely agree politically but we both love animals- see common ground. although smashey is a damm dirty cardinals fan i have found common ground with him from time to time..... i will stop rambling now:)
Superb analysis. The holier than thou of those who proclaim superiority because they have no ideological bend often irritate me for the very reasons that you have outlined. I couldn't have said it better myself.
great blog Smashey! I couldn't agree more.
I agree.
Everyone has a side on an issue. There is compromise, but bi-partisanship is a term that gets used for political means.
At times we have seen bi partisanship in DC. But you are right mostly we have not seen bi partisanship it is a word simply used to help u get re elected or get elected in the first place. Obama claims to be bi partisan then in the same speech makes partisan attacks.
|
<< Home