Fighting For Principal

This recent stand by 13 Democrats against the nomination of Condoleeza Rice has really got me steamed. To start a term in such contentious fashion, fighting a cause which they admit on the floor of the Senate they do not hope to win, is outrageous.

How much better could it have been to state their objections for the record, to air their concerns, but not in a bellicose manner, not in a way that invites derision and signals an intent to fight on every issue, even when there is no intent to change the minds and hearts of those to whom they are speaking?

We'll never know; because we are so entrenched in government of the parties by the parties and for the parties, that we have forgotten that decisions made and even debated affect all of the PEOPLE, and that is who the government is supposed to be of, for, and by.

Our voice in government has been supplanted by the voice of the political party.

Passionate Moderates

It is time that we in our right minds, meaning all those who are not out on the fanatical fringes of issues became more passionate about demanding attention be paid to the center. There is so much babble about red states and blue states, the right-wing and left-wing, and virtually no one paying attention to those who are intelligent enough and reasonable enough to listen to both sides of an issue, and make up their minds not based on a label, but based on the facts of the particular case.

Moderate has come to be synonymous with dispassionate; and that has to stop. It is unreasonable to disregard the wishes of the majority. It is also unreasonable to simply cast minorities, the weak, the elderly, out to sea because they do not have numbers to speak for themselves.

I remember hearing Harry Brown, the Libertarian candidate for President, repeatedly state in previous election years that were he elected, he would get rid of the IRS, get rid of the Public Schools, that he would get rid of our drug laws, then take a break for lunch. That kind of rhetoric doesn't take into account that the President must govern all of the country. You don't get to just implement whatever those who voted for you want; you must go through the appropriate checks and balances, and Congress (Democrats and Republicans) would never approve those sweeping changes, nor should they.

Worst of all such statements betray a simplistic idealism, as do most fanatics, that do not take into account the incredibly complex layering of our economy, the inter-dependent nature of our laws, our fiscal policy, and the businesses and families which plan their expenditures and adventures around existing laws and public structures.

Easy To Be Cynical

Somehow political pundits have gotten the idea that cynicism is the proper approach when covering any attempt by either party to reach across the aisle. It is easy to be cynical in more than one way. Mostly it is easy because it doesn't require any thorough understanding of what would make this offer unique. It doesn't require any investigation into what would be the ramifications if the offer were treated seriously. A detached cynicism passes for intelligent, and allows the observer to state "See, I told you so," no matter which way the issue falls, or fails; in the same way that John Kerry places himself firmly astride both sides of an issue.

We need to cast the cynicism aside, and drop the comfortable belief that one side or the other has all the correct answers, even that the "conservative" approach is always going to be appropriate, or the "liberal" view should always predominate. This would never be tolerated from a coach in a professional sport. There are times to air out a long pass; and there are times when more caution is warrented.

Let us start looking more to the heart of the matter; and the parties be damned.

Term Limits

Let's take something relatively simple and attempt to solve it as a Win-Win. Term Limits.
Those in favor of them cite the incredible power of incumbancy; with over 98% of elected officials re-elected, despite polls showing that majorities are disappointed in the service of those they have elected to serve.

On the other side of the issue, those against term limits primary complaint is that preventing the public from re-electing a qualified person, who has great experience in the position, is not in the best interest of the electorate.

If, however, term limits were not permanent, if there were a reasonable limit on the limits, both sides can get what they want. For example, after 12 years in any elected office, the office holder may not hold that office again until 4 years have elapsed. After that, they are eligible once again to hold the same office for up to 12 years, followed by another hiatus.

This would allow wonderful public servants to serve as many years as they wish, would allow the electorate to re-elect those wonderful public servants, and would still allow for fresh blood, innovative ideas, and a valid comparison, by allowing a newcomer in to the office every twelve years. An important ancillary benefit would be that in the intervening four years, the electorate could judge the mettle of their esteemed public servant by what they choose to do to fill those four years.

Inauguration Protests

I watched a good many of the speeches at the ANSWER protest, via C-SPAN, and was struck by the simplistic tenor of many speakers. These issues are complex. They are not going to be solved, or helped, by chanting "Bush and Cheney go away!"

No objective observer could have watched or listened to President Bush's second inaugural address, and left with the opinion that the man is either dumb or evil. You may disagree with his choices, or his behavior, or the results of his actions. If you really do want to influence American policy, let us start with the premise that he really does want to do what he claims to want to do, to spread freedom to oppressed people all over the world. If that is true, would that be a bad thing?

If that is true, and if you have valid points to make, to show that the "unintended" consequences of his actions are lessening the freedom of people in America, or in other nations, are interfering with their ability to live freely, or to live at all, then President Bush ought to be open to your suggestions regarding how to better accomplish his agenda.

It is only when we enter the discussion with the bias that the other side is lying, or is manipulating the truth (they may be), or has ulterior motives (no doubt they do), that we interfere with our ability to communicate. Shouting slogans at each other ought to be a last political resort. Instead it has become the first action to be taken.

What Is A Moderate?

In recent days I have heard many commentators, on virtually every type of media (including those typing on virtual media), claim they don't understand how anyone could be a "moderate." They state they don't even know what a moderate is. I was moved to create this site because I have yet to hear an adequate response to their derogatory characterizations of moderates.
These commentators have made careers largely by appealing to those who tend toward the visible ends of the political spectrum, those who are most willing to put their time and effort and voices behind what they believe, because they believe it rabidly, because they are either ultra-left or infra-right, they are blinded to the truth.
There used to be a concept enforced in American court rooms, the Reasonable Man Clause.
There used to be a concept in American politics, an understanding that at the end of the debate, all on both sides of the aisle are fighting for what they truly believe is going to further the good of the American people.
There are those in America, those whom Dr. Martin Luther King called the "Uncommitted Majority," who have in latter days been called the "Rockefeller Republicans," "Reagan Democrats," and "Soccer Moms," who have been the decisive factor in every national election in the past 35 years, and will be the decicisve factor in every election in the foreseeable future.
We "Moderates" in California just succeeded in ousting a Governor who was not responsive to the will of the people, in what I believe will come to be known as one of the most significant political revolutions in American History; and we elected a man who ran as a Republican, while espousing many beliefs anathema to that party. And yet, in the 2004 elections in California, not one office of 153 changed political party.
Watching Barbara Boxer attempt to embarass Dr. Condoleeza Rice, I was embarrassed for America; because this is what the state of our politics has become. After citing the recent Dr. King Holiday, someone who proudly claims to be Liberal, assails the character and integrity of someone she will have to work with for at least the next four years, someone on the verge of assuming the most powerful political position ever held by an African-American woman. Why?
It SEEMS she did it only because she disagrees with her politically. She admits Dr. Rice is qualified for the post. But then she states that Dr. Rice "lost her respect for the truth." Had she only prefaced her remark with the phrase, It SEEMS, Dr. Rice would have been given an opportunity to explain. Had she allowed Dr. Rice that opportunity, and remained open to the possibility that perhaps there is a valid explanation, those people who share Senator Boxer's viewpoint might have gotten a fuller accounting of the truth. Instead now we are treated to the fallout of the attack, speculation of Sen. Boxer's political positioning, discussion of the state of American politics, a cascade of vitriol that could have easily been avoided.
We Moderates believe that the only way out of this current political climate is for those on both sides to put the good of the country (meaning all the people of the country) over the good of their own party, or their own career. If Democrats will stop claiming that Republicans want to kill children and leave old people to starve on the streets, and if Republicans will stop claiming that the Democratic Party wants Communism in America, if both will approach each situation honestly looking for a win-win solution, there is hope for this Nation.
If we Moderates continue to allow fanatics on the edges of the spectrum to dominate our parties (including virtually every Independent party) we will continue along the destructive path we are on. It is time for the Uncommited Majority to stop applauding the losses of one side or the other, and only support those who would advance the good of America.