First lets look at a favorite of the past few years.... the birther issue. Is Obama a 'naturalized' citizen of the US and thus fit to be president or not? For me this is a non-issue. Once upon a time it was viewed as natural that the leader of a nation be derived from the genetic stock of the existing ruling class. And if no such heir was available it could mean civil war. I think many in this day and age laugh at the old idea of the Devine right of kings... at the same time they turn their nose up at the idea a non-natural (that is someone not born to it) citizen could be President of the US. Whether the pool is 300 million, or a single royal bloodline... the idea is equally silly. Especially considering that the first and most notable presidents of this nation were not born to it. They had to create it first. Of course ' thats different' as the old saw goes. Fine it is different. But what of this notion that only those born here can make a good leader? That truly is no different from the old notion that only an heir of the current leader can peacefully continue the leadership of the country without risking civil war scrabbling for the 'crown'. In fact this whole debate has arisen in me a desire not to see a birth certificate for Obama... but instead to freshen up the language of the constitution to address this absurdity, and others like it (the 3/5th person clause for slaves comes to mind....). Citizenry is a good requirement for those that would seek to lead us. Also requiring they have something out of their control (their birth) enter into the equation should be excised. And I don't think anyone is arguing Obama isn't a citizen.
Let us continue along this same vein to another topic that is often intertwined... that of the notion that Obama is Muslim and that is somehow a bad thing in and of itself. Last I checked those same said rules regarding citizenship say zilch regarding the faith of said candidate. And in the first amendment to the constitution, The first item of the 'bill of rights' is a list of express freedoms upon which the government is not allowed to infringe. Chief among them is the freedom of religion. Not freedom of Christianity. Freedom of religion. It is the freedom to follow the faith of your choice. It is the freedom to follow no faith at all. If it is to you individually important that the leader of the nation be 'Christian' then by all means do not cast your vote for a candidate who does not follow that doctrine. But do not begrudge your fellow citizens right to cast their votes as they choose. This is the process of freedom and in the choosing of a leader by the masses. It means you may not get your way. And at such times you may be VERY glad that we have a system of government in which your individual freedom is protected by fundamental design by some men of vision some 200+ years ago who could envision a system that could last beyond the common practices of their time.
Regarding the 'Fiscal Cliff': This is both a simple and yet horribly complex issue. Simple in that it is a rather simple fact that the US has gotten into a horrible habit of allowing its government to spend far more money than it collects in taxes. Done for short periods of time with clear plans for rectifying the imbalance this is Ok. But we are now heading into a second decade of consistently allowing this to happen. We have racked up more debt under the past two presidents than was accrued in our previous history combined. And like some misguided seriously irresponsible individual who has lived large on borrowed money we are headed for the brink from which there is no easy solution. I am reminded of a character in the movie 'The Full Monty'. A manager with a good life lost his job along with his workers. However he never told his wife and he allowed them to continue to live as if nothing had happened right up to the point the credit ran out and the whole illusion came crashing down. He felt it was better to keep the illusion and hope some unknown solution would come in time to save him from his lies rather than simply tell his Wife he had no job and they would have to make changes. Loosing ones house and goods etc... is bad enough. But what happens when one of the worlds leading powers reaches the same point?
That is the simple part... the complex part is the insanity of our current politics that has made it all but impossible to make real changes in our fiscal choices despite the fact it seems clear to all parties that change must occur. The problem is that the currency of such change is at the heart of the problem. Change is paid for by pork. Big change is paid for by massive pork. So what happens when the change you need is to spend less which means there is no source of funds for all the Pork items needed to fund the concessions that lead to significant changes? The answer is playing out daily on C-Span and it is not pretty. Dig into any of the big recent changes like health care and all the last minute budget cliff talks and you find a lot of 'talk' about savings but when you read the fine print you find all meaningful savings are listed in the future, often beyond the term limits of the existing officials. And you will notice that the cuts scheduled to begin on their watch often are also deferred as well. Then we in effect hit the snooze button by raising the debt ceiling... effectively granting a higher credit card limit to ourselves and continuing down the path that will utilize the newly increased limit. Sometimes we even enact NEW spending because that is what 'had to happen' to get the right votes to pass a budget. You have to save... so of course you agree to save money on this by spending as much or more on that. It is in a word INSANE. Sometimes I think our government is broken and the great experiment has failed. In the words of one of Heinlien's chracters... once the masses in a democracy realize they can vote themselves "bread and circuses" the game is up... full quote...
“The America of my time line is a laboratory example of what can happen to democracies, what has eventually happened to all perfect democracies throughout all histories. A perfect democracy, a ‘warm body’ democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally, has no internal feedback for self-correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens… which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it… which for the majority translates as ‘Bread and Circuses.’
‘Bread and Circuses’ is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader—the barbarians enter Rome.”
― Robert A. Heinlein
No comments:
Post a Comment