Thursday, August 4, 2016

Frick and Frack

Fiddle Dee and Fiddle Dum. The old children's stories and fantasies. Opposites. The Jack Sprat could eat no fat and his Wife could eat no Lean. The thick and thin of things. You know what I mean. Opposites throughout our daily lives. They are not models of what the other could be, or warning, either. Opposites don’t warn us; they instruct us.

If you want a business person to administer your affairs and make decisions to add to your wealth, you look for a person with a set of skills and experience who can do that. You also observe his record of achievement. You are attempting to make a judgment on who can help you. Of course you will steer clear of people you think might harm your portfolio and assets. You weigh the options and get as much information as you can and then you make your decision.

I repeat, but then you make the decision. Doing nothing is a decision. Hiring one person over another is a decision. Firing someone who has not served you well is a decision. Decisions. Options to choose. Action to take in implementing the choice.

Very much like voting for one candidate over another. You gather the information you think applies, you compare the candidates, then you make a choice. You vote for one or the other. Or maybe you vote for a third person knowing that he or she cannot possibly win, but you felt you couldn’t in good conscience vote for either of the other two.

Of course there is the option of not voting at all. That would be a decision. It means, however, you are not involved in the decision over which candidate will win.

But I think there is another issue here, a fourth option, so to speak.

If your think both candidates are not worthy of your vote, I think you need to assess why you came to that conclusion. After all, there are two primary political parties in America. If you don’t like the candidate of your usual party, you need to ask how this came to be. Were you involved in the party beforehand? Did you know the ‘poor’ candidate was likely to be the party’s successful candidate at the end of the primary season? If you didn’t, why didn’t you understand this?

Now if you greatly distrust the opposing party, you will have some difficulty voting for their candidate. I get this. But this means you should have understood your own party even better. After all, if the opposing party’s candidate is abhorrent to you, you need to truly understand why such an awful candidate has appeared in your own party.

Politics is not private. It is public. It is the result of masses of people opting their philosophies and values. These things form amalgamations that have meaning and portent for the future. They are not mysteries. They are transparent and open to view through the entire process. Along the way some people may think things are not fair, but that’s a poor sport’s take on it. The truth is the system belongs to the people and the voters. If the results don’t fit your expectations or beliefs I suspect you failed your own party at some point.

Case in point: Trump is the republican nominee. Like it or not, he’s the choice of the party. If this is considered a mistake by you, then you have some homework to do and hopefully learn how to not let this happen ever again. Perhaps this will help the party pay closer attention to its members, and help them understand the educational process needed to keep people involved in the system and helping it work smoothly.

Obviously the republican party ran into some heavy problems this time around. But a study of the party’s history would inform students that this result was decades in the making. Allowing religions to get involved in party politics was a major goof back in the 1980’s. Allowing those same religious leaders to manipulate policy, candidate selections and agenda items is a continuation of the same goof.

Politics and religion don’t mix. Neither do government and religion. Witness the Middle East. Is that what you want for America? Whether you are Muslim, Christian or Jew, if your nation’s government heeds only your religious majority, then it becomes a Christian nation, a Muslim nation or a Jewish nation. None of those nations are successful or without serious violence.

America didn’t used to have political violence either. Now it does mainly because a bunch of people and one political party insists we are a Christian nation when we are not. We are a people of predominantly Christian faith or heritage upbringing. The truth is, however, that our nation has a huge portion of its population that is un-churched and non practicing of any religion. Another large segment of the population is of eastern or oriental faith systems. Many more keep faith with Islam or Judaism. Still tens of millions more favor one Christian sect over another. It is a chaotic milieu of spiritual thinking, espousing and practices.

This is not the stuff of peace and calm in government circles. Best to leave all of that behind. Keep it separate. The court system has attempted to do just that. The constitution favors no religion. The Founding Fathers themselves were more Deists than Christians. In fact their discussions were heavily weighted in avoiding the chasms and schisms of faith communities entirely. Just read Thomas Jefferson’s writings for that. Benjamin Franklin as well. And George Washington, the Adams families, and so on.

The Democrats give respect to religions and faith issues. They do not take sides, however.

Abortion and Gay issues have been made into wedge political issues by religionists. That’s why these issues are so hotly debated. One opponent feels their religious freedom is abridged if rights for abortion or gay people are granted. Nonsense. This is not a decision on religion. It is a decision on civil rights guaranteed by the constitution. The government makes these decisions, not churches or faith leaders. Simple. Keep it so.

The matter of conservative, liberal or middle of the road political philosophy is fair game for all of us to discuss. Please do not make monsters out of your opponents, however. It makes a fool of you and doesn’t help the discourse one little bit.

The current presidential election pits one know-nothing and inexperienced person in government affairs against someone who has studied law, history, governance and political philosophy. She has worked her entire career in several levels of government. She has made her life’s career service to others. She has not benefited from any of this work. Her enemies made her famous and a successful author of books and speaking engagements. That has made her wealthy compared with the rest of us. Same for her husband. An unintended effect I know but that’s what created the Clinton wealth.

They continue to raise funds for their foundation so charitable work benefiting all of society both domestic and foreign are beneficiaries of their work. Thank God for that work!

The other candidate has lined his own pockets at the expense of others his entire life. His kids are doing the same. And he got a starter gift from his wealthy father to begin his own career. Along his career path he has amassed some wealth that does not benefit others very much. Plus he has soaked investors and vendors alike for years with failures and bankruptcies several times. What he pays in taxes is still an open question. My bet is he pays very little, soaking the rest of us with games played with the tax code.

The same cannot be said of the Clintons.

So, if you don’t like the Clintons, say so. But if you feel they have broken the laws, then you owe it to all of us to point out the facts and case law where this is apt. Truth be told there is a long record of people attempting to find fault with the Clintons. They have not found anything yet. But that hasn’t stopped their tongues wagging.

Wanting it so doesn’t make it so.

Just ask Trump!

And voting for no one is you walking away from your democratic responsibilities. Shame!


August 4, 2016

No comments:

Post a Comment