Absolutes are bad... talk of my political agenda pt. 2

I have been procrastinating on this blog because I have not found the topic that is both appropos and (what i hope it to be) insightful. I've written a bit about this or that, concentrating more on having an endless ie instead of the one necessary eg. After much thought, and some KPRI inspiration, I present to you the war in Iraq. Let me over generalize for a moment to capture a good 90% of the population. I believe it would be fair to say that for 90% of Americans, the issue in regarding Iraq could be summed into two stances. Side one is the "War on Terror, preemptive measures, spread democracy" clan; and side two, "support the troops but not the war, oil for blood, patrolling the world is bad" clan.

Consider the following. Is your stance as solid as the ground you stand on? More importantly, is it important to stick to such convictions? If you are anti-war before the war, should you follow through and be anti-war after?

DOES THE CURRENT SITUATION EVEN WEIGH INTO YOUR CONSIDERATIONS?

I, myself, was completely against war in Iraq. I did not see the need to patrol the world. In that scenario, I didn't believe that the ends justify the means. Preemption requires premonition and I don't believe that that is a skill that we possess. I did not want to be a generation of citizens, disenchanted by the political machine. I've only read about it, but I didn't want another Vietnam.

But, come wartime, I did some soul-searching and saw past my previous politics. I still fervently believe in what I did, FOR THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. The thing is that once there is war, once we have made our move, once we are involved, things changed. We started something and it would be only right to see it through. We can't support our troops without supporting the cause.

In the political world, I would be labeled a flip-flopper. I struggle each and everyday, constantly forging my politics. If the democrats and republicans asked me to step on either side of the line, I would ask them, which topic on the agenda are we speaking of for I am no mere 1demensional political mind.

to be continued again

Elephant or Donkey? Maybe Donkephant or Elephonkey?

I asked myself a few weeks ago, "what political party am I affiliated with?" I'm from an immigrant family, so maybe I'm a democrat. On the other hand, I am for having english being the official national language of this country, so maybe I'm a republican. I'm all about tax cuts for the middle class, so maybe I'm a donkey. At the same time, the economist in me says that tax cuts for the rich do indeed trickle down in the long run, so darnit, I must be a elephant. I am a political conundrum, but I like to think that deep down, most of us truly are.

We tend to see political allegiance as being 1-dimensional. Imagine, if you will, a number line going from -20 to 20. Looking at this line, we define democrats as being to the left and republicans being to the right. at about zero is a true moderate. But, how is our political affiliation in any way, shape or form, 1-dimensional? More accurately, our political identity should be represented in some grandiose n-space, where there are n issues we care about and have opinions about. With such a space, it would be near impossible and, if possible, impractical to attach some name to each and every set of political identities.

Our political views should not be defined as being either republican or democrat. Quite the opposite, our political identity should be defined by a summation of our political views. I, myself, see my identity as being politically moderate. Not moderate in the ways that it is used today, implying that I ride the fence on every issue, but moderate in the sense that there is always a gray area that is a better solution than the black or the white.

The problem here in lies with the inherent flaw of the two party system. The two party system relies on marketing extreme ideas. It is in a party's best interest to take a absolute stance on an issue, showing their fortitude and conviction. In response, the other party takes stark the contrast of that view and viola, the right and the left. If two parties are so alike, what would motivate a person to choose one or another? Rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat, and we've got our most liberal of liberals and our most conservatives of conservatives preaching absolutes.

Absolut is a pretty decent vodka but makes for horrible policy.

to be continued...