Setting Sail For Rough Waters

A Modern Political Primer

Jumping into political dialogue is always a risky business. Sometimes it’s good. Sometimes it gets ugly. So many viewpoints, so many twists and turns, so much misinformation bandied about as fact- how do you ‘even’?

You can try to be objective. Who are the players? What are they saying? What are they doing? What does that mean? In that spirit, I’d like to lay out some of the reasoning behind the political essays that will be forthcoming.

True objectivity requires exposure to accuracy to be accurate itself. And, frankly, in an age where just about anything can be Googled, it’s astonishing how much just plain wrong info gets thrown about online. Just as a tiny example, how many times have you seen a commenter call for a representative or senator to be impeached? (Hint- they’re not. They’re removed by a 2/3 majority vote in their respective chamber.)

So, in that spirit, I will, at times, lay out definitions and history of the subject at hand, with apologies to those who are already aware.

Listening to both sides is still critical, though. Our traditions hold as sacred our freedom of speech, of thought, of religion. We actually used to say ‘I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it’. (No, really! We did!)

So, we have that inalienable right to express ourselves, speak our minds and, by our Constitution, criticize our government. But, that doesn’t mean it’s okay to spin wildly and just plain make shit up. Nor does it mean excusing one’s own misbehavior because the ‘other side did it too’. Objectivity is fair, but not stupid.

All people are not always equally good or bad. Sometimes people score. Sometimes people screw up. It happens.

There’s no mandate to find equal fault on all sides to prove impartiality. It’s a posturing long used by media to keep from appearing biased. Ask the hard questions. ‘We’re just being fair and balanced’. (Yes, I know who said that.)

But, fairness is more about asking both candidates the same questions than about finding equal amounts of dirt on them. What if you can’t find dirt? Do you just make it up anyway? What if one candidate’s real dirt is worse? Do you try to make up worse things about the other? As they say, are you reporting on the candidates or making the horse race?

And, that’s the most critical part of our modern political dialogue. Are we actually being fair, with good information, or just spinning, or making it up?

This goes especially for the politicians, who have given expectations by the public. They’re both cynically expected to be partisan, even corrupt, and still literally expected to be bipartisan on common, necessary issues like the budget and the NDAA. And to tell the truth when they speak out loud. (Ok, I couldn’t keep from laughing at that one either.)

But, it’s all in the details, the context- some of them are legit and some are gaslighting. If you know the issue objectively, you can tell which is which.

We want to examine the way our two dominating parties behave, and they’re nowhere near the same. The Democratic and Republican parties have evolved and changed dramatically over the last 170+ years. So, let’s try to look briefly, but objectively, at who they are and what the hell happened. (This is one of those ‘history of the subject’ things I warned you about.)

We have to accept a couple of things as given for the sake of argument.

That the Democratic Party began around 1825, decades before the Civil War, made up of mostly conservative slavers in the South, slowly changed after the Civil War, and by 1932, under FDR, had become liberal, abolitionist and pro-civil rights. They are currently considered liberal.

The Republican Party began around 1854 as a liberal abolitionist party and Lincoln was their first president. They slowly became more pro-business, and by 1932 were conservatives opposing FDR, and by 1968, the Dixiecrats, the remnants of the Democratic slavers, had joined the GOP under Nixon’s Southern Strategy. They are considered conservative today.

So, they both were each other before but they aren’t now. I know.

(If you ‘re bored because you already knew that- good for you! Everyone should!)

Now, with this out of the way, we can look at what in tarnation these people are up to now.

After watching their speeches, their interviews, reading their bills, their tweets, their press releases, we can see the larger picture. This gives us useful modern definitions for liberal and conservative.

Liberals use pragmatism to set rules, based on societal behavior and improved outcomes. Laws are based on how people behave.

Conservatives use ideology to set rules, based on desired behavior and controlled outcomes. Laws are based on how they want people to behave.

Throughout myriad issues, from immigration to school curriculum to welfare to abortion and crime, Democrats are about the reality of the issues and Republicans are about who’s causing problems.

This political battle is, I’m afraid, going to continue to be a common theme across social media for a good while. Most, if not all of the discord we see between political factions stems from this struggle between objective reality and perceived morality.

It’s also the battle of self-determination versus autocracy. Conservatism means adhering to status quo, which historically has often meant profiteering and collusion by monarchies with business and the church. Remember, the ’Tories’ were the conservatives- loyal to the crown, and they remain Britain’s conservative party today.

The ‘Revolutionaries’- us, the Americans, were the liberals seeking self-governance.

We got it. I know! High five!!

So, that means democracy- voting- the chief paradigm of self-rule. That’s what our Constitution tells us to do. And we obey it above our leaders, and our leaders must obey it impeccably. (More on that later.)

Which brings us to today. We aren’t in a period of bipartisan unity behind the Constitution. We have open, wildly obvious differences between the two dominating parties and a polarized society arguing about things the Founders would never have conceived of, like a former president convicted of a felony while running for office, or a Senator getting gold bars from Egypt. (See? We threw in a Dem bad guy, too. It’s that ‘balance’ thing again.)

So, as we discuss the two parties in coming essays, I’ll try to remain as objective as possible, but, still, honest about facts, and critical of projections and speculations.

I’m looking at what they say and write in their bills, and the actual events that occur, how they relate historically, the way they are being presented in the media, and my personal observations of people ‘in the wild’.

But, beware!

As they say, truth has a liberal bias.

Now I know what they mean.

The hardest part of political discourse today is that it’s really, really hard to state objective facts without sounding liberal. You can’t help it. Statistics and history tend to prove liberal points. Actual events are pragmatic. Truths are pragmatic. Stating them is pragmatic. Ya know, liberal.

It’s also almost impossible to talk like MAGA conservatives in the media and not sound bigoted. Once you get into blaming someone for everyone’s trouble, advocating mandated morals, you’re past the line. Because conservative ideology is constrictive. It has boundaries, and forces control, setting social parameters along exclusive ideological lines. It discriminates by nature.

So, in coming essays, I’m going to be citing a lot of what Democrats and Republicans actually do and say, and things that we’ve all seen happening. And, it will sound very liberal, no matter how neutrally I try to say it.

It was ever thus- our pragmatic left versus our ideological right. Come out swingin’ and may the best dogma win.

It’s rough waters ahead. Buckle up!

C.2024 Cousin B