On Politics · 10:22pm Nov 9th, 2016
I'm a Conservative Libertarian. That means, in the simplest terms, that I prefer a fiscally conservative government that stays out of social affairs. A smaller government is the ideal one in my view.
In other surveys, I read as Young Independent. That means that I am disgruntled with both sides of the political spectrum, but I do tend to lean slightly more on the right-wing.
The problem with labeling by party, however, is that it really doesn't matter. The prime and essential role of having a divide, a distinction, within government, should not be to encourage party loyalty. In fact, the idea behind there being any sort of two-party system is and was wrong from the very start.
I am sure we know much of Washington's farewell address, and specifically does he point out the dangers of political parties. If we avoid them, then we were to be certain of a completely unified America. But with his absence and Adams and Jefferson causing the first split came these parties (granted, the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans are extinct parties [the latter having split up into its current two later on] but the point remains).
But we cannot turn back the clocks. Since this has been done, and it has been done for so long, to turn it back to Washington's original vision would be impossible.
Thus it may make some sense to simply accept the party system and move on.
Let us then consider a compromise.
If we cannot have no party system, then perhaps a one party system may suffice. Already do I see numerous blogs and threads moaning about the fact that the entirety of the government is now Republican. These complaints are justified, if viewed from a distance; this would appear to be the monopolizing of political power that every person should fear.
In truth, I see the reasoning behind such fears, but I also see a contradiction in that claim. It works with the assumption that the party will be loyal to itself, and on paper, it should. However, we need to note that Trump's policies and aims have alienated him from a majority of Republicans, both within the House and in the Senate. We also have to take into account that the check-and-balances system is meant to work regardless of whether or not one party is in power. This illusion of "complete control" is a fear that rebounds off of our ignorance to how the government is meant to work.
Beyond that, it should come to no surprise of such events either happening within the next few years or in our lifetimes. There have been instances where one party reigns supreme through America's history. Once the Federalists became unpopular following the War of 1812, the opposing party, the Democratic-Republicans, lasted for a decade. It then dissolved into various smaller parties; but a decade of one party is still fairly long.
Consider as well the elections in which one party reigned supreme in each. Democrats have been elected after Democrats; Republicans after Republicans. If we consider one party having been voted consistently as a form of political monopoly, than any two consecutive elections with winners from the same party ought to be considered as such.
It is odd, yes, but not uncommon; and perhaps it is more common than we think.
I have also seen people demonize the would-president for being homophobic and anti-black. While I do believe that Trump is of the "passionate American" mindset (more on that later), it should be noted that he has never been anti-LGBT or anti-African American.
Since as early as 2000 he has called for the LGBT community to be awarded the same rights as others, citing the Bill of Rights as his reasoning. (Though this will undoubtedly incite some flames, I would also mention the fact that Hillary has been both anti-LGBT and pro-LGBT--the change occurring only recently.) As for claims that Trump is anti-African American, I cite sources that show his work with minorities and African-American communities.
http://conservativepost.com/watch-jesse-jackson-praise-donald-trump-for-30-years-of-helping-african-americans/
http://www.snopes.com/trump-received-ellis-island-award-in-1986/
The conclusions above, then, seem to be unfounded.
To address his other remarks (those of anti-Muslim and sexual harassment) I will say that I do not support him nor can I willingly nor unwillingly support him in those regards. Demonizing an entire culture due to the actions of a sector is simply illogical and relies on correlation, not causation. It has always been my belief that the actions that a person performs mean more than who a person is. To think otherwise is to profile someone, which is both morally and lawfully wrong. And harassment is not an issue to be taken lightly.
I have also seen people criticize anti-Hillary people for similar reasons. "What those emails said... they're in the past, they're old. Benghazi was old..." is something I heard yesterday. To that I say, "Then surely the same can be said for Trump's remarks on women?" This is not to say that I justify those words; it is to show the hypocrisy of not having an equal opinion.
I mentioned before that Trump is of the "passionate American" grouping, and here I wish to explain my reasoning. During the years after the Second World War, America became centered on a perceived new threat: Communism. Recall from your history books Ronald Reagan's anti-Communist crusade. Reagan is generally considered a fairly okay President (his Reaganomics were brilliant, in my opinion), yet this idea is often overlooked as an issue. Is not the entire attack on an entire way of thinking the same as what Trump calls for? The difference in response is simply that we cannot argue very well for Communism, since history has demonstrated that it works on paper but not so well in the real world. Jihadists, on the other hand, and those that Trump generalize as "Muslims," operate within the real world, and as such, are much easier to hate; and both hate to hate.
Again, this is nothing new. Despising a perceived enemy is something America--no, all countries with enemies--has done for a long time. The Revolutionary War saw something similar, with Pro-Revolutionists attacking Loyalists both physically and by reputation. "My Brother, Sam, Is Dead," while fictional, displays one such scenario. In a family of Loyalists, the brother Sam is the only anti-Britain, and as such, is cast out--and later killed.
The Civil War, strangely enough, in this comparison, was the most tame, and World War One hardly counts since America only entered at the very end. The Spanish and Mexican-American Wars have few, but still evident, anti-race or anti-cultural tones. World War Two, in recent history, did the same, with America's Japanese Concentration Camps and the rebranding of German foods such as hamburgers.
If you want to go further, peer into Vietnam's effect on society. No longer was there a hatred for foreigners, but rather was there a hatred for Americans. Specifically, a subset of Americans; an entire culture, if you will: the Armed Forces. Remember the protests, the violence, the soldiers attacked, families hassled.
Trump and his supporters' anti-Muslim views are simply today's anti-Japanese, anti-Loyalists. This is nothing new. History repeats itself.
The only difference, is that we continue to naively believe that we are above that, that we are self-righteously magnanimous, kind, and unselfish, to quote Walter Lippman. In truth, we aren't; we just have a preconceived bias that tells us that "we're better off today than yesterday because we know better."
Let it be known, however, that I dislike Trump immensely; about as much as I dislike Clinton. The only reason why I would support him slightly more than Clinton is because I can trust an asshole to fuck us up than I can trust a liar to fuck us up and not lie about it. Others may call into question that Clinton has more political experience than Trump, and while, yes, experience makes good on the work you do, in this case, it isn't much to say. Remember as well that Washington had no experience (but do not mistake that for me comparing Trump to good ol' George Washington). And the idiom that "all politicians lie" may be true, but there's a difference between lying, lying and getting away with it, lying and denying lying, and lying and getting caught--all before the election itself.
Having a bigot, idiotic, hardly-charismatic man like Trump in power, isn't much better; and that's a gracious statement, because still would I argue that we are equally fucked with either option.
Facts are facts. We have to live with the choices we made.
To those who are running away, I am sorry, but I cannot support you. Running from a problem such as this does not make you weak, but it does not make you strong. It isn't cowardly (because other peoples do just the same, and head for us), but you cannot run forever and expect the problem to fix itself. You may say that there is nothing left to save, but consider this:
My mother had an aneurysm on my birthday. Regardless of this election, I intend to do everything in my power to help her.
I have a baby cousin named Joy who is an absolute joy indeed.
Every day there is an act of kindness going on that you never see.
Right now, a police officer is comforting a crying child.
A dog is having fun with a cat, and a cat is tolerating a dog.
Someone got their first kiss.
Someone graduated high school.
Someone went to college.
Someone married someone else and had kids.
There is good in this world, no matter how dark it may get. It is simply human nature to be good, and to try to be good, and do good. Perspective simply adds in the added sense of common morality. I know a man who works at my ShopRite. He's in his 90s, and he fought in World War Two. Beyond being a veteran, he saved one of the kids in my school's great-grandparent from a concentration camp in Nazi Germany.
There is good in this world. If you can't find it, look harder. If you still can't find it, make it. No matter who gets elected, you have that right to try and do what you believe in.
That's why I keep writing, incidentally, regardless of how many ups and downs, victories and defeats, moments of elation and moments of depression, I get.
I remain an optimistic pessimist; a cynical idealist; a pessimistic optimist; and a ideological cynic. Paradoxical facets of who I am, but they keep me going nonetheless.
I refuse to give up hope, that one day, we will get it right.
You, sir, are going places. I don't know if you'll be an author or a politician, or something even bigger, but you're too big, too smart, for this world to handle.
65.media.tumblr.com/47ab4e195a9ed7f0f688e806414f4ded/tumblr_inline_o7ckti0Fw41tusteo_500.gif
4293954 Ah, you are much too kind. I only appear smart when I need to be. But thank you for the kind words.
I tend to avoid party labels p, my politics are based on Exspericne of the candidates as well as there history, and I am for a government that is small, but capable of lending a hand when needed.
I just wish people weren't threatening to leave. WHY ABONDIN YOHR COUNTRY? Why not say and be a part of improving it? Good hearing from you again, been a while since I've been on. You are a smart cookie.