Posted by
Bob.Petersen on Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:27:13 PM
Polarization and intolerance are destroying the foundations of freedom
and liberty that our Founding Fathers and subsequent generations have risked
their lives to preserve. There is
no debate on any issue, no opportunity to understand the point of view of
others, we find ourselves in a constant quarrel based on moral
equivalency. “Well that’s all
good, but President Bush developed a massive deficit,” or “President Clinton
didn’t do enough to dampen the growth of radical Islamic terrorists.”
You know how this works; in fact you’ve participated in polarized
“discussion.” I ask you a question
and instead of answering you throw out a factoid demonstrating that my party or
candidate did the same thing, only much worse than your party or
candidate. This approach fosters
intolerance and keeps us all locked in a hopeless cycle that never results in
any true, honest or positive improvements to our society.
A great example of this futile exercise was the recent spat about the
response given by the Miss California contestant in the Miss USA contest. She answered the gay judge honestly and
clearly and then pro-gay television commentators, proving that it’s not OK to
disagree with their position on marriage, maliciously and viciously attacked
her. The absurdity of this
polarization was clearly demonstrated when a liberal feminist blogger/
columnist was interviewed on Fox News by Laura Ingraham about the attacks being
made on the young lady representing California. The self-proclaimed feminist didn’t defend or even support
the young lady; in fact she attacked her for being intolerant (sic) of gay
people! I couldn’t believe what I
was seeing and hearing. The
feminist couldn’t focus on the abuse of Miss California, no she had to continue
the polarization and add her own insult to the injuries already inflicted on
this young woman.
Why did the feminist have to interject her own judgments about same
sex marriage in a discussion about liberals attacking Miss California in a very
derogatory and degrading manner.
Why didn’t the feminist take a position about this abuse? Isn’t that what a feminists stands
for? I could only surmise that the
political agenda out weighs her core principles. Now I find myself in a place where I can’t understand the
position of the feminists because her comments appear to contradict what I
thought feminism was all about and there is no tolerance for another point of
view.
On a recent flight I overheard the flight attendants talking about the
Miss California situation and how she brought this abuse on herself. I challenged the most vocal flight
attendant about how unfair the young woman was being treated and portrayed in
the media and he responded with, “If you live in a glass house…” His position was that it was OK for the
media to attack the young lady, to dig for all the dirt it can, because she put
herself in this position, center stage with America. Did the media investigate all of the contestants to see who
had posed naked or semi-naked? Of
course not. The only reason they
attacked this lady was because she spoke her truth and the media didn’t like
it.
We have lost our sense of decency!
Then we have the Wanda Sykes monolog at the recent Press dinner in Washington,
D.C. where she attacked Rush Limbaugh with outright lies and a desire to see
him die. And the President
exhibiting extremely poor taste and a lack of dignity laughed at this
outrageous indecency. What was the
reaction in the liberal press, “great humor; Rush brings this on himself; Rush
deserved it.” Proof positive that
polarization and a lack of decency is the bulwark of American culture in this
age of “Change.”
Wanda Sykes has never listened to Rush a day in her life. If she had she would find out that Rush
doesn’t want America to fail in fact he is fighting each day for her liberty
and the success of this entire country.
Rush has published a plan for economic and social recovery that Ms.
Sykes and the liberal media will never read. Rush never said he wanted America to fail, or for the
President to fail. He clearly
stated, and I was listening live when he said it, he wanted the socialistic,
big government policies of Mr. Obama to fail as they had wherever they have
been tried before. How do you get
from a well-articulated counter proposal to Rush being a traitor and wishing
that his kidneys should fail?
Polarization, ignorance and indecency, that’s how we get there.
Where this polarizing dialog leads us is a state where open debate
can’t take place and the best interest of the country can’t be determined. It’s all about who has the power and
how far the powerful can take their ideology. We can’t talk about the facts that support either position,
like with climate change or same sex marriage. We can’t develop a prudent long-range policy because we
refuse to act with grace and try to understand the opposition’s point of
view. When we offer a moral equivalent
answer in lieu of a straight answer we encourage ignorance and foster division.
What we end up with is a situation where we won’t put down our own
strident views long enough to listen to what the other side has to say and upon
what basis they formulated their beliefs.
I don’t understand you and you don’t understand me.
So in the interest of developing a meaningful dialog I’ve listed my
foundational beliefs so you know exactly where I stand. Tell me where you stand!
I believe:
Life begins at
conception: A
human cell is alive and when two cells merge and divide life exists and should
not be killed.
Marriage: This is an institution,
not a right and is the union of a man and a woman.
Equal Rights: All citizens have equal
protection under the law and these rights must not be abridged. In the case of same sex partners I
believe that they should have all the same rights as any other citizen and that
government should get out of the institution of marriage.
Limited Federal
Government: The
U.S. Constitution clearly limits the powers vested in the Federal government
(Article 1 Section 8 and the 10th Amendment). All powers not specifically provided
for in the Constitution are the responsibility of the State and local
governments.
Fiscal
Responsibility: The government, at all levels must provide services that
benefit the governed and do so efficiently and economically just as I must
manage my own resources in a similar manner. They must spend less than they
take in.
Free Market
Economy: The
government, especially the Federal should provide minimum oversight of business
to insure the safety and well being of the citizens. These regulations must be constantly reviewed to insure that
they are appropriate and have not resulted in un-intended and negative
consequences.
U.S. Constitution: I believe in a strict
understanding of the Constitution and I don’t believe that it is a “living,
breathing” document open for interpretation based on the current culture. It is wrong to legislate from the bench
and defeats the checks and balances so wisely incorporated into the
Constitution. If the Constitution
needs to be changed or amended, as it has been in the past, follow the
amendment process contained in the document.
Health Care: This should be an open
and free market program with no Federal Government control (other than standard
of care regulations). A
single-payer government controlled system will result in rationed services and
a lower quality of care for everyone.
The citizens need to be educated about health care issues and how to
best deal with them (When to call the doctor and when not to) and the system
converted to a competitive pay for service system. Insurance should be limited to extreme conditions such as
cancer and trauma care.
Immigration: The United States of
America would not exist if not for immigration. And I’m fully supportive of continuing to welcome peoples
from all over the globe who want to participate in this great democratic
experiment and who want to share in the American dream. I simply ask that these immigrants
honor our laws and enter the country legally. Those who have entered illegally must be held accountable
for their actions and not granted amnesty.
Education: This is the
responsibility of the parents and the local communities. The Federal government should have no
part in the funding or the setting of policy. In fact the U.S. Constitution prohibits this
participation. The closer to the
home we can place the control of the educational process the better. Just look at the statistics, we spend
more today than we ever have and the test scores remain the same.
Foreign Policy/
National Defense: The United States needs to maintain a strong and progressive
defense program. Whether we like
it or not evil exists in this world and merely turning a cheek and hoping the
menace will evaporate is foolhardy.
We should be careful where and when we get involved in foreign affairs
but we can’t let our guard down.
Look at the military build-up of China (Whish also owns most of our
national debt) and Russia to understand that our freedom, our liberty, our way
of life is at risk if we become pacifists.
So there you have it.
When I layout my positions in this manner does it bring us closer
together or drive us apart? It is
my opinion that each and every position I’ve presented is currently under
attack by President Obama and the Democratic leadership in the House and
Senate. Maybe if we each take the
time to itemize and share our core values we may be able to find common ground
that we can use to encourage our representatives to act according to the
consent of the governed instead of forcing their ideology on us.
What do you think?