War of the Ideologues - A House Divided Cannot Stand - A closer look at Current American Politics

In 1858, Abraham Lincoln wisely stated, “A house divided against itself cannot stand” in reference to the country’s ideological split on the topic of slavery. Today, rational Americans can all agree that slavery was an immoral practice and we are glad that we as a country resolved to put an end to the ownership of human beings. Slavery practices in the past were predominantly tied to economic factors and conditions, but tended only to benefit to the wealthy elite. The practice was evil and today, no one in his or her right mind would advocate that the practice resume. One might question whether productive members of society are now becoming slaves to our political leadership’s elite, packaged as taxation for the charity of those less fortunate. How many people are supported on the backs of productive members of society in the administration of welfare programs? How many current and past politicians are now elevated to an elite class of citizenship with golden benefits exclusive only to themselves. According to indeed.com, the estimated average of all US Salaries as of February 19, 2009 was $39,000.00, yet our congress and senate members not only earn $175,000.00 a year while in office, they get to keep that same income for life as their pension! Will you receive your entire income for life as a pension for a few years of service? Did you get a cost of living raise even though the economy is in distress due in large part to government mismanagement?

Today we face new ideological threats to our country’s existence. The first is those who believe in nationalism versus those who are driving us toward a single global state with one governing body for all. We as a society cannot even agree on policies in our own nation. How can anyone expect to have one global governing body unless the plan is for the governing body to be a form of dictatorship with all power concentrated in the hands of a few. How would such a power be managed if not by force? If you do not believe that there are those among us who would promote such a global structure, then I suggest you look into the vast numbers of international laws that have been passed in the last few decades. Consider entities like the G-20, the United Nations, The World Bank, The International Monetary Fund (IMF) or practices like the adoption of the Euro, the forced collapse of currencies around the world, or NAFTA. Many American’s are blissfully unaware of the fact that if a sitting president signs onto an international treaty and this agreement is ratified by the acting senate the treaty is given priority over our own laws and constitutional rights even though the citizens have not had a say in the fundamental change that has occurred. Most are not aware of the practices of the IMF or the utter destruction they have caused to nations around the world by using the strings attached to governmental loans that allow the IMF the arbitrary right to destroy the laws of individual nations. National sovereignty is destroyed in their wake. Only the oblivious or the naïve can possibly believe the same destruction could not occur to the United States as we sink deeper into debt at the hands of an out of control government who cannot or will not live within their own means. This threat is directly tied to the second ideological split we are currently dealing with as a nation.

The second ideological division faced by our society is that of the constitutional minimalist versus the proponents of big government solutions to the needs of individuals. People are standing up on party lines to fight and debate about topics like healthcare, gun control, illegal immigration, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and dozens of other topics, but many fail to see the more broad ideological factors that are leading to these partisan battles. One ideological breakdown frequently defined as “liberals” versus “conservatives” can be more aptly described as a debate between proponents of big government with nanny laws and micromanagement of individual rights and choices versus a more libertarian belief that our constitution and bill of rights should be held sacred and smaller government with individual freedoms and choices respected. This particular ideological debate is often a power struggle between bureaucratic managerial types or proponents of a central controlling body and those who value the rights and freedoms of the individual. By stating the individual rights and freedoms are held as the ideal by many Americans, I do not mean to imply that they are for anarchy and no government or laws. The individualist or constitutionalist believes that the government, particularly the federal government should be minimalist and should serve as a central body for the benefit of joint financial endeavors such as a common currency, infrastructure and military to protect against those who wish to destroy us.

Article 1, Section 8 of our constitution states:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To Promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

While these rights are “fairly” straight forward, they leave room for debate on definitions. The debate on such definitions is where we find the breakdown ideological disputes between big government proponents and those who prefer the government remain limited to a minimalist standard. Nowhere in the constitution do our forefathers endorse the federal government’s right to tax citizens for the purpose of welfare to others, seize control of the health care or even the insurance industry, seize control of any private industry, dictate salaries, limit private enterprise, or tax American citizens in order to give money to foreign entities.

While the constitution does state, “provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States” I seriously doubt that our nation’s designers meant to imply that the federal government had the right, duty or obligation to provide all needs for every single citizen in the country on the cost of productive members of society.

Does this mean I would promote a form of capitalism that “turns a blind eye” to the needs of individuals less able to care for themselves? No, that would be very uncharitable. This then brings us to a question of responsibility. Is it the duty of individuals and organizations within our society to aid the poor or should our government step in and shoulder that responsibility for us? Do I believe that most Americans enter this debate with a charitable enough nature to agree that our governing body provide basic needs of food and shelter to members of society who fail to thrive? Yes. I do not however believe it is the sole responsibility of our government. I do not believe the federal government is the best entity to manage the funding for charity, much less determine what needs should be addressed in individual communities. I argue that such undertakings should be left in the hands of the individual American population on a state by state basis and that welfare programs, including healthcare or insurance for the needy should be voted on by the individuals of each state in the form of levies like those currently used for schools and public services.

I do not believe our federal government has the right to micro-manage our lives, nor do I believe they have the right to become a charitable foundation who opts to arbitrarily use our wallets as the funding source for charities that a few deem worthy. Charity is best left to the individuals who produce for our society. If we are left with the bulk of our earnings, then we can choose whom we think are deserving of help on an individual or community level basis.

Abraham Lincoln went on to say, “I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South”. For the sake of simplistic argument, I will label our country’s current division as a battle of whether we will emerge as an individual freedom based capitalistic “representative Republic” form of society or become a collective based socialist or even communist based society with central rulers who will arbitrary make all of our decisions for us “for the good” of the masses and then live under separate rules and standards themselves.

Some view wealth as a commodity to be shared evenly regardless of effort or productive input. These individuals believe it is the responsibility of our government or leadership to use methods such as taxation and welfare types of programs for the redistribution of wealth. These parties, usually labeled as socialists, Marxists or communists believe that it is the responsibility of societies strongest to support less skilled or less ambitious members of society in the manner in which they support their nuclear families. In 1885, Karl Marx used the phrase, from each according to his ability to each according to his need”. Is this Marxist Communist doctrine one you want to opt to live under? These individuals seem to confuse the concept of monetary gain based on effort, ability and production with greed. Are their greedy and corrupt businesses and people in our society? Of course – just look at our congress and senate. Should there be laws in place to protect against the unscrupulous? Definitely. Should we toss away our entire political and financial systems and way of life for another system that has failed repeatedly all around the world? I personally vote no to that idea. I was raised to have a work ethic. I was taught that I had a free and equal right to a basic education. I have been made aware of higher-level education and vocational opportunities as has every American youth in at least the last fifty years. I have been taught to believe that you actively go after opportunities to better yourself and you work hard, you will be rewarded with success in both monetary and other forms. Hard work “pays off” in the end.

I firmly believe that we as a society should have a system in place to help those who are physically or mentally unable to help themselves or be completely independent. I do not believe it is my duty or obligation to support those who are able bodied and mentally competent, so that they can stay home and watch the soaps or work on their tans. I do not believe that our current welfare programs work for anyone’s benefit. I believe that the current welfare programs trap entire families into poverty for generations. As a tax-paying working member of our society, I have absolutely no objections to helping working poor who are either limited in skill or to unskilled to be unable to find jobs that pay a livable wage, nor do I object to helping those who are unable to find full time gainful employment but are willing to work part-time at whatever job is available when the economy is in a downturn. The federal government should have absolutely no power or say in how states create or manage such programs. Even more importantly, the federal government should not be permitted to tax anyone for these types of programs. The taxation definition and management of all welfare programs should be done by the states in the form of levies in which people vote to pay taxes for such programs for specific time-periods. The current welfare system punishes those who attempt to be self-sufficient and are willing to take jobs that may not pay very well, but at least offer productivity. Families lose the support systems in place by becoming members of the workforce, yet able-bodied members of society who refuse to work have every need met. I suggest that able-bodied members of society who collect benefits from the state and tax-payers should be completing services for those communities. If you are able bodied and unable to find gainful employment, perhaps you can help care for city, state or county buildings or grounds or contribute by helping the elderly or disabled with household upkeep like painting or lawn care. There is no shame in doing a menial job and being a productive member of society. Can the same be said for expecting others to support you if you are able-bodied and have the mental capacity to work in a gainful manner and support or even partially support yourself? I have absolutely no problem with providing additional support for those who make an effort to help themselves.

I do not expect everyone to totally agree with all of my views and assessments of our current situation. I do expect people to respect my rights to my views and my right to speak my views. The current political climate of attacks against anyone who opposes the political agenda of current leadership needs to cease. I am tired of hearing that those who oppose the total restructuring of the America we love are racist. Furthermore, I do not believe the majority of American citizens who are opposed to the current shifts in policy, the rapid expansion of government or to the hurried bills and laws being passed that obliterate our most basic rights and freedoms are just opposed because they are racists who refuse to support a black president. If that were true, he would not hold the office in the first place. Is racism a still a problem in America today? Of course – Just remember exists in the hearts of men and women from all races, not just white members of society. Racism is twisted and wrong regardless of who holds the view. Not every white person is a racist, nor is every black person. I actually believe our current leadership use race as a tool to divide Americans and pit us against one another. I am fed up with a “ruling class” who has decided that they are now part of an elite “ring of dictators” who no longer have to answer to the voting public. I find it unfathomable that we now have dozens of czars who are not elected or vetted representative members answerable to the American populous, but rather answer only to the executive branch or the president. Contrary to the delusional in office, we are not Czarist Russia nor are we a communist or totalitarian dictatorship.

I am opposed to the current leadership (and I use that term loosely) because they quite obviously either: A) dislike the America I know and love and are out to change our country regardless of the dissenting views of millions or B) for reasons of personal gain and power are willing to deny American citizens a voice or controlling interest in our Republic. I encourage all citizens of this country to become self-educated on the bills and laws our “alleged” representatives in the congress and senate insist on shoving through with complete disregard for our constitution or bill of rights. I also encourage all members of society to stand up and exercise your freedom of self-expression. Insist that your representatives offer you the respect they seem to believe only they are entitled to receive. Remember, trust and respect are earned. I personally do not feel obligated to give either to our current representation. For the good of my country, I will make every effort to give common courtesy to others who may or may not share my views. I sincerely hope I can expect the same. I do not advocate violence, but I do advocate activism.

Some may ask who I am or why I feel I have the right to express my views in a public manner. The answer is simple. I am just your average literate American citizen and I am opting to exercise my freedom of speech while I still have the right to do so. If you want to learn more about the bills being shoved through the senate or congress, the following sites are free and display all legislation in play. Your representatives may not have bothered to read the legislation, but you can opt to be a better citizen than they are and read. The first is for Senate bills - http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/g_three_sections_with_teasers/legislative_home.htm

And the second is for congressional bills – http://www.gpoaccess.gov/bills/index.html

I encourage people to read for themselves rather than accepting the rhetoric of those with agendas that may not be in the best interest of our country or its citizens. If reading the bills on your own is too tedious then I urge you to find a source of information that you can trust to be honest about what the bills actually say. I do not have confidence in our “representative’s” ability or willingness to be honest and fair.

There are currently multiple bills on healthcare. Rather than admitting that some of the objections raised by opponents actually ARE in some of the bills, our representatives have elected to play rhetorical games and accuse political opponents and even average citizens who have read the bills of giving misinformation, of being racist or opposed to all having opportunities for healthcare. Yesterday, I actually had the opportunity to hear the President of the United States call literate opponents Liars. What a proud moment for America (read with dripping sarcasm). I would like to suggest mirrors for the name slingers. Playing bait and switch on the details of the bills is not honesty. Do your own research. More importantly, think about the underlying debates. Now is not the time to be apathetic. Our forefathers fought for our freedom and liberties. I for one refuse to sit silently by while our rights and freedoms as citizens and our sovereignty as a nation are being stolen by an unscrupulous band of politicians who “allegedly” represent me.

So – Where do you want this country to stand when the current battle for our existence and the definition of our political identity ends? Will we continue to be a Republic of free market capitalists, socialists or communist in the end? An even scarier concept to consider: will we still be an independent nation or will we be citizens of a global community without sovereignty, a voice or an identity of our own.

Sources

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html

http://www.nationalcenter.org/HouseDivided.html

http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=02/19/2009&l1=UNITED+STATES

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_ability,_to_each_according_to_his_need