I will admit that was a bit surreal. It would seem that the idea last night was indeed to draw a line in the sand that separates Republicans from Democrats based on "values". You know that's fine if say, two people are debating what it is they find meaningful and important in life. The thing is though political parties really should not about be about promoting a moral agenda.
I know we like to align ourselves with the people we feel best represent what we believe in...that's fine...but I think the thing is really we don't elect anyone to tell us what is moral or immoral. We elect them to do a job and I guess the big important thing here is what role you feel government should be playing in our lives.
On the issue of foreign policy I'd say you should be considering what role the United States government should be playing in the lives of people that don't live in the USA and what sort of courtesy our government owes the governments of other countries...regardless of their policies. Also, if we're confounded by the actions of a foreign government, is it the sole responsibility and right of the United States government to take action against that country without input from other nations? Meaning is it right for the United States government to make decisions for the world based on what we see as best or does the world outside of our borders have a say in that?
These are all sort of simple questions and ideas but ones that I think are important when considering the issues our government may choose to tackle.
Last night that speech was very much about presenting ideas and choices at an emotional level where you either line up on one side or the other based on what you feel is morally right or wrong.
Let's look at a few of the ideas and the words used to present them:
Death Tax - This is actually the Estate tax. It is called the Death tax to make it sound terrible. Semantics are very important these days. I think really the President of the United States should be referring to it as what it is...not playing that sort of game. We can of course debate the positives and negatives of the tax and the issues it creates but really if someone calls it the Death tax to start with that means they are trying to sell you on their agenda.
No Child Left Behind- Now this sounds like something no decent human being should disagree with. What it really is, is a poorly designed system that will punish schools, teachers, and the children required to participate in the testing they have devised. It is in all honesty just a political tool to generate statistics for politicians to campaign on. Anyone that knows anything about education can tell you that this is harmful to creating a better educational system. It simply takes the focus off improving the education system and puts it on testing. Schools, teachers, children, are punished if the test results are poor...so what do you think they will want to do...teach to improve test results. If we are teaching to a test then we've just limited greatly what children will learn. That's a simple concept really.
America doesn't need a permission slip- This is meant to sound bold...it really comes across as stupid. For the president of a country, in particular the United States the shining beacon of democracy, to stand before the nation and the world on national television and say this is shameful. He basically just told the whole planet that we could give a hoot what they have to say and we'll do as we see fit. Now it's also not at all true because we will talk to the UN and put a resolution before them as we did with Iraq...we may pull it off the table when we discover they won't approve it as we did with Iraq...but we will go to them first seeking that "Permission Slip"...so why bother to throw this stupid and shameful line into the SOTU? Look, when people criticize the president and the actions of this administration we often hear a lot of crap about how unpatriotic this criticism is during a time of war. Well, there was nothing patriotic or even remotely identifiable as American or democratic in that statement. If we as a people have ceased to be able to recognize that fact we have reached a sad state indeed.
Sanctity Of Marriage- I hope everyone likes this phrase because you're going to hear it a lot in 2004. The thing is, I don't believe it's the politicians job to be debating and discussing (on our tax dollars) the sanctity of marriage. I mean give me a break. We don't elect these guys to be our moral compass and frankly I think it's best not to consider them in that fashion at all. If you want someone to preach morals at you go to church. There you will find the proper forum for this sort of discussion and hopefully find a large group of people that adhere to those ideals. I have complete respect and admiration for that. It's not at all for politicians to be working up a "definition of marriage" though or getting involved with constitutional amendments to address it. We don't legislate "values" and when we start doing that well then we have ceased to be a democracy.
That's about all I have the stomach for right now but if you break down that speech you'll find it sort of a semantic game meant to push us into one corner or another. I didn't think much of the Democrats response either but I think you're in an odd position having to respond to something that was that strange. It was a sad thing to watch as a whole and I don't think it would have made anyone that really loves this country and what it stands for proud to be an American.
Glad to have you back from vacation Gene. Sounds like it was great. Are you doing alright there bro' with the Johnny Walker?
Reg
