Candidates

Since I started writing this column I’ve had several “discussions” with a couple of aquaintenances over my perceived misuse of the words “Liberal” and “Conservative” when referring to the political left and right, or rather to Republicans and Democrats. In the interest of keeping open warfare to a minimum, I did an internet search for the definitions of these two words. So, with my apologies to the original writer, I’ll present a rather abbreviated version…

Liberal; the dictionary definition of “liberal” is now almost exclusively used to mean someone from the political left, or simply a synonym for a Democrat. As such, “liberal” has undergone an about-face from someone who is open-minded and non-traditional to someone who seeks to maintain the status quo in the face of efforts to undo the program of past liberals. In addition, the word “liberal” has acquired a negative connotation as spend-thrifts of government money.

Conservative; an old-style conservative was one who is skeptical of change, and who prefers a “go slow” approach to change. “Conservative” is now simply used to mean someone from the right, or simply a synonym for a Republican. As such, “conservative” has become one who demands change from current forms or ways, toward a set of restrictive social mores coupled with an economic program designed to strengthen the current class system and maintain the power of the existing ruling classes.

(Honest, that’s what it said in the book!) As a long time Independent I can’t say that either description really fits my attitude towards our political system. I rather think I could best be described as on “old style” conservative that thinks we need to do a lot of study on whatever subject before we start changing things around.

I’ve also been following the seemingly endless rhetoric of the current crop of presidential hopefuls with a lot of misgiving. We should or we should not withdraw from Iraq. We should or we should not come up with a nationalized health care plan. We should or we should not allow abortion. Private schooling is/is not a good idea. We need more/less government surveillance. We need a bigger/smaller government. Do we increase taxes, or reduce them? Sheesh, it’s enough to drive a normal person crazy trying to keep track of all the options we’re being offered! We’ve got Republicans, Democrats, Moderates, Independents, “Greens”, Constitutionalists, Conservatives, Liberals, Progressives, several groups of Theocrats, Isolationists, States Rightists, a Neo-Nazi or two, Anarchists, wannabe Communists, “Know Nothings”, and a bunch of folks I don’t know how to describe, all running for President, and of course they’ve all got their own bright ideas. There’s at least one young feller out there in internet land that thinks the United States should adopt the diplomatic policies of Attila the Hun! In my case I can scream, preach, and do all the finger pointing I want, because I have no intention of ever running for President, or even dogcatcher for that mater. But if we suddenly find the need of a “Dictator for Life”, I could be talked into accepting the job…

One thing most Americans fail to understand is that government is a self perpetuating industry these days. It is not in the best interest of government or government employees to be limited in size, or to have its income (taxes) reduced or restricted by statute. Governmental authority is usually considered to be the right to collect taxes, enforce obedience, and delegate power or influence, based on control of the police and army. (If anyone other than the government tried to do that, it would be called extortion, and they’d justifiably spend quite some time in the hoosegow.) We all realize of course that we don’t operate our “government” in quite that manner here in the United States. Instead, every four years we vote for whatever individual we want to have controlling the police and army, so they can collect taxes, enforce authority, etc. etc.

The problem is in deciding whom, of all the people making campaign promises they have no intention of keeping, do we vote for? Most Americans solve that problem by watching TV, and selecting the candidate they think the most handsome, or the better public speaker, or perhaps whoever makes the most outrageous promises. But we also forget is that insincerity is hard to detect on television or even in the printed media. Sound bites and shallow reporting see to that. Our two-party system further complicates the issue by severely limiting our choices to the people selected by vested interests, with the alternative being the assorted fringe elements.

I used to think the European political scene was a confusing madhouse until I started looking at the fringes of American politics. For the moment I’ll define “fringes” as anything that isn’t an integral part of what is commonly considered Republican/Democratic “mainstream” politics. I understand that there are more than 200 distinct political parties or movements active in the United States today, each with their own political agenda, and each with somebody that wants to be president, which gives us a lot of fringe movements!

The political fringes seem to be populated by any number of lunatics at first glance. But the further you look into them, there are a few people out there with some pretty good ideas, at least from my viewpoint. Some of those fringes actually think we need a smaller government and lower taxes! Some of those crazies actually oppose the growing “big brother” state with its endless surveillance of the citizenry! Some even oppose the “Nanny State” so beloved of the mainstream left! If you stop and think about it for a moment, what’s so “fringe” about thinking that our government is supposed to be a constitutional republic with limited powers, instead of a welfare state democracy, or a “safe and secure” police state?

Ron Paul of Texas, and Tom Tancredo of Colorado, appear to be two of those “fringe” politicians standing in opposition to whatever it is that mainstream politicians have in mind for the future of our country. Ron Paul seems to think we need a smaller government and lower taxes, less government surveillance, and that we should pull in our horns and tend to our own knitting for a change. Tom Tancredo opposes our “open borders” policy, unlimited federal spending, and activist judges. I rather think that both of these guys are worthy of a long look before they’re dismissed as crazies without a chance of winning.

After all, Ross Perot was considered a crazy fringe politician by the mainstream, but American voters thought he was serious enough that he wound up with 19% of the popular vote. How many more didn’t vote for him, but later wished they had?