Mason Breed, HW Columnist
It isn’t just Washington that is broken. The problem starts at the most fundamental level of a democracy: the electorate. The tea party and Obama both agree that “different results won’t come from the same people”, but neither has a good political reason to point out the logical conclusion of that reasoning. The same incompetent electorate that has been electing the perpetually broken Washington is the same electorate that is trying to have a revolution to fix it. It will never work. Were a calm, thoughtfully deliberate electorate able to make good decisions on representation, would Washington still be broken?
This electorate is far from cool headed, and the result is candidates like Alvin Greene who lives with his dad, is charged with a felony, doesn’t have a job, didn’t actually campaign, and thinks that job creation in his state could be spurred by making action figures of himself. Another shining example is Christine O’Donnell who is accused of using campaign money to pay her rent, is convinced that the U.S. Constitution doesn’t require a separation of church and state, was a known anti-masturbation activist in the mid-90s, and is the first candidate in U.S. History to run a television ad letting voters know that she isn’t a witch. One would be hard pressed to find a crazier batch of candidates than this election produced, and it is hard to blame Washington for that.
Everyone who was watching the 2008 Presidential election probably remembers the time John McCain had to tell a supporter that Obama was not an Arab (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MRq6Y4NmB6U ). It was the limelight being shined on the little secret of the right. There’s a conservative subculture that is motivated by the endless emails your grandpa gets telling him that Obama is in fact a Muslim Arab, that he has gay sex while doing coke (Larry Sinclair http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=56626 ), and that he was born in Kenya. The GOP was trying to cultivate those votes, while staying distant enough from them that they didn’t color the party in the eyes of the more mainstream voters. Then what should have been the worst case scenario happened. Those who were routinely scared into voting Republican by narratives of the “other”, or the “southern strategy” according to Michael Steele, or tricked by internet whisper campaigns and conservative media actually started to demand that their position be heard. Sadly, the train wreck was so entertaining that the media gladly granted their wish.
Two years of agitation later and the result? The tea party is making significant gains and what used to be outrageous is more mainstream. The people are angry at a “broken Washington” and high taxes… never mind the historically low tax rates. If you’ve had discussions trying to convince people who have never heard of the Laffer Curve that tax cuts don’t pay for themselves, that taxes have been lowered, that Reagan and both Bushes had “czars” too, and that there are no “Death Panels” then you know just how misinformed the enthusiastic right is. It’s gotten so bad that as much as 58% of Republicans believe Obama wants to impose Islamic law (http://nw-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/pdf/1004-ftop.pdf). The format of cable and internet based news has produced horribly informed voters who are passionately convinced that they are well informed. Even worse is that the right is effectively inoculated against opposing view points, as they are part of the “lame stream” media’s liberal conspiracy. The last two years have proven there is no mechanism in our society for removing misinformation from the electorate, no matter how crazy the information is.
So when I see people trying to get out the vote I just think about what that really means; that we should encourage everyone to vote even if they are the dumbest brick on the block, or stuck in the fan mentality cheering for a particular party. The idea behind getting out the vote is that it is good for our democracy because the people will vote for their own self interest. But today’s society is too complex. How are people who have trouble with email going to understand how net neutrality affects them? Most people don’t understand math or economics enough to really know what is going help create jobs, or understand the threat posed down the road by falling water tables, and so on. So how are they going to vote for their best interests? As I encounter people who really believe that tax cuts will pull us out of a recession and balance the budget, and that the top 2% simply must not have the Bush tax cuts expire I can’t help but think that something has taken advantage of an overwhelmed electorate. The tea party energized wave of anti-incumbency was successful in removing incumbents, but I think it will be safe to run on “Washington is Broke” for sometime.
Popularity: 19%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Oh, dude. We are perfect examples why there will always be two sides. Separation of church and state is NOT in the Constitution. If you think it is please cite the Article. The term originated from a letter written to some Baptists who were worried that a national church would be created and wanted Jefferson’s opinion. I like the concept of separation but it has become antagonistic against religion vs. mere separation.
I’ll point to history to justify my economics: the more free market and pure capitalism the more wealth has been created and the masses fare better under capitalism than any other economic system.
Are the terms agnostic and atheist mutally exclusive? Can know what isn’t there, right?
First 16 words of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
@ Dennis, I’m curious to get your thoughts on Ken Paulson’s, President of the First Amendment Center, brief analysis (reposted below) of the “separation of church and state.”
KEN PAULSON – KEEPING THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF RELIGION AND RELIGION OUT OF GOVERNMENT IS A CORE PRINCIPLE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT. The first 16 words say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” That means government can’t limit our personal faith or favor one religion over others. It also means that creationism cannot be taught in America’s public schools, because schools are run by governments, which are prohibited from endorsing a specific religious view.
THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HAS BEEN A CORNERSTONE OF AMERICAN IDEALS FOR CENTURIES. As early as 1640, Rhode Island founder and theologian Roger Williams cited the need for “a hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world.” James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, would later explain the need for this separation, saying, “religion and Govt. will both exist in greater purity, Â the less they are mixed together.”
THE WORDS “SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE” APPEAR NOWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION. That’s true, and O’Donnell’s camp now says that’s what she really meant. The phrase stemmed from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. He cited the language of the First Amendment and said that it built “a wall of separation between Church and State.” This was not just some poetic flourish. This was one of the nation’s founders and author of the Declaration of Independence explaining exactly what the First Amendment means.
THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE MEANS THAT TEACHERS IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAN’T TEACH THEIR FAITH TO THEIR STUDENTS. Public schools are government bodies and teachers are their employees, so the restrictions of the First Amendment apply. But teachers can teach about religion. Faith and history are deeply intertwined, and students should understand the diversity of beliefs in the world today.
Later in the debate, O’Donnell challenged Coons to name the five freedoms of the First Amendment. He came up four freedoms short.
Welcome to the club. First Amendment Center surveys show that most Americans can name just one freedom in the First Amendment and only one in 25 can name all five — freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the rights of petition and assembly.
For more information on the First Amendment, visit the First Amendment Center Online at http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org or the “1 for All” program at 1forall.us.
@ Dennis, I’m curious to get your take on the relationship between capitalism (economic liberalism) and democracy (political liberalism). Do you think that one can’t exist without the other? As you state, capitalism is an economic system. But is capitalism a political system? Mr. Breed, in his article, seems to be focusing on democracy (political liberalism) and the economy (i.e., U.S. capitalism) is only dealt with by proxy. Do you think that economic liberalism (capitalism) can be practiced in a non-democratic (non-political liberal) state or in a non-democratic way? If so, capitalism and democracy are _not_ mutually inclusive. Just curious on your thoughts on the matter since that’s the part of your statement where I wanted more clarification. I thank you in advance for your potential reponse in helping me understand where you are coming from. Cheers!
@ Dennis.
RE: “Are the terms agnostic and atheist mutually exclusive? Can know what isn’t there, right?”
I can’t speak for Mason, but I too consider myself an agnostic atheist. Here’s a linguistic distinction, from me, for how they are _not_ mutually exclusive. The agnostic part answers the question: Does god exist? The atheist part deals with how I lead my life. In short: Can I be certain of god’s existence? No, I cannot. However, I don’t have enough reason to believe – especially on faith – that god (or gods) does exist and, in turn, I live my life as if god does not exist. So, I can still be agnostic about the question (I’m not a fundamentalist in that regard) by admitting the limitations of me being human and my interpretive faculties for answering the question effectively, at least for myself. The atheist part comes from a “lack of belief in god” _not_ in being fundamentally certain that god (whichever god or gods you are proposing) does or does not exist. I will have to say that most god believers (theists) are also atheists by lacking the belief in all gods other than their own. If you lack the belief in other gods, then you are an atheist when regarding those gods. People like myself just seem to go one god further. I’m not a fundamentalist atheist (hence the agnostic aspect of the phrase “agnostic atheist”) because I am open to being persuaded to have my mind changed if the evidence I require to “believe” is ever presented to me. Fundamentalist atheism (and theism, for that matter) means that even in the face of evidence against one’s position, one will hold on to one’s belief.
Pretty much what Julian wrote, but with my own twist.
Agnosticism regards to the ability to “know”. Do you believe you can prove the existence of a god, much less your specific god? If you answer yes then you haven’t thought about it long enough.
Just as you are unable prove that invisible mass-less balls aren’t circling your head right now.
So an “Agnostic Atheist” means I don’t believe that god can be proven, or disproven, and in the absence of proof I don’t believe.
It is sad how powerful the extreme (and hopefully minority) voice in both parties is. Do you think that a heavily entrenched two party system has no real outlet for the minority opinions within the parties beyond the tongue-in-cheek acceptance of some of the more radical factions to garner the necessary votes? When the electorate is so evenly divided, minority opinions from numerous factions can make or break an election.