Jim Stillman
NevarParty Loyalty is not a Virtue
July 29th 2007 23:19
Does this sound familiar?
"Why did we enter Iraq? I answer, for no very good reason, and we have remained for no reason at all. And what is our policy toward Iraq? I answer we have no policy. We have engaged in a miserable misadventure, stultifying our professions, and setting at naught our promises. We have punished no guilty; we have but brought misery and starvation and death to the innocent. We have garnered none of the fruits of the victory of war, but suffer the odium and infamy of undeclared warfare. We have sacrificed our own blood to no purpose, and into American homes have brought sorrow and anguish and suffering. Bring the American boys home from Iraq."
Perhaps it will clarify matters by substituting the word “Russia” for the three times “Iraq” is spoken; that change is necessary for the quotation, from 1918, to be accurate.
In 1918, a “coalition of the willing” (spooky!), the United States, Great Britain, France and Japan became entangled in the civil war which followed the Bolshevik revolution. It was World War I and the Soviet government had negotiated a peace treaty with Germany removing them from the war. America and its allies joined with the White Russians, who promised to stay in the war, to fight the Red Army. The adventure was ill-advised, poorly managed and eventually ended by the withdrawal of American soldiers, after substantial casualties.
There are other parallels to the present political scene. Senator Johnson's passionate rhetoric is an echo of what we hear today about Iraq, except that he was a Republican, and President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, had sent our soldiers to Russia. Today's opposition comes from Democrats who are incensed about the blood-letting in Iraq. Wilson wanted to "make the world safe for democracy," while President Bush wants "to spread democracy in the Middle East." The similarities are greater than the differences.
The modern Democrats and Republicans pull in opposite directions as they did 90 years ago and as they probably should. But directions change through the years. What can we conclude from this ever-changing behavior that stays the same? Perhaps only that, whichever party they represent, those in power tend to exercise their power; those out of power fight to get it.
There is, however, a disturbing trend in American politics, something that I feel is new: the growing party loyalty of ordinary citizens. Many registered voters defend and support their respective parties even when their party's actions go against those voters' individual interests. This form of party loyalty seems strange indeed. It is the loyalty of sports fans, not serious, thinking citizens, who should be devoted to the good of our country rather than to having their "team" win. "Yeah, team," while appropriate on the playing field, becomes ludicrous and often self-defeating in the political arena.
I usually describe myself as a Liberal, other times as Libertarian. Except for my voter registration, on which I have a party label in order to vote in primaries, I am usually careful not to identify myself as a Democrat. I owe no loyalty to the Democrat party; if anything the party owes loyalty to me!
I have strong opinions on many issues: gun control, immigration reform, separation of church and state, the availability of medical care and insurance for all Americans, the improvement of education for all children, the development of non-petroleum based fuels, and the list goes on and on. Some of these issues and opinions mirror the positions of Democrats, some are espoused by Republicans. I choose to pick and choose as if I were at a cafeteria!
Because today's politicians rely so heavily on voter loyalty, they are able to get away with far too much that goes against the majority. Most of them, relying on loyal party members, ignore their constituency as they work to squeeze dollars out of special interest groups - industries, unions, religious organizations, foreign interests, and many others. We would all benefit if we set aside party loyalty, stop rooting for individual politicians, and insist that our representatives represent us all and explain how they will do it.
We may disagree with means, but shouldn't we all want a prosperous, healthy nation for ourselves and our descendants?
Someday, there will, I hope, be the day when Americans of all parties start concentrating on the issues elected officials and candidates stand and run on and how those issues affect our nation as a whole, and not merely how consistent the positions are with the slogans of either party. Let us look beyond candidates' images on camera and which hot button issues they press. Thirty-second TV ads and slogans are no substitute for critical discussions. Let us work for a good, healthy America by using our intelligence and reason, and let us confine our cheerleading to the athletic field.
"Why did we enter Iraq? I answer, for no very good reason, and we have remained for no reason at all. And what is our policy toward Iraq? I answer we have no policy. We have engaged in a miserable misadventure, stultifying our professions, and setting at naught our promises. We have punished no guilty; we have but brought misery and starvation and death to the innocent. We have garnered none of the fruits of the victory of war, but suffer the odium and infamy of undeclared warfare. We have sacrificed our own blood to no purpose, and into American homes have brought sorrow and anguish and suffering. Bring the American boys home from Iraq."
In 1918, a “coalition of the willing” (spooky!), the United States, Great Britain, France and Japan became entangled in the civil war which followed the Bolshevik revolution. It was World War I and the Soviet government had negotiated a peace treaty with Germany removing them from the war. America and its allies joined with the White Russians, who promised to stay in the war, to fight the Red Army. The adventure was ill-advised, poorly managed and eventually ended by the withdrawal of American soldiers, after substantial casualties.
There are other parallels to the present political scene. Senator Johnson's passionate rhetoric is an echo of what we hear today about Iraq, except that he was a Republican, and President Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, had sent our soldiers to Russia. Today's opposition comes from Democrats who are incensed about the blood-letting in Iraq. Wilson wanted to "make the world safe for democracy," while President Bush wants "to spread democracy in the Middle East." The similarities are greater than the differences.
The modern Democrats and Republicans pull in opposite directions as they did 90 years ago and as they probably should. But directions change through the years. What can we conclude from this ever-changing behavior that stays the same? Perhaps only that, whichever party they represent, those in power tend to exercise their power; those out of power fight to get it.
There is, however, a disturbing trend in American politics, something that I feel is new: the growing party loyalty of ordinary citizens. Many registered voters defend and support their respective parties even when their party's actions go against those voters' individual interests. This form of party loyalty seems strange indeed. It is the loyalty of sports fans, not serious, thinking citizens, who should be devoted to the good of our country rather than to having their "team" win. "Yeah, team," while appropriate on the playing field, becomes ludicrous and often self-defeating in the political arena.
I usually describe myself as a Liberal, other times as Libertarian. Except for my voter registration, on which I have a party label in order to vote in primaries, I am usually careful not to identify myself as a Democrat. I owe no loyalty to the Democrat party; if anything the party owes loyalty to me!
I have strong opinions on many issues: gun control, immigration reform, separation of church and state, the availability of medical care and insurance for all Americans, the improvement of education for all children, the development of non-petroleum based fuels, and the list goes on and on. Some of these issues and opinions mirror the positions of Democrats, some are espoused by Republicans. I choose to pick and choose as if I were at a cafeteria!
Because today's politicians rely so heavily on voter loyalty, they are able to get away with far too much that goes against the majority. Most of them, relying on loyal party members, ignore their constituency as they work to squeeze dollars out of special interest groups - industries, unions, religious organizations, foreign interests, and many others. We would all benefit if we set aside party loyalty, stop rooting for individual politicians, and insist that our representatives represent us all and explain how they will do it.
We may disagree with means, but shouldn't we all want a prosperous, healthy nation for ourselves and our descendants?
Someday, there will, I hope, be the day when Americans of all parties start concentrating on the issues elected officials and candidates stand and run on and how those issues affect our nation as a whole, and not merely how consistent the positions are with the slogans of either party. Let us look beyond candidates' images on camera and which hot button issues they press. Thirty-second TV ads and slogans are no substitute for critical discussions. Let us work for a good, healthy America by using our intelligence and reason, and let us confine our cheerleading to the athletic field.
| 72 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Jeff Musall
Comment by Jim Stillman
I do agree that the Republican party that once embraced Nelson Rockefeller and other "moderate" is no more. Each party has catered to its core voter, which both of us would have problems with.
So I vote by issues -- and my opinions are in the center, leaning to the left! Sometimes I lean quite a bit!
Comment by Jeff Musall
Comment by Winston
Small Thoughts on Big Questions
Comment by youranter
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern