My Dictionary

We hear a barrage of terms thrown at us like FREEDOM, LIBERTY, CONSERVATIVE, LIBERAL, REPUBLICAN, DEMOCRAT, and many others, but do we really understand what they mean? One of the big ones is “anti-American” and this term is embraced by all side every political debate as a weapon against the others.
Having spent a short time sitting at a bar debating with the lovely young lady sitting next to me, I realized just how muddy political terms really are. I feel compelled to try to filter (or at least skim) some of this mud out of our political pool. Please allow me to define, in my own words, some mainstream political jargon..
These definitions are strictly traditionalist and do not apply to the bastardidation perpetuated by our current political parties.

REPUBLICAN: A government in which a constituency chooses a representative who will make government decisions on behalf of the people, regardless of the popularity of said decisions. This is an outcome based system where the representative is given the benefit of the doubt during his term but is held responsible for his decisions during the elections. This is how most corporations are operated as the boss makes executive decisions but can be deposed if the company shows a loss.

DEMOCRATIC: A government in which each decision made must be done so with popular approval so that everyone takes part in running things. One problem with democracy is that only the majority gets the power. I have never heard of a successful business that is run as a democracy. Imagine if the employees of your company had the right to vote for the rules, the pay would be high, productivity would be low and vacations would be long, but the profit would never be made and the place would collapse.

FREEDOM: If you think you are a liberal then you totally misunderstand this principle. Freedom means that you get to choose how you want to live as long as you do not impede the freedom of someone else. You are not guaranteed the freedom from insults, failure, homelessness, poverty, illness or ignorance. You have the freedom provide a service for whatever price you and the consumer agree on without a portion of that money being taken from you to provide for any other citizen. You also have the freedom to be as useless as you might choose to be.

PATRIOTIC: No, dissent is not the highest form of patriotism. Your forefathers gave their lives to give you the freedom to screw up your own, it is far from patriotic to give up that freedom in the name of security. Patriotic means loving all that your country is made of and working to keep it that that way. Progressives need not apply, you are far from patriotic.

UNAMERICAN: To be “Americanistic” you must be willing to get your hands dirty but eager to find an easier way. You must be willing to accept that score must be kept or the game is not worth playing. You must know that companies are not greedy, consumers are. No company can force you to buy their product without government involvement and the American government is not supposed to have that much power. You must acknowledge that no amount of money is “too much”, and that we all have the same chance to go get that money. You must see that you have no right to anything that must be provided by someone else, that includes health care. If you disagree with any of these premises then you are probably UnAmerican.

CONSERVATIVE/LIBERAL: Conservatives want to make laws telling you what you cannot do, Liberals want to make laws telling you what you can, and must, do.

LIBERTERIAN: These folks just want to be left alone. I lean that way but I feel we need a small amount of governing to keep things working.

LAWYER: One who cannot add 2 and 2 so they have the second two stricken from the evidence and win by default. These guys usually become Democratic politicians.

Feel free to ask about any other definitions in which you may not be clear.

The "Electable" Candidate

Listening to talk radio, I have heard conservatives on both sides of the issue. I am glad to finally hear some sense of reason slowly take over the "party first" mentality. There are, however, many morons who are still stuck on the idea that electability is more important than core principles. Sadly, some of these morons are very high profile.

I understand the view, held by these partisans, that a candidate who supports some of your ideals, and has a chance at winning, is better than losing to one who totally disagrees with you. It makes perfect sense to consider a grat, but "unelectable", candidate a non factor and choose to vote against the worst of the evils. This is especially true when the elections are permanent.

The problem comes when these elections are short term, as in our political system. The current state of our country, both socially and economicly, is a direct result of this mentality. Hopefully I can clearly explain my position on this debate, I will try. I will also use conservatism in my example but I would like for you liberals to apply the same logic to your side as well.

Starting with Ronald Reagan, since he represents the closest thing to the perfect Republican, and following through to today, we have seen a stady movement towards the left from Republicans. This has happened because voters have allowed it to.

Think about this, after Ronald the great we had to choose between George H. W. Bush and Dukakis. Nobody knew anything about Bush, other than his having VP to Ronnie, but Dukakis was an easy target. Republicans learned that conservative ideology did not win elections, the fear of liberal ideology wins elections.

In 1992 we saw a three way race involving Bush, Clinton and Perot. Perot drew votes from both sides but mostly the right. This split gave a very narrow win to Slick Willy. This became the "posterchild" election for those who fear a third candidate.

The following election had a Bill Clinton who had suffered the first loss of both houses of Congress in several decades and was presenting himself as a moderate. This crowded Bob Dole and Perot into a small corner of the electorate and taught the Republicans that elections are won in the middle.

After Clinton, Republicans chose a moderate to go against Al Gore, giving us George W Bush. He ran, not as a right wing conservative, but as a compassionate (progressive) conservative. Republicans learned that Unhappy right wingers would hold their nose and support a potentially liberal Republican over a left wing Democrat.The strategy worked and republicans eventually gained both houses as well as the presidency.

As Republicans moved leftwards they gained votes. They only needed to stay just right of the opposition. Whilst many right wingers were vocal about their opposition to this method, they continued to throw their grudging support behind the Republican with the best chance of beating the Dem. This showed up in internal polling and only served to encourage this leftward slide.After all, as long as we keep accepting progressive Republicans at the threat of losing to the socialists, why would the party look for true conservatives?

This phoenamena has a natural oscillation to it. As the over confident Liberals move to the left they will begin to lose votes to the right. When they finally notice the trend they will push back towards the center and the Republicans, who have been easily winning, will start to slide to the right. This cycle will repeat until, either the end of time, or everyone starts reading this blog.

I want to force the tide. We can stop this cycle if we just vote our conscience. If the Republicans start losing two things will happen. First, they will start looking at where their votes are going. When they realize they are losing a great deal of votes to conservatives they will be forced to move towards that direction and regain their base. Meanwhile, the left will be screwing things up so bad that even the moderates will be compelled to try voting for the right wingers.

It will suck during the short term but our kids will love us for it. Oh and I don't want to hear about Supreme Court Justices. SCOTUS can only review law, not make it. The liberal weenies in that branch of government cant force socialism, they can partially stifle capitalism but that is still a short term problem. As time passes, so will the hippies in our Judicial branch.

Back in business

Finally I've got my new computer! Now I am immersed in school and doctors appointments but I will try to post more often now. Thank you for your patience and stay tuned!