Politically Speaking

I try not to get involved in political matters – okay I couldn’t even write that with a straight face. Truth is my dear readers I’m a political junkie and this general election has provided me the fix I need. Never before have I been so engrossed in the debate over any nation’s future, never before had it seemed so absolutely necessary to voice the opinions that we sometimes hold too close to the chest, like a good poker hand. Samuel Clemens, most famously known as Mark Twain is one of the authors from which my style of writing was shaped. Aww come on, don’t pretend you thought I la-di-da’d my way to this point without some frame of reference. I’d like to claim creative originality as much as the next guy, but the truth is that we are all a product of the cultural and philosophical concoction we’ve imbibed all our lives. Besides, I think it was Oscar Wilde who said “good writers borrow, great writers steal”, and thus – me!
 
As I was saying Mark Twain was a writer who never shied away from offering his opinion when it came to politics. He wrote scathing articles that ridiculed the government and the election process, which unfortunately is the same today as it was then. One of his pet peeves was this irrational insistence on the allegiance to one party or the other. How many voters have been turned to chattels, [drones], slaves and rabbits, all while their masters and they themselves are shouting rubbish about liberty, independence, freedom of opinion, freedom of speech, honestly unconscious of the fantastic contradiction; and forgetting or ignoring that their fathers and the churches shouted the same blasphemies a generation earlier when they were closing their doors against the hunted slave(Excpt: “The Character of Man” – Mark Twain’s Autobiography). In my opinion this allegiance to one party or the next undermines the very principles of free election. A man tethers himself to one view, and even if that view is overturned by simple logic he continues to cling to it with unbending fervor. It is unfortunate that most voters, sometimes at the prompting of the media, have bought into this narrow view. It is forgotten, or in some cases suppressed, that on some issues a person may be conservative, while on other issues they may be liberal. Is any man statically one or the other. This kind of intellectual restriction has placed America in the position that she is today. Should a man be allowed to wage reckless wars with harmless nations because he stands against abortion or gay marriages? Yet this is exactly how we have been fuddled as a society by the election of W. a man whose presidency has been such a complete and utter failure that his own party has tried to vigorously distance themselves from him.
 
So my dear readers as you get ready to enter the voting booths, make sure you pull the lever for the man you think will carry out your stance on the issues, not because of what party you’re affiliated with. The differences in beliefs and philosophy between these two candidates are as clear as black and white (no pun intended). One believes that off shore drilling will provide relief to the American energy consumer and therefore we should “drill baby drill”. The other believes that in order to truly become energy independent we must, as a nation, begin to take steps toward alternative energy solutions (wind, bio-fuel, solar). Sort of a cultivate and take care of the Earth kind of approach. One candidate believes in the trickle down economics as per Ronald Reagan, that if the top of the economic pyramid are taxed less then the benefits will eventually make its way down to the working class, the other believes that the stimulation should start from the bottom and work its way up and that if the working class has more resources they will spend more and thus strengthen the foundation of the economy which both candidates agree is small business. Sort of a lending a helping hand to the poor who most need it kind of approach. One candidate believes that it is ill advised to hold talks with leaders of terrorist states because it might lend credence to and legitimize their detestable goings-on. The other believes that diplomacy with these nations will show that the U.S. is not simply a military machine that is unable to be reasoned with but will listen to and try to address the feelings that are being harbored. Sort of a soft answer turneth away wrath kind of approach.
 
I fear I’ve tipped my poker hand. I cut myself this morning and its true…I bleed blue. The dim witted rhetoric from the other side has made it so easy these days. The stand off between Joe the Pumber and the intellectuals of this age is not a fair fightat all. They continue, even now, to spew out venomous words and call us names like “The Liberal Elite” and stand with their hands akimbo, smiling, pleased with themselves because the density of their brains has led them to believe that this is an insult. They pile on bad idea after bad idea, mistake after mistake, sound-bytes that make you feel as though you’ve lost a little intelligence just by listening. Seriously, now I know how the Philistines felt as Samson wailed away, its like being bludgeoned to death by the jawbone of an ass. Except in this case it’s two jaw bones – two asses.
 
Sorry I couldn’t resist.