Getting angry won’t change San Diego politics, but getting involved might! All over the country, Americans are expressing increasing dissatisfaction with government. A tanking economy is sure to provoke government satisfaction in any era, but on top of that America also has unpopular wars on terrorism to stir up the public. Government overspending in some areas, and brutal funding cuts in others, has created political decisions in America that all too often are not a representation of the mass opinion.
If you are interested in having your say in San Diego Politics, here are some tips for getting involved in your local and state government.
1. Attend every town meeting. Good citizens go to their town meetings. You can learn a lot about projected roadways, educational cutbacks, state and city budget decisions, healthcare reform, and environmental issues at town meetings. You can also have your say in letting your leaders know what you think about state and national political issues.
2. Volunteer at your party’s political office. Visit your party’s website online (you can find it by searching for the San Diego County Democratic Party, the San Diego County Republican Party, or the San Diego County Green Party). At each of these websites, you can get information on volunteering for your chosen party. Political parties need volunteers on election days, on helping voters register, helping with mailing out materials, writing letters to newspaper editors, and taking or placing phone calls for your political office.
3. Become a neighborhood precinct representative for your political party. You can hold political meetings, contact voters in behalf of your political party, and become an important figure in your local party.
By: Cleo Gib
About the Author:
Filed under News And Society by on Nov 21st, 2010. 
There are five basic rules politicians tend to forget. Here are the five rules:
1. The office you seek is not about you. This is one downfall of most of today’s politicians. Politics is about public office and the politician is a public servant. The constituent voted for you to serve them. Whether you like it or not, you are a servant of the people who elected you to be their representative. Some politicians use their office to work with lobbyists to pass bills that may have a negative affect on the electorate. Corruption is one of the primary down fall for most of today’s politicians. Kickbacks, pork spending, and even nepotism (in some cases) are just a few negative things that plague today’s politician.
2. Be candid, honest and forth-right. Nothing is etched in stone except paying taxes and death. Having said that, I would like to say that if you see a problem down the “road” don’t lie to the people or cover the truth. Lying to the people is the worst thing a politician can do. However, there are some politicians who simply cannot tell the truth. They find every possible excuse in the books to lie to us without regret. They will never admit their faults nor will they ever speak the truth. There is an old saying; “every rope has an end” and what this simply means is that you can fool some of the people some of the time , but you can’t fool those very people all the time.
3. Communicate and interact with your electorate. Integrity and accountability are the key components to your office. When you communicate effectively with your constituent and interact with them you will always be electable. Having an “open door” policy is vital and it must be consistent. Your interaction with the electorate will boost their confidence in you. There may times when you may make mistakes and since you communicate and interact with your constituent effectively, they will show compassion and understanding towards you; providing you don’t break the law or misuse your power while in office.
4. Share your experience. Write your memoirs, share you story for all to read. Allow people to see you as a regular person. Let them see you as an individual who can cry, laugh, listen, work hard, and is capable of doing simple things as well as complex tasks. Connecting to people is key therefore, you should never be viewed as a person who is simply out of touch. The worst thing you can do is to pretend. Don’t fake your resume to the people, someone who know you well, may expose you and this may be your downfall.
5. Show leadership and responsibility at all times. These are the most important attributes for any politician. Leadership can be a learned skilled but it is easily forgotten when ego takes over. On the other hand, responsibility cannot be taught it is part of one’s character. Honesty, leadership and responsibility are the three hallmarks for being a good politician. Being a good patriot and an exemplary citizen are also values that should not be over looked. Being a leader also means that you understand world politics (since the world is now more of a global village) and you are not intimidated or over-whelmed by the complexity of negative things that are happening in the world today.
Politics can definitely be a nasty “game” especially when lies and deceit take a primary position in a politician’s life. These five effective tools are not new but may serve as a reminder to all politicians and would be politicians alike. Every job has its own code of ethics and protocol; politics requires high ethical standards. Sometimes, personal issues such as; one’s religion, race, gender, sexual preference, habits (mainly bad), financial status, and even the family you may be born in may affect your political quest. Finally, it is important to note that politics is a process which embodies people serving other people. It is the minority serving the majority and not the opposite way around.
By: OC Tross
About the Author:
Read more on Politics 101- The Five Rules Politicians Forget…
Filed under News And Society by on Nov 21st, 2010.
Everybody has opinions and it seems this is especially true of politics and religion. Everywhere that two or more people congregate, it is likely that a discussion about politics or religion will ensue. So why are they two topics we should avoid discussing?
It seems that above all other things that we humans talk about, we relate most personally with our views about politics and religion. These two topics are at the foundation of who we believe we are as people. If someone is charitable by nature, he or she will usually attribute that to religious upbringing. Likewise when someone exhibits fiscally conservative tendencies or when someone is an activist for social equality, these traits are usually rooted in their political views. In other words, people identify at a deep level with their religious and political views. They believe that their views on the subjects are a window into who they are as people.
Now when two people of similar views enter into political or religious discussions, they support each other’s positions and cite examples of why their positions are right and true. However, when people of opposing opinions start discussing politics or religion, the sparks usually fly. Rather than having a mature discussion about the issues and valuing the obvious differences of opinion that each holds, the discussion will often devolve into a passionate argument about whose position is right. Even worse, each party will attempt to change the other’s opinion, sometimes contending that they are lesser people because of the opinions they hold.
When these discussions take place in the workplace, it can result in hard feelings and less than cooperative coworkers. When it happens within families where the filters are off in many cases, the sparks can really fly.
I have adopted the policy of never discussing politics or religion. When asked directly why I refuse to discuss it, I will usually answer that I like to keep personal matters and opinions personal. Everyone is happier for it and I have been able to keep many friends whom I know hold different political and religious views than I do.
By: Richard F Johnson
About the Author:
Read more on Politics and Religion – Two Topics We Should Avoid Discussing…
Filed under News And Society by on Nov 21st, 2010.
Many Sabbath-keeping Church of God members (various groups and organizations associated to one degree or another with Herbert W. Armstrong) are sincerely opposed to offering any Church of God literature or religious material for sale, since Herbert Armstrong taught us to “buy the truth and sell it not.” However, such Church of God members should remember that Mr. Armstrong later permitted his books to be made available for sale in bookstores, informing the brethren and co-workers in a letter dated September 12, 1985:
“There is a very large audience which would never request this book [Mystery of the Ages] if offered free – who would never send their name and address to us – but would gladly buy a copy in the bookstore. By putting it in the bookstores we will reach a very great audience that we can reach in no other way. We will not sell the book ourselves, but it cannot be made available to this large audience of book buyers unless the bookstores do put a price on it.” (Autobiography of Herbert W. Armstrong, Volume 2, page 638).
Some have been upset that Beyond Babylon: Europe’s Rise and Fall is sold. I remind them of Herbert Armstrong’s words above and Paul’s rhetorical response to some in his day over this principle that we’re commanded to not muzzle the ox while it is treading out the grain and that a worker is worthy of his hire. Besides, Beyond Babylon is available to for FREE or read online for FREE. God knows I am certainly not in this for the money, but gladly share the plain truth of the Bible and history as I am able, knowing it is truly priceless information.
I am also an individual, not a Church organization receiving regular tithes and offerings who therefore have no need to sell anything, as they’re equipped to offer it all, ideally, for free. I don’t believe any Church of God organization should sell Church of God literature. However, those out in the field, not part of the administration or headquarters, have a God-given right to do as necessary. Yeshua didn’t condemn selling sacrificial animals but was righteously indignant that such commercial activities were taking place in the Temple courtyards and at exorbitant prices. Many were making a killing rather than offering a service.
A member of the Philadelphia Church of God recently corresponded with me on this and other Church of God issues.
Didn’t you try and impose your book on God’s ministers and church?
Not at all. Gerald Flurry refused to go forward with Beyond Babylon and fell backwards, treading old ground and is now going in circles, business as usual, as Europe rises and Judah and Israel have yet to be warned.
Maybe you should have waited until the time came.
Don’t you believe God goes first to His Church and then His Nation? It was time to bring Beyond Babylon before Flurry, whom I consider to be the leader of this Laodicean era of God’s Church.
Do you think you are one of the 2 witnesses?
God knows, but what I do know is that we ought to at least prepare the way for them with Judah and NONE of the Church of God groups reach the cities of Judah.
That would be a honor to be one. I’ve often prayed about them and in my silliness wished I could be one of them.
It would be an honor and a grave responsibility and the most hated job in the world since rejection would be by many in the Church, initially, and nearly all in the world, with a bloody ending until the resurrection to physical life just before the return of the King, Yeshua the Messiah. No nice dinners or fancy invitations for the Two Witnesses but plenty of murderous misunderstanding and hateful grief.
But I’m just a lay member…..
No such thing as “just” a lay member. Everybody has their God-given place in the Church of God and are equally important for whatever God has called them to do.
Seems to me you focus too much on the physical Jews.
Not at all. Herbert Armstrong always told us to “WATCH JERUSALEM!” Who’s in Jerusalem? JEWS! The gospel began and will return there. God’s true church is not there now although “Elijah” went there. This must change.
Mr. Armstrong, near the time of his death, said on one of his sermons or Bible studies that they are not so important as he once thought since they don’t even believe in Jesus Christ.
I don’t believe that at all and don’t believe he ever said it. I quote what we know for sure Herbert Armstrong said about the importance of reaching the cities of Judah. It’s documented. Shamefully, it’s something that hasn’t been done yet but the foundation has been laid, even though the Work in Israel is temporarily suspended by government decree as it was in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah.
Mr. Flurry never read your book right?
I don’t know. Wayne Turgeon [Gerald Flurry's son-in-law] handed him a print out of it years ago and he returned it to him saying, “He’s always sending us stuff.” Mr. Flurry even responded to me several times on various issues including his confusion of Mount Carmel with Mount Hermon which I brought to his attention (having been blessed to live next to both of them), and my disagreement with him when he said the pope was the only religious leader to sit on a throne and I mentioned the Queen of England is also head of the Anglican Church (although agreeing with the point he was making against the Roman Catholic Cult).
I would love to find those letters, however during my many moves overseas to Israel I thought I kept them stored at my sister’s home but she can’t find them. Such letters also include correspondence from Dr. Herman Hoeh years ago about the Jews and their variations in color and why. I met Dr. Hoeh at the Toronto Singles’ Weekend (Church of God singles from all over were in attendance) where he spoke and invited us to write him, which of course I did.
Later I sent an autographed copy of a self-published BB (Beyond Babylon) to Flurry’s home for him and his wife who said to me (during the Feast of Tabernacles in Louisville) about my name, “What a strong Judah name!”
Dennis Leap said he read parts of it and that it wasn’t necessary for him or Flurry to read it, unlike Mr. Armstrong wanting Sardis (Church of God, Seventh Day) to read his manuscript – The United States and Britain in Prophecy – which they DID.
Well, I hear you loud and clear. I do not agree with some of headquarter’s decisions but they are just as human as we are and liable to make mistakes, including Mr. Flurry. Sometimes we just have to suffer the wrong and go on.
I readily accept and acknowledge that fact, but if it’s a mistake or a sin we learn from it, acknowledge it and go forward all the wiser. Flurry has done none of those humble things. Regardless, I go on without him as he goes backwards trying to play HWA and God in the Temple, grieved to say.
David, I hope and pray for your return to PCG… Mr. Flurry has engaged in personal appearance campaigns and he plans to go to Joseph and Judah this coming year I think. The Key of David will no longer air on TV and we are now focusing on personal warnings.
Remember we are baptized into the Body of Jesus Christ – not into any sect or denomination of men. I remain a member of the spiritual Church of God that isn’t bound by membership lists at the mercy of men. Remember Diotrephes? (3 John vs. 9-11).
What do you mean they’ve scrapped the TV programs (even though I always constructively criticized them -through Wayne Turgeon who used to write me very frequently – that nobody but a very limited religious audience would watch the programs at the hours they were shown). As Turgeon can testify, I also said they needed a toll free number (which years later they obtained); I said they needed a website with Church literature (which years later they have); they need to publish Beyond Babylon freely (which they still don’t) and to take out major newspaper ads like HWA to reach EVERYBODY and get EVERYBODY talking about our God-given controversial message.
We do really need better advertisement.
Yes, because I’ve conducted my own tests and surveys on many internet forums to see that the general public doesn’t have a clue who Flurry is, never heard of the PCG and doesn’t know the warning message at all. All that money for what? A private club?
Too bad you only see what you think is bad but God has to get his family ready first to marry his Son before He can deal properly with the world.
And how does God do that? Have us stare at our Church navel – Church headquarters as the center of our attention? – or by the way of give, outflowing concern for the good and welfare of OTHERS – like the cities of Judah. Otherwise folks will never feel ready to reach out and will have proven themselves deceived by Satan who doesn’t want the Work to GO FORWARD. As we reach out, so help us God, He will work in and through and for us at the same time.
I know everything that is good about the PCG and continue to direct folks to its literature and The Philadelphia Trumpet magazine despite their refusal to send it to me. They even know I’ve given them contacts in the Middle East, in Jerusalem, Jewish leaders, and that it was me whom God used to contact the mayor of Jerusalem to get the HWA monument repaired (in the Liberty Bell Park in Jerusalem), and then I forwarded the information to Flurry (who didn’t even say thank you and wasn’t even aware of its woeful neglect that I knew about from being over there so many times). I’ll bet you didn’t know that, did you?
I had written an open letter to the mayor of Jerusalem, Uri Lupolianski, that was published in The Jerusalem Post. His office contacted me to inquire about what groups or organizations I was referring to that would be interested in undertaking the financial responsibility for the monument’s restoration and the rest is history.
By: David Ben-Ariel
About the Author:
Read more on Politics in the Church of God Prevents Progress…
Filed under News And Society by on Nov 21st, 2010.
Lately Indian Politics is seeing the emergence of many young political leaders into the National Scene with Rahul Gandhi the son of Former Prime Minister Rajeev Gandhi taking the lead in it. Such a trend is not doubt a welcome development in Indian politics at least now India can hope to have some dynamism in its political scene based on some vision for social and economic development.
Coming of Rahul Gandhi into the center stage of Indian politics should also be viewed in such a context. Leaving aside the hype created by the Congress party of making Rahul Gandhi as the projected 2009 Prime Ministerial candidate one can at least hope a better and wider vision from the high profile technosavy western returned Mr. Gandhi for the Congress party as well as for India
Rahul Gandhi’s projection by the Congress Party as its 2009 Prime Ministerial Candidate is somewhat far fetched as Mr. Gandhi in relation to Indian Politics is still a toddler he has to learn a lot about the complexities of the Indian political system and this can come only through some hard earned grass root level experience and by a long innings in Indian politics. However it is a welcome sign that Mr. Gandhi has finally taken the hard plunge
But then a lot depends on how Mr. Gandhi carries himself in the coming years in the Indian political scene. Now that Mr. Gandhi is gradually taking the center stage of the Congress party’s politics a lot of responsibility depends on his shoulder .Whether the Congress party can deliver in the 2009 parliamentary election under his leadership is a big question which only the results of 2009 will tell. Taking a look into the recent Uttar Pradesh state assembly election in which Mr. Gandhi had taken a lead role such an expectations seems to be a Herculean task for Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Gandhi should be aware of it.
The Congress party is in a very weak wicket in the main states of the Hindi heartland of India. Its position is pathetic in the states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Rajasthan which gives more then 150 seats in the Indian parliament. Mr. Gandhi has to toil a lot in all these states if the congress has to gain a respectable position in all these states. In the states of Jharkhand, Himchal, Haryana, Punjab, Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir the party faces a lot of dissidence and Mr. Gandhi has to overcome this if the Congress party needs to do well in all these states. In the states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala the party needs to work a lot to attain a respectable position In the state of Maharashtra the party has to finish once for all its problems with its alliance partner NCP if the party wants to perform well there. Now that Mr. Gandhi has come into the center stage of the party he needs to keep the above factors in mind.
In the state of West Bengal the party should tie up with the TMC of Mamta Banerjee if it wants to do well .Only then it can take the Communist head on in that state. In the North East India too the party should choose its alliance wherever it is weak. Mr. Gandhi also should keep in mind that India is in a era of collation politics as such the Congress under his guidance should be broad minded enough to give seats to its alliance partners looking into the ground realities well.
It would be advisable for Mr. Gandhi to be realist and judge the ground realities well and not get carried away by the hype of the party members. Mr. Gandhi should himself judge the ground realities well for which he should travel to the nook and corner of the country. Mix and interact with the poor and illiterate masses of the far flung areas and get the pulse of the people. Its time for him to know the ground realties well if he has to mature as a hard baked rough and tough politician of future India. Its time for him to come out of his marble palace and his AC car and discard the lap top and speak the language of the masses.
Rahul Gandhi should also keep in mind that 2009 is the real test for him and he has to deliver handsomely for his party if he has to sustain himself in Indian politics. He should keep in mind that 2009 is the semi final round for him and not the final round He should not dream about the post of Prime Minister Ship in 2009 .If he delivers in 2009 then there is no stopping of him becoming the Prime Minster of India in 2014 if the Congress party wins the election then. It is this reality which Mr. Gandhi should keep in mind.
By: Dr Suvrokamal Dutta
About the Author:
Filed under News And Society by on Nov 19th, 2010.
Politics and Religion are usually intertwined, although in a not-so-obvious knot. Whenever there is people, politics and religion are present as well. This is because both of them are inherently human manifestations of everyday interactions. Religion and politics are there to serve humanity. It therefore follows that we need to re-view if both of them lived up to their supposed function, which is to promote the betterment of everyone in the world.
Politics and religion are so intricately connected that they can even be considered as “one”. Historically, their union is far from positive. Instead, one of the most common fruits of their union are major wars. Consider the crusades as well as many recent wars anywhere in the world. Whenever politics and religion become indistinguishable from one another, wars erupt. People directly involved in spheres of religion will deny they are political, but their actions, most of the time, betray them. Even in many religions, politics is an undeniable manifestation. In Roman Catholic Church, priests with clout usually get prestigious and comfortable parishes. This is the opposite for priests without political sway in Church hierarchy.
A good case in point is the rise of Christianity founded by Jesus Christ. As per the gospels, the apostles left by Christ to manage the Church quickly became political even during the time when he was still with them. It just took moment for them to jockey for position in both here and now. The wisdom that Christ bestowed on them quickly became corrupted, making the Church just any other human institution with supposedly “divine” backing. As the group of followers grew during the time of Christ, it came face to face with dominant political organizations of the era, namely the Scribes, Pharisees, Sadducees, Judaism, and even the might of the Roman empire. Judaism and Romanism were considered the most formidable opponents of Christianity at the time. Since Christianity was still an infant political power at the time, it barely survived the onslaught of these two powers beginning with the death of its founder. If we analyzed the scriptures without any religious bias, the story of the death of Christ was just another deposition of a leader that dared oppose a politically powerful organization at the time.
Blood and death are the inevitable result of the merger of religion and politics. Brothers kill brothers in the name of religion or philosophical leanings. Countless deaths were wasted on religious wars since the history of man. Leaders of political and religious organizations were assassinated in the name of freedom or religion–thin masks of the struggle to retain political or religious power. The Federal Election 2010 may not be a contest between religion and politics but many religious citizens are definitely vying for political positions although not necessarily in national levels.
It can be said that politics and religion are two demonstrations of being civilized but so far, the present world is yet to see that they will work out to the advantage of everyone.
By: Harvey Russell
About the Author:
Filed under News And Society by on Nov 19th, 2010.
Outside of the academic environment, a harsh and seemingly ever-growing debate has appeared, concerning how mass media distorts the political agenda. Few would argue with the notion that the institutions of the mass media are important to contemporary politics. In the transition to liberal democratic politics in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe the media was a key battleground. In the West, elections increasingly focus around television, with the emphasis on spin and marketing. Democratic politics places emphasis on the mass media as a site for democratic demand and the formation of “public opinion”. The media are seen to empower citizens, and subject government to restraint and redress. Yet the media are not just neutral observers but are political actors themselves. The interaction of mass communication and political actors — politicians, interest groups, strategists, and others who play important roles — in the political process is apparent. Under this framework, the American political arena can be characterized as a dynamic environment in which communication, particularly journalism in all its forms, substantially influences and is influenced by it.
According to the theory of democracy, people rule. The pluralism of different political parties provides the people with “alternatives,” and if and when one party loses their confidence, they can support another. The democratic principle of “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” would be nice if it were all so simple. But in a medium-to-large modern state things are not quite like that. Today, several elements contribute to the shaping of the public’s political discourse, including the goals and success of public relations and advertising strategies used by politically engaged individuals and the rising influence of new media technologies such as the Internet.
A naive assumption of liberal democracy is that citizens have adequate knowledge of political events. But how do citizens acquire the information and knowledge necessary for them to use their votes other than by blind guesswork? They cannot possibly witness everything that is happening on the national scene, still less at the level of world events. The vast majority are not students of politics. They don’t really know what is happening, and even if they did they would need guidance as to how to interpret what they knew. Since the early twentieth century this has been fulfilled through the mass media. Few today in United States can say that they do not have access to at least one form of the mass media, yet political knowledge is remarkably low. Although political information is available through the proliferation of mass media, different critics support that events are shaped and packaged, frames are constructed by politicians and news casters, and ownership influences between political actors and the media provide important short hand cues to how to interpret and understand the news.
One must not forget another interesting fact about the media. Their political influence extends far beyond newspaper reports and articles of a direct political nature, or television programs connected with current affairs that bear upon politics. In a much more subtle way, they can influence people’s thought patterns by other means, like “goodwill” stories, pages dealing with entertainment and popular culture, movies, TV “soaps”, “educational” programs. All these types of information form human values, concepts of good and evil, right and wrong, sense and nonsense, what is “fashionable” and “unfashionable,” and what is “acceptable” and “unacceptable”. These human value systems, in turn, shape people’s attitude to political issues, influence how they vote and therefore determine who holds political power.
By: Jonathon Hardcastle
About the Author:
Read more on Do Mass Media Influence the Political Behavior of Citizens…
Filed under News And Society by on Nov 19th, 2010.
“…they (certain Whites) didn’t want “peaceful relations” disturbed by the teaching of a new political thought….” Carter G. Woodson, The Mis-Education of the Negro”
Dr. Carter G. Woodson believed that if you wanted to create a good “citizen”, one dedicated to the growth and success of this country, then you must create in that person an allegiance to this country. That allegiance is developed through a proper education of the content of The Constitution. And, it is developed through engaging in the use of the political process while actually seeing that process work to change the lives of those he/she interacts with. Certain Whites on the other hand, believed that if Blacks had a functional understanding of the Constitution then they would demand social justice and would be willing to fight and die for it as they had done. This of course would have disrupted the “peaceful relations” Whites had already established with Blacks since emancipation. Therefore, following emancipation, the opponents of social justice began teach History through the perspective of Black inferiority. “If you make a man feel that he is inferior, you do not have to compel him to accept an inferior status fore he will seek it himself.”
Blacks in America had their view of the Constitution and the rights offered therein shaped through intimidation and Mis-education to the point where they believed that affairs of the government really did not concern them. As long as they were able to acquire the bare necessities in life, they were somewhat satisfied. They had to be, fore in their thinking there was no workable solution other than an all out war with the majority who seemed to control everything. Acceptance of social injustice became suitable to death.
As a people today in 2008, our view of the political process has been at best a choice between the lesser of evils during each Presidential Election. Black participation in the process has been very limited in overall numbers. And, we are distrustful of the process because it never seems to benefit us in our daily lives. So, the political process is reduced to an entertainment spectacle or something to talk about to pass the time of day. Enter Senator Barack Obama, a Black man who for the first time in the history of America seems to have a Real chance at winning the Presidency. On the fact alone that he is Black, he will get a great many African-Americans to support him. But, the full voting power of the masses of Blacks will not be realized because of our poor experience with government and our Mis-Education within politics in general. We need to re-read the Constitution, and find ways to teach it in a way that inspires us to unify affectively behind our leaders. If Barack Obama is to be the next President on the backs of our vote then we must be able to give him the full benefit of our numbers and our properly educated allegiance.
By: Anthony Stewart
About the Author:
Filed under News And Society by on Nov 17th, 2010.
Does the average American hold to a consistent ideological policy on every issue? Does the average American agree with their stated political party on every issue? Do political parties consistently hold to their same ideology or platform over the decades? The answer to all is a no!
The ideals of conservatives and liberals are not always constant across all lines. At times, these philosophies have even seemed interchangeable between the political parties. People are confused when they look at traditional definitions of the conservative and liberal and try to reconcile them to the “labels” today. That is because politicians exploit these terms to their own purpose.
“Conservative” and “liberal” are loaded terms because of the rhetoric politicians use against each other. Calling someone a liberal gives an automatic negative reaction from a segment of the public; this is true even though they may not truly understand what the term represents. The same is true when you label someone a conservative; it is a signal to automatically reject that person and their values. This is the politics of divisiveness. This style of politics is destructive. It is intended to be so.
“Politics” itself has become a dirty word:
The Oxford Dictionary describes “politics” as:
“1 the activities associated with governing a country or area, and with the political relations between states.
2 a particular set of political beliefs or principles.”
Compare that to Oxford’s definition of “party politics” as: “Politics that relate to political parties rather than to the public good.”
Implicit in these definitions is that “politics” is designed to provide for the governing of a country for the public good; “party politics” is not concerned with the public good, but rather the good of the party; the public good is left on the trash heap and the good of the party becomes the goal.
THE CHALLENGE AHEAD
Conservatism and liberalism should not be a “one or the other” choice. Both philosophies have proven their value to society over time, and both should be part of our future. Both philosophies should be understood, and both appreciated for their contributions. Both can, in fact, be held at the same time. For example, our society needs to move ahead with new solutions to the problems we face (a liberal value), but tempered to whatever degree possible by practices in the past which have proven successful (a conservative value).
In other words, by all means, let us move forward, while learning from the past. However, to do this, we must get past the party politics of division and blame.
Barack Obama did not become President of the same country that he started campaigning for in early 2007. Obama is now the President of a country in turmoil. It is not an enviable position. Where will Obama draw the strength to lead America out of its turmoil?
Obama faces challenges that perhaps no American President has faced since Franklin Roosevelt came into office in 1932. Roosevelt faced a world-wide depression, and a world increasingly threatened by fascist powers in the Pacific and Europe. Roosevelt stood up to those issues; it was not easy and it was not fully completed until after Roosevelt’s death. However, America survived those times, and emerged a stronger nation for it.
President Obama now faces a U.S. economy that is in ruins, our confidence shaken to its core. The U.S. military faces a war on two fronts, Iraq and Afghanistan. Afghanistan, once thought won, is threatening to spill over into Pakistan, which in turn, may spill over into India. Iraq could yet still spill over into Turkey and Iran. Combined, these two issues, economics and war, will demand our attention.
ENDING THE POLITICS OF DIVISION
Two centuries ago, Edmund Burke said, “All government, indeed every human benefit and enjoyment, every virtue, and every prudent act, is founded on compromise and barter.” President Obama must find a way to lift America’s spirit, and gain its peoples’ confidence. To do that, he must find a way around the divisive politics that has poisoned the American political system, for Obama cannot solve America’s problems alone. He will need a Congress willing to work in earnest to find solutions and compromise. Otherwise, business as usual in Washington, D.C. bodes poorly for America.
The founding of America was a remarkable event in history. America put to the test the question of whether man is fit to rule himself, whether man is capable of providing equality and justice, or is man to be ruled by Monarchy or aristocracy, for his own good. America became the world’s first democratic nation. One of the major principles of America is that it is governed under the U.S. Constitution, not by the will of men; the final source of authority is the people, not a Monarch, not a President. The rights of the people were set above all else, to be preserved for all posterity. The opening line of the U.S. Constitution states this boldly and plainly:
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence (sic), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Since its inception, there have been those that charge America is destined to fail; and yet, America has survived for over 200 years. However, America will not survive as a democracy, if its people fail in their desire for the principles that founded America: liberty, justice, equality, and virtue. It is a burden that America willingly undertook in 1776 with the Declaration of Independence, and carried it through a bloody Civil War, and two World Wars. Can the American people continue to carry this burden? If it is to be, it must be through the people, for in a democracy, there can be no other.
By: Rick Lawrence
About the Author:
Ricklawrence13@live.com
http://www.DemosResPublica.com
Filed under News And Society by on Nov 17th, 2010.
In today’s world of people who demand instant gratification why would we think that politicians would not lie? And despite what they tell us they are lies and not just promise that could not be kept. Politicians are trying to make everyone happy or at least the special interested groups that seem to make their presence known all the time. No one could give answers that make everyone happy so politicians say what needs to be said at time for location they are at. Is this unethical, yes I think it is but most people do not think about what’s good for society just what’s good for them. And when politicians cannot carry out their promises they blame it on the other group so all these groups and people think it’s the other person’s fault. They did not get what they wanted from the politicians when really the politicians knew from the start they did not have a chance to do these usually outrages things. I think this best defines what happens in their eyes the most ,”that branch of philosophy dealing with values relating to human conduct, with respect to the rightness and wrongness of certain actions and to the goodness and badness of the motives and ends of such actions” (Dictionary.com, 2008). This more or less means the end justify the actions.
The best thing I can use as example is Mr. Obama’s promise to not extend the debt of the country, which he said time after time while election was going on. Now today he just ask for $9.6 Trillion dollars spending plan that well put even our great grand kids in debt. Also he gave all these speeches’ saying he wanted to help middle and lower income Americana’s keep their house and jobs. Yet his house bailout says in almost perfect language that its only helps people that are not over their heads in the house and that have not lost their jobs. Which leaves out over 600,000 of this middle to lower income people who voted for him? Again I ask is this ethical, I think not.
The media is whole another story, these people only say what they are paid to say to further their own agenda. Look at how they pushed Mr. Obama as the savor of America and now that he has not lived up to his word the media vary so much on how they report it. Those media outlets who are owned by people who backed his plan now give him great reviews. Yet some of them that were glorify him during election are now condemning him. Their job has been and should always be to just report the news and words used by politicians and not try to be public relation people for politicians.
I can only close by saying if we do not all start living up to our promises and actions then how can we try to expect politicians to do the same. We must start checking our own facts instead of using TV and newspaper as the gospel truth about anything. With the internet and a little time we can all check facts about what these people say and the truth of it.
By: Michael A Harris
About the Author:
Filed under News And Society by on Nov 17th, 2010.