Journal pagsz's Journal: Ramblings of an Idiot (22nd Installment) 2
- Ramblings of an Idiot: When I first conceived this series, I intended it as a sounding board for my thoughts and ideas. It was to be a more philosophical, esoteric, or, at the very least, political thing. Instead, it has devolved into the mundane, dealing mostly with the story of the day, whether that be a political, scientific, technological, or sports one. With this post, I hope to get somewhat back to that original intention. Rather than recording my reactions to specific events, I will record my thoughts here on some broader topics and trends
This is not so say that the specific has no place in the Ramblings of an Idiot series. It certainly is useful to record my thoughts and reactions to the important news of the day (whatever I feel that to be), and this will always be a part of the series.
However, the minutia which I have been reporting are not what I really intended this series for. They do not create much of a discussion (although admittedly, this was never my intention with the series), nor does it adequately record my state of mind for posterity.
- The Philosophical Pretzel: Last night, I got into a bit of a political discussion with me father (the baseball game we were watching [Red Sox at Rangers] was over by the third inning). One of the things that came up was the odd twisting of political philosophy.
It all started with a mention of a certain talk show host as a "Civil Libertarian." I thought of something I saw, I believe in a Slashdot journal, outlining the differences between Civil Libertarians and Republicans. For on the surface, their philosophy is much the same. Both believe in minimal government and, therefore, minimal government oversight. Small government, with a small budget, interfering little.
However, here Republican philosophy seems to become twisted into a pretzel. The philosophy of "small government" seems to be most in line with the idea of civil liberties, doesn't it? A small government with minimal powers hath neither the power nor the ability to interfere in the affairs of ordinary Americans. However, most of the opponents of wider "civil liberties" are on the Republican side. I don't know if it's just me, but I find that odd.
Second, Republicans are more apt to take an "original intent" angle to the Constitution; reading directly from the language itself. This plays into the civil liberties point, because the tighter reading of the Constitution leads to lessened civil liberties. Why? Because a tighter reading less restricts the government's actions. It's the "if it's not specifically banned, it's allowed" angle. Perhaps this explains to some degree the apparent philosophical twisting when it comes to civil liberties.
However, it becomes more twisted when it comes to a particular section of the Constitution: the Second Amendment. Looking at the language of the Second Amendment, it seems to be a qualified statement (A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed). This is the seeming hole in "original intent" theory. For although it would seem that the original intent was to have armed militias, and not necessarily insure that private citizens have the right to own guns.
Also, there seems to be a disjunction between philosophy and action. Especially with regards to the current administration. Despite the philosophy of smaller government, many of the Republican issues have been ones that have expanded government. For example, the creation of a new department (Homeland Security) is certainly an addition to governmental bureaucracy. The faith-based initiatives program and school vouchers program would do the same (these programs carry with them the need for bureaucratic oversight, hence more bureaucrats running more departments and more bureaucrats watching those bureaucrats).
______________________________
Now, to the Democrats. Because I'm lazy, I'm not actually going to list it out for the Democratic side. Just take everything I said about the Republicans and stick it in a mirror. You get the same philosophical pretzel, just the other end of it.
- A Step to the Right: It seems to me that in the last few years the American political landscape has taken a few steps to the right. "Liberal" and "Conservative" have taken on different tones. In today's political landscape, it seems to me, "liberal" connotates some California wacko trying to ban dodgeball, or have "Under God" taken out of the pledge; someone way out on the left. "Conservative" has a more moderate connotation; it seems to me that conservatives are perceived as center-right. To get to the far right, you need a new term, hence the "neo-cons."
Look at the current administration, where many fall into the "neo-con" category. The current battle lines in the administration are not between liberal and conservative, but between conservative and really conservative.
This shift started with Clinton. Clinton separated himself (and the majority of the Democratic party) from the hardcore "liberals," the ones that were a bit too far on the left. He took the Democratic party more toward the center. The Republican Party, in response, has shifted a bit more to the right.
- Me and My Writing: You know what sucks? I do some of my best writing when I have nothing to write on. Sometimes I'll be driving in my car, or at work, or something along those lines, and will start thinking about some random topic. Before I know it, I've written out an essay in my head. It sounds so good as I think it. It's eloquent, well spoken, and clever. The next day, when I get a chance to actually record it, it's gone. All that's left is a pale imitation of what I had intended to write. It never seems right. The argument doesn't seem quite as clear; I just can't pull it together the way I had before.
This not only happened with these worthless Ramblings of an Idiot posts, it also sometimes happened with schoolwork. I would occasionally write out an entire essay in the shower, only to hand in a pale imitation of what was written with my fingertip on the shower door. Oh, well.
- Iraq: While watching The Daily Show with Jon Stewart yesterday, I saw a story about war plans being leaked to the press. It got me to thinking a little about Iraq.
It seems almost inevitable now that an invasion will be launched against Iraq. The main point of contention so far center around whether or not it is necessary, i.e., whether or not Iraq currently has a biological or chemical arsenal that poses a threat to the United States. One thing no one seems to argue, although it is absolutely true, is that Iraq is a sovereign nation. They have as much right to develop chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons as the US does. Does this mean I want to see Saddam with such weapons? Hell no. But who are we to say what a sovereign nation can and cannot do?
I love one of the phrases that's been used to describe this future operation: "Regime Change." I thought that a part of democratic principle is that a nation has the right to choose its own leaders? We may not like Iraq's government, but that doesn't give us the right to intervene and overthrow it.
Another point that is not often mentioned: We look to attack Iraq to prevent biological and chemical weapons from being used against American citizens. However, the US government barely even recognizes the fact that American citizens have already been exposed to some of Saddam's chemical weapons. It happened about eleven years ago, during something called the Persian Gulf War. Ever heard of Gulf War Syndrome? These veterans are still being virtually ignored by the federal government. Now they want to send 250,000 more soldiers into Iraq, to face those same chemical weapons, and themselves be turned away for two decades.
That will be enough Rambling for today. I've gotten what I wanted to say off my chest. See you later.
Update: 01:38 PM -- Friday August 02 2002
Added #5: Iraq
Correction (Score:1)
The above is not a qualification, it is an aside. They were giving justification. If you think the original intent of the Second Amendment still applies, look at the way the FBI keeps a watch on the Michigan Militia.
A qualified statement would read:
The right of people in well-regulated militias to bear arms shall not be infringed.
The 'qualification' argument is one that comes up often - a brief reading of period literature quickly clears up the misconception. The intent was that every citizen be able to own a gun with absolutely zero government interference. The Republicans really are sticking to that.
It can be argued that we need a Constitutional amendment to remove the right to bear arms because it isn't relevant anymore. Then little Johnny fuckup can kill his classmates with bombs & knives, and everything will be better. But that's another topic altogether.
Re:Correction (Score:1)
However, in college my constitutional history professor was fond of pointing out that the little pop-guns most NRA members own wouldn't do squat against an platoon of automatic m-16 wielding MPs, let alone a M4 Abraham Tank(or whatever it's called).
Also, it really makes sense that so many fundamentalist Christians are Republican, because both groups like to pick and choose what they want to follow out of the Bible and Constitution respectively. As a 2nd Amendment quoting republican what he thinks of the Pledge of Allegiance issue, and you'll see.
The First Amendment says "no law respecting religion" but they want to make it a federal law to have "under God" in the constitution. And the somehow ACLU is evil for trying to enforce ALL the Amendments. Confused yet?