Our Political
Turmoil: Ideologically Driven Shutdowns, Furloughs, Concessions to Law...
Confusion
To say the least, it has been an interesting latter half
of 2013. Blaring from our TV screens, radios and media devices are issues
ranging from the domestic consequences of foreign policy spending, Syria and
the U.S. Middle Eastern footprint, Healthcare, Gun Control and Education to
name a few. And now, a not-so-unprecedented, yet strangely anomalous government
shutdown, causing millions of people to either be subject to furlough or to be
forced to work without pay; and perhaps most importantly, a gridlocked
legislative system caused by political hardliners driven solely by ideological
agendas. It is difficult, if not nearly impossible to parse out this situation
in objective terms, because most opinions (private and public) are influenced
entirely by factional opinion creating and propagating machines: political
parties and their proponents in the mainstream media establishment driven by
fervent political activism. It is increasingly difficult to sort out why
politicians take certain positions, because in large part, they are in a
perpetual political war, where ideological trade offs become valuable political
currency, or territory, to use the war metaphor.
These issues raise many important, systemic problems.
These problems procedurally condition our political processes, orient and
reorient them closer toward extremism, and determine public opinion. This is
not an uncommon phenomenon in a political economy where the default currency is
public opinion. This indeed, is a problem that most opponents of democracy writ
large have warned about throughout intellectual history.
How then should a Federal Constitutional Republic
governmental structure work? What are the conditions under which a smooth
policy making process ought to unfold? How much influence should a capitalist
economic system have on policy making? Is it ever a good political strategy to
threaten political/economic stability to push an ideological agenda?
It comes down to a very simple, ethical, and ultimately
philosophical dilemma. How far should a policy maker go, politically, if he or
she truly believes that a law, or political position could destroy economic and
political stability? Should he push his agenda to a point where such
instability is immediately foreseeable, so as to force an opposing point of
view to fold under the pressure of disaster? If that is a viable strategy, are
we engaged in a healthy political process? It's a matter of perspective: what
is the end-game scenario for any political ideology?
It's not merely a "big government" vs
"small government" paradigm anymore. With respect to our two main
political parties, the threshold encapsulating that line is becoming
increasingly crowded. In many respects, both parties lean toward the center on
this issue; its not even clear that this is still the crux of the debate. It's
perceived as a trivial point, unfortunately, but the purpose of a government depends
upon the ideological outlook of each bureaucrat independent of any partisan
agenda. We should be debating along these lines every single day in D.C. Out of
this fundamental debate, key issues will be forced onto the floor. No one
should simply assume that because representative x is a republican, or a
democrat that he automatically treads the basic republican political line.
Parties exist to facilitate political support mechanisms to hoist individuals
into positions of power, where the perception is that they will have some sort
of procedural influence over the ultimate partisan strategy. In reality, it is
never made clear what a politician believes regarding this fundamental
question.
