Our Political Turmoil: Ideologically Driven Shutdowns, Furloughs, Concessions to Law... Confusion

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.