I am one of those pseudo-political types. I have very strongly held views, but I am confident enough in those views that I don't feel the need to work very hard to back them up. That probably makes me one of the worst types of cancers on the American political process, but so be it. Tonight I took a couple of quizzes on the internet and their results surprised me a little. (Quick disclaimer - I have studied assessment extensively in graduate school and fully recognize all the flaws that make these internet quizzes completely invalid, but I still consider them to be valid entertainment.) I took a quiz about "What political party do you agree with most?" I was not surprised to find the I agreed 96% with the Green Party and 95% with the Democratic Party. I am pragmatic enough, though, to cast my vote with the Democrats in elections rather than to spend my vote on the Green Party candidate who has no chance of winning.
What surprised me in the quizzes I took tonight was my affinity for the Libertarians. They were not included in the first quiz, which was kind of a slight, since they have easily been around long enough to establish themselves as a voice in national politics. My results in the "How Libertarian are you?" quiz stated that I had strong Libertarian affinities and would become more and more Libertarian as I got older. Ignoring the fact that I am already pretty darned old, this surprised me and got me thinking about why. I think my political views can be summed up as, "It is the responsibility of the government to guarantee all citizens a basic level of health care, lifestyle, services, safety, etc., but nobody is guaranteed any luxuries." I believe that private entities have every right to be discriminating bigots, and I trust in the basic good of humanity to put those bigots out of business through boycotts and negative publicity. I believe in the necessity and power of the welfare system, but I also believe that every able individual should be required to work. Over the years, I have worked with several groups dealing with this exact situation. In high school, I chopped wood every afternoon and then on Fridays we delivered the wood to people who had no other way to heat their homes. In that organization if it was determined that somebody in the home was able-bodied, they either had to put in a certain number of hours chopping wood, or go through the job training and placement program in order to receive a second load of wood. I like that model. We'll rescue you when you're in trouble, but if you want to make it a habit, you need to work. In college I worked in a soup kitchen/homeless shelter where I met many people in situations where they needed external help. I think the place where I diverge from many others is in my Humanist belief that very few people want pure charity. The people that I encountered at the wood lot craved the opportunity to pay back the charity they received. They were the hardest workers on the lot and were very vocal about their desire to help me in any way they could. They and I all recognize that I stood out in their neighborhoods as a middle class white man, and they all encouraged me to seek shelter in their homes if I was ever in trouble in their neighborhoods. Growing up in the South, where neighborhoods were still very segregated, by history more than desire, it was comforting to know that I had a safe haven only a few steps away no matter where I was in the city. These were amazing people, craving the opportunity to work hard for their families, and I trusted them completely. The people I met at the homeless shelter in college were very similar - intelligent, hard-working people at the mercy of their surroundings. Could they have done a little more to pull themselves out of the poverty they were mired in? Maybe yes for some of them, but let's be realistic. If you are in a situation where the basic necessities of food and shelter for your family are in question, you are not going to look very far ahead into the future either. When every ounce of energy you have is spent just getting through today, you have no opportunity to work towards a better tomorrow.
I side with the Libertarians in that I believe all private enterprise should have the right to do business with whomever they choose. If a baker does not believe in gay marriage, then he should not be forced to make the cake for a gay wedding. (At the same time, all people who support the right to marry should boycott that baker and make every attempt to put it out of business, as should proponents of "traditional" marriage boycott bakeries that provide cakes for gay weddings.) The marriage is a right and should be protected, but the cake is a luxury, and the rights of the bakers should be protected. I believe we should draw a sharp line between necessities and luxuries. Anything that is basic to human survival and dignity should be guaranteed by the government, including welfare, public education, Social Security, health care, marriage, and laws governing human interaction. Anything that is a luxury and not part of the basic welfare of our society, should be free of governmental restrictions. The ugly result of that opinion is that private discrimination is a protected right, and I believe it should be. You have the right to be as bigoted as you want to be in your private life, and I have the right to try hard to destroy your business through any legal means. In the end, if the majority supports your business and you survive, then so be it, but it is the job of the government to protect us all from the tyranny of the majority. That is why the Judicial Branch of the government exists, because the Founding Fathers recognized that "majority rule" would not always result in the best possible laws.
So where do I fit into the political system? I don't completely know. I am a Pragmatic Green Democratic Libertarian. The one thing I do know for sure is that my fit with the Republican Party was only 7%, so anybody in that party is going to have to be absolutely incredible to get my vote (and in the most recent local elections, I did vote for a couple of Republicans who were just awesome people.) In the end, I think the most important lesson from these quizzes is the reminder that I need to evaluate each candidate based on his or her views of the issues, rather than on his or her party affiliation. At the same time, though, should I spend a vote on a candidate who has no chance of winning when there is an almost equally agreeable candidate with a chance to win? That right there is the main flaw in our electoral system. Maybe it is time to re-evaluate the way in which we vote, but that is a different can of worms!
No comments:
Post a Comment