As we get closer and closer to having a Republican Party nominee and presidential election soon after, I keep thinking about my vote. By the end of this rant, I don’t expect that I’ll make public whom I think would be the best to lead the country, but I’ll leave that option open for now.
Let me start the rant with a little bit about Australian politics, which seems to draw some contrast with the political system in the U.S. The Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, is part of the Labor Party. She, in American terms, would be considered liberal, or left-winged. The Liberal Party in Australia would be considered conservative in the U.S. Gillard is an atheist, and lives with her domestic partner with no children. Would anyone of this social status be allowed to run the U.S. government? I think not, unfortunately. Australia seems to be concerned with leadership and experience more than any social position. Good for them!
I cannot say the same for much of the voters in the United States. Especially during these past few months of debating to find the Republican nominee, religion has been at the forefront of the discussion. Why is this? Why does it matter in a country of free men and women who can hold any belief they want (as long as it doesn’t threaten national security). Do voters feel as if they need to vote for someone who has a belief in God? Why does this matter? What does “separation of church and state” mean then? I can understand why voters want to see tax records of the candidates, but should they be obligated to talk about their religious status? Maybe it is just with conservatives? Doubtful.
When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, people thought he was a Muslim, and were scared that it would impact his ability to lead the country. First things first, he isn’t a Muslim, and had to prove it to the country. Why is this? I don’t get it. I don’t agree with much of his policies and didn’t vote for him, and will not in the upcoming election, but who cares about his religious beliefs. In fact, it isn’t anyone’s business but his and his family. His lack of leadership has nothing to do with his religion.
This brings me to my next point- remember this:
“…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
Of course you remember it; it’s the Declaration of Independence written July 4th, 1776. Why don’t we have a popular vote if, as citizens, WE have the ability to vote for the president? We vote, but some of our votes aren’t even counted because in the U.S.A. we don’t have a popular vote…why the hell is this? Every vote should count equally. Presidential candidates should concentrate their advertising dollars in more than just the 15 battleground states. We need to consider the other 35 that seem to be “flown over” come election season. Seems like bull shit to me. If the United States is going to be the world’s greatest democracy, we should have an election that is at democratic! Wait, but we aren’t even a democracy, are we? Nope.
The U.S.A. is a republic, not a democracy, because if it were a democracy, we would have the ability to decide on policy matters directly rather than through our representatives. The founders, of course, strayed away from a “true democracy” because they didn’t want any chance of mobocracy, or tyranny, but why aren’t the presidential elections “truly democratic?” Wouldn’t that make the most sense? How in the world could that lead to tyranny?
Now to important matters at hand, the concerns of our nation NOW. I look at this very simply. We need to maximize the freedoms that Americans have. We don’t, of course, have all the freedoms that we should. We need a candidate that focuses on social and economic freedom. They need to focus less on the increase in size of our government. Right now, much of the republican field is concerned with economic freedom at the cost of social freedom (I relate this to the overly “moral” field of candidates). The taking away of social freedom increases government. The left-winged politicians focus a lot of their efforts increasing social freedom at the expense of economic freedom, thereby increasing the size of the government. What does this increase in government by both left and right-winged politicians mean? Two words…MORE DEBT.
We need someone to run the country that isn’t interested in the increase in government. Rather we need someone to decrease it in size. How can Mitt Romney declare that he wants smaller government when he argues that the military should be stronger; don’t we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined? Yes, we do.
I think we need someone in the middle, who’s concerned with both social freedom and economic freedom. We need someone who is willing to shake up the system and not accept the status quo. We need someone with the balls to wipe the “American elitist” smirk off of people’s faces. If we are going to be the “greatest nation in the world” we need to act it. First, we need to get over this confusion regarding our election process and find our priorities. I would argue that the one at the top of that list is EDUCATION. If the government is going to be in charge of it, do something….
The above was written to put thoughts down on paper. If I don't make any sense or you have no idea what I'm talking about don't worry, I will more than likely not understand it when I read through it tomorrow when I look for spelling errors.
Today was a great day, I was in my Monday routine with morning meetings and planning until 4th period when I had "Bones." The students were great and I had a wonderful lesson full of investigation and inquiry, my favorite. My bikeride after school was long and much needed after the weekend. I will have a more "Australia focused" post tomorrow.
Let me start the rant with a little bit about Australian politics, which seems to draw some contrast with the political system in the U.S. The Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, is part of the Labor Party. She, in American terms, would be considered liberal, or left-winged. The Liberal Party in Australia would be considered conservative in the U.S. Gillard is an atheist, and lives with her domestic partner with no children. Would anyone of this social status be allowed to run the U.S. government? I think not, unfortunately. Australia seems to be concerned with leadership and experience more than any social position. Good for them!
I cannot say the same for much of the voters in the United States. Especially during these past few months of debating to find the Republican nominee, religion has been at the forefront of the discussion. Why is this? Why does it matter in a country of free men and women who can hold any belief they want (as long as it doesn’t threaten national security). Do voters feel as if they need to vote for someone who has a belief in God? Why does this matter? What does “separation of church and state” mean then? I can understand why voters want to see tax records of the candidates, but should they be obligated to talk about their religious status? Maybe it is just with conservatives? Doubtful.
When Barack Obama was elected in 2008, people thought he was a Muslim, and were scared that it would impact his ability to lead the country. First things first, he isn’t a Muslim, and had to prove it to the country. Why is this? I don’t get it. I don’t agree with much of his policies and didn’t vote for him, and will not in the upcoming election, but who cares about his religious beliefs. In fact, it isn’t anyone’s business but his and his family. His lack of leadership has nothing to do with his religion.
This brings me to my next point- remember this:
“…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, - That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…”
Of course you remember it; it’s the Declaration of Independence written July 4th, 1776. Why don’t we have a popular vote if, as citizens, WE have the ability to vote for the president? We vote, but some of our votes aren’t even counted because in the U.S.A. we don’t have a popular vote…why the hell is this? Every vote should count equally. Presidential candidates should concentrate their advertising dollars in more than just the 15 battleground states. We need to consider the other 35 that seem to be “flown over” come election season. Seems like bull shit to me. If the United States is going to be the world’s greatest democracy, we should have an election that is at democratic! Wait, but we aren’t even a democracy, are we? Nope.
The U.S.A. is a republic, not a democracy, because if it were a democracy, we would have the ability to decide on policy matters directly rather than through our representatives. The founders, of course, strayed away from a “true democracy” because they didn’t want any chance of mobocracy, or tyranny, but why aren’t the presidential elections “truly democratic?” Wouldn’t that make the most sense? How in the world could that lead to tyranny?
Now to important matters at hand, the concerns of our nation NOW. I look at this very simply. We need to maximize the freedoms that Americans have. We don’t, of course, have all the freedoms that we should. We need a candidate that focuses on social and economic freedom. They need to focus less on the increase in size of our government. Right now, much of the republican field is concerned with economic freedom at the cost of social freedom (I relate this to the overly “moral” field of candidates). The taking away of social freedom increases government. The left-winged politicians focus a lot of their efforts increasing social freedom at the expense of economic freedom, thereby increasing the size of the government. What does this increase in government by both left and right-winged politicians mean? Two words…MORE DEBT.
We need someone to run the country that isn’t interested in the increase in government. Rather we need someone to decrease it in size. How can Mitt Romney declare that he wants smaller government when he argues that the military should be stronger; don’t we spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined? Yes, we do.
I think we need someone in the middle, who’s concerned with both social freedom and economic freedom. We need someone who is willing to shake up the system and not accept the status quo. We need someone with the balls to wipe the “American elitist” smirk off of people’s faces. If we are going to be the “greatest nation in the world” we need to act it. First, we need to get over this confusion regarding our election process and find our priorities. I would argue that the one at the top of that list is EDUCATION. If the government is going to be in charge of it, do something….
The above was written to put thoughts down on paper. If I don't make any sense or you have no idea what I'm talking about don't worry, I will more than likely not understand it when I read through it tomorrow when I look for spelling errors.
Today was a great day, I was in my Monday routine with morning meetings and planning until 4th period when I had "Bones." The students were great and I had a wonderful lesson full of investigation and inquiry, my favorite. My bikeride after school was long and much needed after the weekend. I will have a more "Australia focused" post tomorrow.
RSS Feed