Voices of Reason

The political warfare reverberating throughout the nation has been the most pervasive, headline grabbing news of the last few years in the United States. Most recently the economy has brought about the strongest debates, but all those circle back to the political issues. This, in spite of the fact that, for students, government and political science are among the most tedious, and not incidentally, least understood, courses they take. So we have a nation of people who find the study of government boring and yet the reality of what government is doing, anything but. The intent of this book is to give an easily grasped, common sense, nonpartisan description of the distribution of power within a government, and the belief systems that the different groups embrace. It is through the actions of partisan politics, which are always present when a variety of ideas do battle in the public arena, that real world outcomes evolve. The focus will be the specifics of government as it functions, and has functioned historically, in the United States. This will be contrasted with the way other governments are structured and function throughout the rest of the world and the directions in which they're dynamically evolving. The dual purpose of this writing is to increase knowledge and understanding and thereby, hopefully, inject a much-needed increase in sanity into the current stormy political process. We hear politically laden terms every day: conservative, liberal, reactionary, radical, socialist, democratic, republican, communist, anarchist and terrorist. A political party will appear to be either conservative or liberal, as will economists, journalists and media outlets. Each term may be embraced with pride by different people and also used as a scornful label against opponents. We may also hear the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing." Are these just different labels for liberal and conservative? And then we encounter the term radical being used both ways, as in "radical right" or "radical left," generally as an accusation. Many people use these terms regularly, quite certain they know what they mean. When listeners hear the terms used, they assume they know what the speaker means. To say someone is a conservative suggests possible things about that person but of necessity leaves a great deal of material unsaid. This leaves the hearer with the job of filling in for himself all the rest of the missing information. This is called assuming, which could be accurate and frequently is inaccurate. In the current political arena in the United States, "conservatives" are generally thought to be people who are Republicans, support reducing taxation, oppose expansion of government, oppose gun control laws, oppose abortion, support an expanded military, oppose same-sex marriage, emphasize states rights and a more limited central government, support petroleum drilling and pipeline construction over environmental concerns and insist on a tough illegal immigration enforcement. "Liberals" are generally thought to be people who are Democrats and embrace opposing positions on each of these issues. It's well to keep in mind that there are many conservatives who break ranks on some of these issues and, at least privately, embrace liberal positions. This is equally true of liberals. This is well illustrated by the fact that the voting records of every lawmaker in Washington are scored on what percentage of the time he or she votes the conservative position or votes the liberal position. Most lawmakers do not score 100% on either one. This probably, as much as anything, indicates that real life is complex. Most bills include items that are pleasing and items that are displeasing to each lawmaker. However close people may be, if everyone has a functioning brain, there will be differences in opinions. For most of the classifications in life, a twofold breakdown does not give enough information. If you say someone is either old or young, the listener probably doesn't have enough information. If a 13-year-old says someone is old, you don't know if he means an older teen, someone old enough to be his parent or a senior citizen, which might be important information to have. So, too, the terms conservative and liberal leave us wanting more information. When some conservatives feel that most other conservatives are not nearly conservative enough, think that the larger group has already moved too far in the liberal direction and that there is a need to return to an earlier time when conservatives were much more conservative, these people are referred to as "reactionaries." When some liberals feel a great impatience with the great mass of fellow liberals moving far too slowly in changing society and insist on a dramatically increased speed of change in society, or when they embrace positions that are far too liberal for most other liberals, these people are referred to as "radicals." Therefore, it seems that a fourfold classification has much more utilitarian value here than the twofold classification. Conservatives are frequently referred to as being on the right, while liberals are referred to as being on the left. Reactionaries are then seen as the extreme right and radicals are seen as the extreme left. Most modern western societies are composed primarily of a left and right dealing with each other and making most decisions. When debate heats up and emotion replaces reason, anyone on the right may be referred to by the left as being a right-wing or extreme right. At such time, those on the right will likely refer to anyone on the left as being the radical left or extreme left. These terms then cease being logical terms and become emotional terms, failing to give useful information about either side. This is somewhat like ignoring that domesticated dogs and cats have long been dear family members and referring to all dogs as wolves or cats as dangerous predators. In actual fact, when dogs and cats grow up in the wild, without human interaction, they pretty much do revert to a beastly approach to life. We, more than they, really need a peacefully functioning society for human life to thrive.