The time has come for us to get rid of the words left and right in
politics. They have outlived their usefulness even though it appears the
ladies and gentlemen of the fourth estate just can’t let them go. In
today’s world, the politics of individual members of the House and
Senate are usually neither totally left nor right, but represent a
combination of views on what people feel is the correct way to move
forward on issues of vital importance to Americans.
Rather than these arbitrary labels, it is
the party platforms fought over at each political convention every four
years that are a much more clear indicator of what issues will be
claiming the hearts and minds of the party leadership if they win
control of the Congress and/or the Presidency.
The terms left and right—or for that
matter liberal and conservative—no longer accurately describe any one
person’s politics. You can be opposed to large federal tax cuts
formerly considered a liberal position, but be pro-life. You can be for
equal rights for gays and lesbians, but also for massive federal tax
cuts formerly considered a conservative position. You can be for free
trade, formerly a conservative issue, but fight for federal union
workers’ rights. What do these combinations make you, right or left,
liberal or conservative?
We have seen in the last two elections
that Americans are evenly split on where they see the country headed and
on who should lead us. I believe this is because candidates no longer
present themselves on issues as black or white. The grays have emerged
in politics. But the press still finds those hard to deal with and
easier to label politicians with one-word descriptions.
In old parlance, I would be a left
leaning liberal democrat. I don’t find that particularly insulting,
but it really doesn’t describe what I think. I worked for Bella Abzug,
but disagreed with many of her positions. I am for a strong CIA, believe
that surveillance cameras have a place in public spaces, believe that
people should be trained and required to work for their public
assistance checks, am for reducing the paperwork required of small
businesses, and believe that government should be as small as possible
and still perform the services we require of it. On the other hand, I am
pro-choice, in favor of guaranteeing equal rights for gays and lesbians,
for fair bargaining provisions for unions, for guaranteeing a fair and
adequate minimum wage, and for guaranteeing adequate health care for all
of our citizens. Is this schizophrenic or just maybe the way most
Americans look at the world and decide for themselves which issues are
important to them? I think most voters find their views of the world,
and issues, cross the wide spectrum from left to right and they then
decide who to vote for on the few issues that matter most to them.
I think that what we need to do on the
national level, rather than assign meaningless one-word identifiers to
candidates, is spend a little more time looking at the platforms of the
parties people choose to associate themselves with. Because the people
who control the writing of those platforms every four years are the
individuals that will end up being the leaders of their party in the
House and Senate, and will win the nomination of that party for
President. These platforms are a representation not of everyone in a
particular party, but of the people that will lead and control that
party. As the Republican Party takes control of both the House and
Senate, along with the White House, platform issues suddenly reappear
just as they did when Democrats had that control. The party likes to
pretend that the platform, after vicious fights, is never looked at
again. History shows us that is not true. The winners of the platform
fights at the Republican Convention regarding choice, GLBT rights, and
other crucial issues, are now the ones that will lead the House, Senate,
and White House. Republican candidates across the nation (who ran away
or tried not to discuss these issues in the recent campaign in an effort
to show that they represented a broad scope of views, as did Democratic
candidates) will now face these issues on which their leadership will
demand their votes. The election is over and those winning candidates
will come back to Washington and vote for the leadership that
represented and fought for those issues in the Republican Party
platform. A prime example of a candidate who has done this for years is
Connie Morella. She lost this time, but won eight terms in the House as
a Republican from Maryland who spoke out against the mainstays of the
Republican platform each time she was up for election, but then went and
cast her first vote each session for the leadership that supported and
wrote the platform. Was Morella a liberal or conservative, was she left
or right, who knows? It is much more complicated than that.
I think the press needs to highlight
these platforms more and label individuals less. The public, if given
the information it needs, will be able to choose which way they want our
country to head and make a more informed decision as they cast their
vote for those that will represent them.
|
Back to Top of Page 