STEPHEN EDSON
Contributor
Modern political contradiction is often difficult to notice on account of the blind spot created by our personal convictions, which are often a matter of feelings rather than thoughts.
The middle class has undergone a decade of being duped into consumerism, which has exhausted its coffers and created a dollar-centric youth. This soft consumerism coupled with hyperactivism has created a voter who enjoys the result of yesterday’s policies, yet is willing to solve the mirage of today’s supposed problems by undermining the principles of prosperity.
Over the past two decades, the Democratic Party has evolved into the party for progress and reform, whereas the Republican Party has represented the conservative interest in protecting the status quo and prosperity. Granted that seeded interests in protecting the status quo require weeding, there is greater risk in choosing a path of continual social and economic shift.
There are a plethora of social and economic issues for candidates to play to in this upcoming election. Carefully choosing the issues and discerning the candidates’ position is tantamount to responsible voting. Returning to rationality is an important step for some who do not believe the top issues are the economy, energy sources and foreign policy.
Your average San Franciscan might give you a lot of reasons why we need to vote for progressive candidates based on their policies on a number of issues. The corrosive nature of their beliefs, however, spills over into their handling of other matters. This applies to a candidate such as Sen. Hillary Clinton, D—N.Y., who is everybody’s friend and wants to implement a national health plan. She makes lofty pork-rolled proposals while jabbing at our economy’s weakness.
The national health plan would undercut the healthy free-economic principles that have protected American prosperity. The overdrawn struggle of wealth is a war cry that the Democratic Party is using to garner reformist support. It achieves its goal of undermining property rights through excessive taxation. When such measures are set, economic growth is stifled. It is not the cold conservative way, but simply an effort to protect the opportunities available to the willing and motivated.
There is a meritorious argument for adjusting our insurance and prescription drug industries before completely lifting the personal accountability on health, which universal health care would do with our obese and otherwise unhealthy population.
So much more can be said about the Republican candidates. There is no guiding light in the darkness, so we must pray for God’s love as this election hits the home stretch. It is up to the American people to decide what they want, but time will only tell if it is what we truly need. It probably will not be what we need until we hear more from pundits and experts than from political commentators.
Pray to all that you find knowledge, wisdom and discernment as you decide what’s important to you and America. Reminisce about the simplicity of your childhood and the early 1990s and reject the superficial consumer culture that has become so prevalent. Amen.
01-17-2008
