When the Heck Did I Become A Republican – Part II

Friday I wrote about a letter I received from Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney through the Republican National Committee. Among other things, the RNC accused me of being a Republican and wanting to help the party take over the entire nation.

While there was enough material to respond to for a week’s worth of articles, I have tried to stay focused on the points that stuck out to me as I read the letter.

The letter encourages me to choose “a bold, new agenda rooted in the proven conservative principles of limited government, free enterprise, and personal responsibility.”

Aside from the oxymoronic nature of that sentence, it sounds pretty good. Who isn’t for limited government, free enterprise or personal responsibility?

Of course, those terms have different meanings for different people.

As it stands, the current Republican agenda is seeking government to limit who you can marry, your right to decide if abortion is right for you or not and your right to vote. In Pennsylvania, Republicans have created a voter identification law that is so strict that it will not accept government issued military identification as valid verification to vote. This is not limited government.

Republicans continue to promise to overturn Roe v. Wade, a herculean task.   In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that the government did not have the right to interfere with a woman’s decision to have, or not to have, an abortion. Forcing women to keep a pregnancy, even in cases or incest or rape, is not a limited government.

And these same Republicans have continued to fight gay marriage. All of their reasons for this boil down to two things; tribalism and the desire to have the nation conform to the standards of their god. Gay marriage hurts no one. The problems involved in gay marriage are not any different that traditional marriage.

Yet, Republicans have continued to propose a ban on gay marriage by creating an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would define marriage as only between a man and a woman. They want a tyranny of the majority that can use the Constitution to take away rights rather than grant them. This is not limited government.

It is a restrictive government. It is a closed society. It is totalitarian. It is wrong.

“Free enterprise” is a great term for the fantasy utopia created by Adam Smith. Smith’s concept of a perfect society where the invisible hand of the market controls supply and demand, prices and wages is as realistic and practical a political theory as Marx’s “The Communist Manifesto.” The Republican claim is that they support a market free of government regulation.

The experiment in a free market economy collapsed with the Great Depression. But the United States is hardly, by any realistic definition, a centrally planned economy. Regulations were put into place to create a legal framework in which our free market economy could work and remain stable.

Simply put; government is part of the economy.

At the heart of our current recession is the deregulation of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933. This act “prevented financial firms from being both commercial banks and investment banks,” according to economists R. Glenn Hubbard and Anthony Patrick O’Brien in the book “Microeconomics.” Congress repealed the act in 1999, allowing commercial banks and investment banks to share in exotic mortgage-backed securities.

Republicans continue to blame the “invisible hand” of the market for the recession, yet never bring up the role deregulation played in the state of our economy.

Of course, they were more than willing to let government interfere and bail out the banks that were on the verge of failing.

Republicans may talk about free enterprise, but are as eager as anyone to take advantage of the government’s role in the economy.

Personal responsibility seems innocuous enough. Who doesn’t believe in personal responsibility? Personal responsibility is at the very heart of republicanism, which has little to do with Republicans.

The principle of republicanism, as it developed among the Greeks and the Romans, placed personal responsibility on it polis to participate in government. It was considered a person’s duty to put aside his own financial interests for the good of the nation. The preamble of the U.S. Constitution even makes promoting “the general Welfare” as one of government’s main responsibilities.

Yet, Republicans seem to be very much opposed to policies that are republican. Personal responsibility, based on the Republican dialogue lately, is about taking care of one’s self and giving nothing to society. According to them, if a woman is raped, gets pregnant and keeps the child, it is no one’s fault but her own and there should be nothing provided by the government to assist her or her child. That is a bit exaggerated, but I believe the point is valid.

This does not mean America has become a welfare state¹. We take care of our own. We take care of our seniors, who have worked hard raising children and being a part of this nation. We take care of our veterans, who have been willing to put aside their personal interests in order to serve their country. We take care of our children, who need food, health care and education in order to build a stronger republic.

There is no utopia. The degree in which government is involved in our personal lives, free enterprise and in providing for the needs of citizens will always be open for debate and adjustment. But the RNC’s statement about these issues is a series of glittering generalities. I am tired of pleasant sounding words that mean nothing in politics.

¹I am fully aware that when the Constitution speaks of “the general Welfare,” it is not talking about our modern welfare system. However, the point is that there is a certain republican idea involved in both systems of taking care of our citizens.


Get You Filthy Politics Out of the Games

Oh I love the games! Thanks to my schedule, I have been able to enjoy four channels of Olympic bliss.

And I believe the Olympics bring the best out of all of us. We cheer for our country and hope to see athletic greatness.

The Naked Olympics by Tony Perrottet

The history of the ancient games in this article are taken from “The Naked Olympics” by Tony Perrottet. It is a fun history of the games, putting the reader right in the middle of the ancient festival. (Image courtesy of Random House, Inc.)

And, like the ancient Greeks, we try to put our differences aside for a few weeks. The original Olympics started in 776 B.C. and ended in 393 A.D. after the Christians decided to end all pagan festivals. Although there were exceptions, the city states of Greece put aside their differences and came together to compare their best athletes. And they partied a lot. The fact that these groups could put aside very bloody feuds to celebrate the games demonstrates the value this event had on the polis.

Call me an idealist, but I like that idea.

But then I watch advertisement after advertisement on NBC’s coverage from political candidates saying that the other person is the source of all evil. Mitt Romney, it appears, wants to buy your business, sell it off to Iran and marry your daughters. Barack Obama, on the other hand, wants to take every cent you have out of your bank account to give to a homeless guy.  And he might eat a baby or two in the process.*

Nevada has a very contentious Senate race between incumbent Dean Heller and Congresswoman Shelly Berkley. Heller, it seems, wants to end Medicare and Berkley’s only interest in government is supporting an industry that her husband is part of.

NBC has the choice to reject political advertising during the games. But a large piece of the advertising revenue pie for networks is during major political cycles. While I would like to see NBC show an altruistic nature and turn away political advertising during the games, I understand that money pays the bills. But that doesn’t mean I like it.

Why, during a time when our nation and the world around us come together to celebrate the human spirit, sportsmanship and good citizenship, do our candidates insist on creating division? I want to enjoy the games and all of the joy and drama that go with them. Frankly, for two weeks this summer, I don’t care about politics. There’s plenty of time left for all candidates to make their case. Please leave my soccer games, diving competitions and gymnastics alone. The Olympics are civil. Spewing political venom in commercials during the Olympics demonstrates just how much contempt politicians have for the games and our desire to celebrate humanity.

And I think if political candidates agreed to not advertise during the Olympics, they would give the people a shining example of citizenship.

Copyright 2012 Paul George

* I may be exaggerating a little, but just a little.