Pundits have characterized current social and political discourse as “polarizing.” They claim that individuals and groups with varying positions have “dug in” and are stubbornly promoting their positions and not allowing for civil disagreement or “progress” on vexing issues. They seem to believe that every problem has a solution and every disagreement can be settled by consensus. My difficulty with that observation is that their “solutions” and their “answers” usually involve the growth of government…..locally, statewide or nationally. For example if my point of view is that the problem under consideration is not a constitutional requirement for government, my position is absolute…..any other solution must include government. So if I seek “common ground” with my opponents, I am in essence denying my original principle of no government involvement.
Put another way….if your position is “zero” on a scale and your foe is at “100” on the scale, any movement by YOU is a surrender of principle. A movement by your opponent is still a partial victory for him, and with the inevitable sliding and growing of government the ultimate rating will be greater than 100. Yet, if you or I refuse to violate our principles, we are ostracized for holding fast to our polarizing positions. Aside from whom our daughters choose to marry, most other highly contentious debates and disagreements are centered on the role of government in our lives.
National Healthcare
Our most recent national debate over the role of the federal government in our personal healthcare is nearly a century old. It impacts every region, every interest group and every person in our country. Some of us who rightly, I believe and know, resist extending government’s reach into our health and well-being are thought to be intransigent and uncompassionate because we appear to be denying quality healthcare for the less fortunate. At the present time our governments already control roughly half of the healthcare spending in the United States. The “poor” as defined by the government’s own statistics represent 25% or fewer of the population. It should be clear that if the poor are underserved with healthcare, the government is failing to properly use the resources they have already confiscated from taxpayers. Why then would any reasonable person be willing risk the integrity of the healthcare system by giving them more power and additional resources? Yet, those who want more government control and those of us who believe governments exercise too much already are polarizing the issue. We are asked to find a common ground (somewhere between 50% and 100%) so that the nation can move forward. I believe the best common ground is less than 10% involvement for government….just enough for battlefield medics and military hospitals. There is no common ground. Statists, big government socialist advocates must be defeated…..or we shall lose. There is no common ground.
EPA Overreaching
Though they may seem to be a national issue, the practices of Richard Nixon’s rogue agency EPA are very regional or local with their negative impact. Along with other bloated agencies the EPA has come very close to placing a stranglehold on the commerce of the United States of America, but it has done so by intruding into one business, one community or one property at a time. In addition its broad scale interventions into the marketplace have placed burdens on our producers that severely limit our global competitive stature. So therefore, if the EPA continually expands its portfolio and control over our lives and our abilities to earn productive wages, where is the common ground if someone seeks to limit my capacity for living and producing? The local nature of most egregious EPA actions allows it to run rampant over our freedom. The “not in my backyard” attitude of too many citizens gives the EPA license to run roughshod over my liberty, and as long as they are not directly or negatively impacted, they allow it…..perhaps even applaud it. There is no middle ground between my stance for freedom and the EPA desire to control my life. There is no middle ground.
When liberty or freedom are at stake….particularly mine and yours if you care about it…….there can be no middle ground. Almost free is not free. In fact I would argue that when government is the controlling agent, “almost free” means that before too long you will be noticeably less free as government increases its power. There is no middle ground. There is liberty, and there is tyranny. Oh yes, we can at times voluntarily subordinate our own desires for the common good….but to yield them to government means that our freedoms will never be returned to us. Polarization is absolutely necessary when freedom is in jeopardy and government control is the alternative. My greatest frustration with the Republican Party has been is willingness to trade away my freedom despite its stated philosophy and numerous party platforms. It has been eager to sacrifice my personal liberty so that the GOP can share power with Democrats, socialists and progressives. I find that position repulsive and unacceptable because there is no middle ground. I will not stand there, and I shall not seek it. It is here for liberty I stand….. first, foremost and forever.
Comment: cearlwriting@hotmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment