I was born at the beginning of the Eisenhower era and was raised by Republican parents. Even so, they preferred JFK to Richard Nixon, so there’s that. I came of age during the Viet Nam war; however, I was too young to be drafted. Many who graduated high school before me paid a terrible price. At first, I believed the propaganda about why we had to be there, but as I learned more, I discovered the protesters were right – we had no business being there in the first place and in the end, we made things much worse – as evidenced by the number of dead and maimed as well as our humiliating departure.
Experiences change us. Or rather, they should. For most of my life I’ve considered myself a fiscal conservative and somewhat of a social liberal. I still like the idea of a government being no larger than it must be to serve effectively, and like Hobbes, I believe good government should keep citizens from making each other’s lives “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” I believe our government ought to promote freedom, justice, and equal opportunities for all citizens, not just a privileged few or a tyrannical majority. It seems to me that “when in the course of human events” a government can’t do these things, for whatever reason, that government needs to be altered or abolished.
My disillusionment didn’t just happen. 25 years ago, my uncle talked about how the “country club set” made all the important decisions. And while it’s certainly a valid criticism of both parties, in his locale this was mainly a criticism of the Republican Party. The “country club set” are often out-of-touch with what most of us are going through. Perhaps this is reason enough for anyone to be suspicious of deals made among rich white men in the 19th Hole Lounge. Yet somehow “when you’re rich they think you really know,” as the song goes.
In 2005, I heard a “conservative” radio talk show host ask a listener whether he would prefer a proposed a federal budget balanced by tax revenue or a somewhat smaller budget with substantial tax cuts that resulted in a deficit. The caller answered with what I was thinking: the balanced budget, of course. The host shouted, “Wrong!” I remembered a few years earlier, a major Republican strategist asserted that “deficits don’t matter” [to voters]. At that moment I realized I no longer had much in common with the party of my youth.
I had been enduring the pontifications of Rush Limbaugh for many years at this point. I witnessed how his outrage machine changed my mother. The woman who told me to be courageous, optimistic, and positive turned into a fearful, bitter, and negative person under the influence of Limbaugh, Hannity, O’Reilly, and Beck, the four horsemen of the political apocalypse. Nothing about government seemed to suit these four and after years of their unrelenting propaganda nothing about life seemed to suit my mother either. A part of me believes 20 years of the four horsemen’s talking points reshaped the mother I had known into a person I hardly recognized.
The “party of small government” has disappointed me on many occasions. I recall that many “conservatives” wanted the federal government to decide the fate of Terri Schiavo. I heard one say he saw the “Will of God” in her case. Recently, “conservatives” have decided state governments should tell women what is best for their health, even if women are in the best position to decide. And now we have the government telling people what gender they are, as if the government is all-knowing and all-seeing (sadly, this is on the way). Then, we have “conservatives” moving towards a big brother police state dominated by oligarchs, to control everyone, to make sure no one violates the state religion. I used to think traditional conservatives didn’t approve of dictatorships.
In 1998, one of my students wrote a paper comparing Ken Starr to Sir Thomas More (The “Man for All Seasons”). He admired the way Starr, like More, stood up for ethics in government. Fast forward to 2016. One of my moments came when the party that couldn’t stop talking about the importance of character in the Clinton era did an about face for Mr. Trump, papering over his lack of character, as well as his lack of integrity as a businessman. If character counted for Mr. Clinton, as the four horsemen declared regularly, it also counts for Mr. Trump. Yet, we all saw Trump’s opponents abandon their “convictions” to join their king’s side. So much for principles.
None of the above means I’ve decided to join the Democratic Party. I’m plenty dissatisfied with that side of the aisle as well. It seems to me neither party represents the little guy and both parties are captives of corporations and billionaires. When money talks, politicians listen. And I say this as an old person, both parties are represented by too many old people. I saw my parents become much more “suggestible” as they aged. It seems to me the current regime is being run by small-minded, power-hungry men who whisper in their king’s ear, flattering him, telling him what to do, or catering to his personal whims and petty vendettas, hoping for rewards. Therefore, it becomes necessary to look for candidates who will serve the public with integrity, no matter what their party or religion might be.
MurrayWorks 