Okay so its a game. Political opponents do not have consistent values but rather they are playing a game with one another. Sort of a one-upsmanship between the two parties. If you are a Republican then the same acts that you consider corruption when it is a Democrat you find a way to justify it when a Republican is guilty. The same is true for Democrats when they catch Republicans and yet protect their own. As long as we know it is a game then we can deal with it right?
Well maybe. The problem is that both sides are concentrating so much on winning instead of supporting their values that they have to demonize each other to win. So now Republicans are all over Obama for his spending. But when they had the government they spend money like crazy. So much for the value of small government. It is about demonizing Democrats. And Democrats were all for going after Clarence Thomas for sexist comments. But when President Clinton is accused of worse actions than we even dreamed about for Thomas they put up the best defence since the Steel Curtain. So much for the value of eliminating sexual harassment. I guess we should only use it to demonize Republicans.
Ultimately this is bad for us as Americans. We learn to hate one half of the country instead of merely disagreeing with them. We can not have rational discussions about issues and we certainly can not compromise with the enemy. We get stuck in our camps and worry more about winning the game rather than doing what is right in our country.
No wonder I have so little faith in our political system. I have given up hoping that they do what is right. I just hope they do not mess things up and make our situation worse.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Consistency - Part 2
Okay so we know that both conservatives and liberals are inconsistent in their political philosophy. Neither side attach their political positions to a consistent value. If you disagree with this assertion then please read my last posting. So why do conservatives pick their set of political positions and why do liberals pick their set of political positions?Republicans state that they are driven by the value of small government and yet support governmental intrusion on the issue of abortion. Democrats state that they are driven by the value of individual choice, except when it comes to where we send our kids to school. So I do not accept that these political parties are driven by these values. Something else must be driving them instead.
I suggest that political ideology is socially constructed. Since political ideology is not tied to some consistent value then to some degree it is made up and almost accidental. A certain set of political issues arise and one political party takes one side of the issue. This obligates the other side to take the other side of the issue. The reason why conservatives feel the way they do about a political position is because other conservatives have defined it as "conservative." The same thing happens for liberals. In their own political circles conservatives gain prestige by showing others how "conservative" they are. Same for liberals. Then we get entrenched into our harden political positions without even thinking about why we have them.
Here is an example. Remember a few years ago when Democrats were filibustering the judicial nominations of President Bush. The conservative position was that this filibustering is not in keeping with the original intent of the government. The liberal position was that judicial nominations are too important to allow the majority to run over the minority party. Now that Democrats have 59 seats in the Senate the Republicans are talking about filibustering President Obama's Supreme Court nomination if he or she is too liberal. Now the same argument the Republicans were using a few years ago the Democrats are using and vice versa. It is some eternal value each party is using. I think not. It is political opportunism to find a political issue that helps to make the other side looks bad.
So often politics is just a game and not about real values. I guess that would be alright if we just accept it as a game. In games sometimes you win and sometimes you lose (come on Spurs!!) but life goes on. Unfortunately, the stakes are quite higher when we are deciding about politics which effects our laws. Furthermore there is even a more destructive aspect to this process. But this post is getting too long. So I will look at that aspect in my next post.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
I suggest that political ideology is socially constructed. Since political ideology is not tied to some consistent value then to some degree it is made up and almost accidental. A certain set of political issues arise and one political party takes one side of the issue. This obligates the other side to take the other side of the issue. The reason why conservatives feel the way they do about a political position is because other conservatives have defined it as "conservative." The same thing happens for liberals. In their own political circles conservatives gain prestige by showing others how "conservative" they are. Same for liberals. Then we get entrenched into our harden political positions without even thinking about why we have them.
Here is an example. Remember a few years ago when Democrats were filibustering the judicial nominations of President Bush. The conservative position was that this filibustering is not in keeping with the original intent of the government. The liberal position was that judicial nominations are too important to allow the majority to run over the minority party. Now that Democrats have 59 seats in the Senate the Republicans are talking about filibustering President Obama's Supreme Court nomination if he or she is too liberal. Now the same argument the Republicans were using a few years ago the Democrats are using and vice versa. It is some eternal value each party is using. I think not. It is political opportunism to find a political issue that helps to make the other side looks bad.
So often politics is just a game and not about real values. I guess that would be alright if we just accept it as a game. In games sometimes you win and sometimes you lose (come on Spurs!!) but life goes on. Unfortunately, the stakes are quite higher when we are deciding about politics which effects our laws. Furthermore there is even a more destructive aspect to this process. But this post is getting too long. So I will look at that aspect in my next post.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Consistency - Part 1
Okay. Everyone knows how controversial abortion is. The two sides of the issue call themselves pro-life or pro-choice. But I am confused.
Those who are pro-life state that they oppose abortion because of their reverence for life. Yet most of them support capital punishment. They may argue that those on death row deserve to be put to death but what about reverence for life? They could argue that we have to put them to death to prevent them from killing again but that is not true. Today with SuperMax prisons very few prisoners ever have a chance of escaping. We can protect society without putting these criminals to death. It actually costs more money to put them to death then to keep them imprison for life so the argument that putting them to death to save money is not right either. Why not err on the side of life. After all it seems reasonable that if we keep putting prisoners to death that eventually we are going to kill someone who is innocent of their stated crime. It seems to me that the pro-lifers are not being consistent to their stated values of reverence for life.
However, most pro-choicers I have met only want choice for certain decisions for women. Most of them do not support school choice plans. So let me understand this. We should trust a woman enough to know whether to have a kid but not enough to know where to send the kid to school once she has him/her. I know many pro-choicers will say that it is about the government paying for her school choice they object to but will they keep the same standard for abortion. In other words do they believe that the government should not financially support a woman so that she can have an abortion. Most of the strong pro-choicers I have met support financial support for a woman's choice for abortion but not for where she sends her kid to school. Once again pro-choicers are not being consistent to their stated values of providing a woman with choice.
Why all of this inconsistency? Is there something beyond the stated values of pro-lifers and pro-choicers to be considered here. I believe that there is. But this post is getting long and I will have to discuss that that is in a later post.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Those who are pro-life state that they oppose abortion because of their reverence for life. Yet most of them support capital punishment. They may argue that those on death row deserve to be put to death but what about reverence for life? They could argue that we have to put them to death to prevent them from killing again but that is not true. Today with SuperMax prisons very few prisoners ever have a chance of escaping. We can protect society without putting these criminals to death. It actually costs more money to put them to death then to keep them imprison for life so the argument that putting them to death to save money is not right either. Why not err on the side of life. After all it seems reasonable that if we keep putting prisoners to death that eventually we are going to kill someone who is innocent of their stated crime. It seems to me that the pro-lifers are not being consistent to their stated values of reverence for life.
However, most pro-choicers I have met only want choice for certain decisions for women. Most of them do not support school choice plans. So let me understand this. We should trust a woman enough to know whether to have a kid but not enough to know where to send the kid to school once she has him/her. I know many pro-choicers will say that it is about the government paying for her school choice they object to but will they keep the same standard for abortion. In other words do they believe that the government should not financially support a woman so that she can have an abortion. Most of the strong pro-choicers I have met support financial support for a woman's choice for abortion but not for where she sends her kid to school. Once again pro-choicers are not being consistent to their stated values of providing a woman with choice.
Why all of this inconsistency? Is there something beyond the stated values of pro-lifers and pro-choicers to be considered here. I believe that there is. But this post is getting long and I will have to discuss that that is in a later post.
Sincerely,
Trouble-Maker
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Trouble-Maker got a new car!!!!
After more than 10 years in my Escort it was time for me to move up in the car driving business. So now I will drive in comfort with my new Corrolla. Wanted to start writing stuff to create trouble today. But too happy with my new vehicle. Will try to start some trouble with my next post.
Monday, April 12, 2010
What is a Trouble Maker? Part 2
Okay so I explained last time what I mean by being a trouble maker. So the next question is why do I see myself as a trouble maker and what has helped to make me a trouble maker?
Quite simple I see myself as a trouble maker because I am not afraid to think outside the box. Furthermore, I sometimes enunciates what I am thinking about. That is what gets me into trouble. In the coming posts I will give you some examples of that.
What has created a trouble maker? I think in my case it is a combination of living in the margins and being willing to think my own thoughts. To see what I am saying you have to know a bit about my biography.
When I was 19 I became an evangelical Christian. I will forever be grateful for the brothers and sisters around me who helped me to grow in my faith. When it came to spiritual things they were truly my mentors. However when they discussed political issues I often found myself in disagreement with them. Some of their claims that there were biblical support for things such as tax cuts, death penalty and aggressive war just did not logically jive. I could read the bible too and I thought for myself. To be honest I begin to think that a lot of these good Christian people were pretty narrow-minded in their thinking on certain political issues.
Then I went off to graduate school. I would eventually get my doctorate in sociology. After having been the progressive surrounded by conservatives I should have been in my element. Yet I found much of the same thing. I had a lot to learn about sociological theory, methods, statistics and research. I am incredibly grateful for the professors and graduate students who helped me to learn. But I found a lot of unfounded presuppositions and illogical thinking when topics such as religion and politics came up. I begin to be the conservative surrounded by the progressives. I found myself once again in disagreement quite often and begin to think that many of these people were pretty narrow-minded in their thinking as well. (Of course I have my own beliefs and can be considered narrow-minded myself. But so few people agree with all my beliefs that my ideas constantly get challenged. I find that people in these two groups rarely have their ideas challenged by their good friends. More of that in a future blog.)
Having been deeply exposed to contrasting groups and the way they think I know that there are different ways to consider social, religious and political issues. I value both approaches although I find that members in each group often do not value the perspectives of those in other groups. So I sometimes bring perspectives I have picked up from my Christian friends to my friends in academia. That gets me into trouble. Then at other times I bring ideas from my friends in academia to my Christian friends. That gets me into trouble too. But if I am to be true to myself then I have to admit that sometimes I agree more with one of those groups over the other and at times I disagree with both groups. I could keep my mouth shut but what is the fun of that.
Well that is a little about me and that will tell you a little of my perspective. If you are looking for a liberal blogger who will always agree with the left then keep on looking. If you are looking for a conservative blogger who will always agree with the right then keep on looking. I guarantee you that I will agree and disagree with both. That is what I think gets me into trouble.
Sincerely,
Trouble Maker
Quite simple I see myself as a trouble maker because I am not afraid to think outside the box. Furthermore, I sometimes enunciates what I am thinking about. That is what gets me into trouble. In the coming posts I will give you some examples of that.
What has created a trouble maker? I think in my case it is a combination of living in the margins and being willing to think my own thoughts. To see what I am saying you have to know a bit about my biography.
When I was 19 I became an evangelical Christian. I will forever be grateful for the brothers and sisters around me who helped me to grow in my faith. When it came to spiritual things they were truly my mentors. However when they discussed political issues I often found myself in disagreement with them. Some of their claims that there were biblical support for things such as tax cuts, death penalty and aggressive war just did not logically jive. I could read the bible too and I thought for myself. To be honest I begin to think that a lot of these good Christian people were pretty narrow-minded in their thinking on certain political issues.
Then I went off to graduate school. I would eventually get my doctorate in sociology. After having been the progressive surrounded by conservatives I should have been in my element. Yet I found much of the same thing. I had a lot to learn about sociological theory, methods, statistics and research. I am incredibly grateful for the professors and graduate students who helped me to learn. But I found a lot of unfounded presuppositions and illogical thinking when topics such as religion and politics came up. I begin to be the conservative surrounded by the progressives. I found myself once again in disagreement quite often and begin to think that many of these people were pretty narrow-minded in their thinking as well. (Of course I have my own beliefs and can be considered narrow-minded myself. But so few people agree with all my beliefs that my ideas constantly get challenged. I find that people in these two groups rarely have their ideas challenged by their good friends. More of that in a future blog.)
Having been deeply exposed to contrasting groups and the way they think I know that there are different ways to consider social, religious and political issues. I value both approaches although I find that members in each group often do not value the perspectives of those in other groups. So I sometimes bring perspectives I have picked up from my Christian friends to my friends in academia. That gets me into trouble. Then at other times I bring ideas from my friends in academia to my Christian friends. That gets me into trouble too. But if I am to be true to myself then I have to admit that sometimes I agree more with one of those groups over the other and at times I disagree with both groups. I could keep my mouth shut but what is the fun of that.
Well that is a little about me and that will tell you a little of my perspective. If you are looking for a liberal blogger who will always agree with the left then keep on looking. If you are looking for a conservative blogger who will always agree with the right then keep on looking. I guarantee you that I will agree and disagree with both. That is what I think gets me into trouble.
Sincerely,
Trouble Maker
Monday, April 5, 2010
What is a Trouble Maker? Part 1
Okay so this is my first attempt at blogging and I will probably stink at it for a while. So bear with me. My name is George and I am a confessed trouble-maker. What do I mean by that. Let me use this blog to explain.
A trouble-maker is the person who thinks outside of the box. Because the trouble-maker does not think like other people, he or she eventually will put forth unpopular, even if well thought out ideas. If the ideas are well thought out then it is all the more trouble. Because it is easy to dismiss obviously dumb ideas. Overt racism or sexism is dumb. People who push those ideas are not trouble-makers. They are just loud idiots.
No a trouble-maker puts forth well thought out ideas but ideas that are not popular. So many times we stick to ideas because of our political ideology or because those are the popular ideas in our social networks. Trouble-makers dare to think outside of those socially constructed boxes to consider new concerns and find novel solutions.
Trouble-makers are not necessarily Republican or Democrat. They are not necessarily liberal or conservative. They can be white, black, Hispanic, Asian or any other race. They can be male or female. They do not agree with each other. The only thing that links trouble-makers is their willingness to think outside the box and vocalize those ideas.
In the next few months I will present some of the ideas that make me a trouble-maker. You may agree with some of the ideas and you may disagree with them. But if I am truly a trouble-maker then these ideas will be controversial and we can have great fun debating them. Who knows. Maybe in time some of these ideas will be accepted and I will be less of a trouble-maker and more of an innovator. But I will not hold my breath waiting for that.
For my next effort I will go into why I think I became a trouble-maker.
A trouble-maker is the person who thinks outside of the box. Because the trouble-maker does not think like other people, he or she eventually will put forth unpopular, even if well thought out ideas. If the ideas are well thought out then it is all the more trouble. Because it is easy to dismiss obviously dumb ideas. Overt racism or sexism is dumb. People who push those ideas are not trouble-makers. They are just loud idiots.
No a trouble-maker puts forth well thought out ideas but ideas that are not popular. So many times we stick to ideas because of our political ideology or because those are the popular ideas in our social networks. Trouble-makers dare to think outside of those socially constructed boxes to consider new concerns and find novel solutions.
Trouble-makers are not necessarily Republican or Democrat. They are not necessarily liberal or conservative. They can be white, black, Hispanic, Asian or any other race. They can be male or female. They do not agree with each other. The only thing that links trouble-makers is their willingness to think outside the box and vocalize those ideas.
In the next few months I will present some of the ideas that make me a trouble-maker. You may agree with some of the ideas and you may disagree with them. But if I am truly a trouble-maker then these ideas will be controversial and we can have great fun debating them. Who knows. Maybe in time some of these ideas will be accepted and I will be less of a trouble-maker and more of an innovator. But I will not hold my breath waiting for that.
For my next effort I will go into why I think I became a trouble-maker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)