For the past year and a half I have been engaged in verbal combat with a high school buddy on Facebook. 90% of the time we disagree on politics and how to handle issues. This individual has a distinct dislike for the "thinkers" in the political and media world. He discounts ideology or any firm political philosophy and stays focused on policy, which makes sense since he is a take-action kind of guy (a former NFL defensive lineman with a couple Pro Bowl selections). His had a job that required active involvement, a game plan, producing tangible results on a regular basis. And I understand that much of America operates that way; however, to discount philosophy or ideas, a code to base one's political decisions on, opens up the door for pundits, polls, and disinformation to influence you and your power of the vote.
Even though political philosophy is really the issue here, the term code might be a better fit. Philosophy does not necessarily mean the basic criteria by which someone basis a decision, since philosophy is a general term that might focuses on the broad spectrum of possibilities. Every voter needs to decide what their code is. Far too many voters do so from an uninformed position. Some may have a simplistic code of always voting either Republican or Democrat. Others get more sophisticated, usually depending upon their knowledge of politics and current events. Having a political code to base your decisions, your vote on, is important for a number of reasons.
One, like religion or other belief systems, a political code becomes a compass to guide a citizen through their political life. In California (and most states), on Election Day there may be a dozen different offices you are voting for with sixty or more total names on the ballot along with a half dozen to a dozen propositions. Too much for the average voter to research and learn about, especially when bombarded by simplistic radio, television, and mail ads. With a little research and a code, that person can make an informed choice, bypassing all the campaigning stuff. For example, a proposition on the ballot calls for a an increase in sales tax. Your code guides you: if you are opposed to taxes (especially regressive ones) then you vote no, if government services funded by sales taxes is important to you then it's a yes. So a political code helps guide you through the most basic civil responsibility--voting. And you don't have to say you voted a certain way because your best friend said to.
Two, a political code can be an embarrassment saving tool. Granted, discussing politics has become less and less prevalent but if asked why you voted a certain way on an issue or for an office, a code gives you some basic rationale for that decision. Of course, based on the person and to what extent they dug deep and really have solidified a code, the justification may be simplistic. "I voted for her because she is in favor of measures to protect the environment like promoting public transportation and renewable energy." That sounds a whole lot better than, "Well, my neighbor said she's a good person," or "She seems smart." How many people voted for Barack Obama because he was a new face, but could offer no compelling reason why he would be a good President?
Three, every good political code should have an element of prudence to it. Until about three years ago, I believed one's political code was the word of God, and being conservative, to stray from the code was blasphemy. That's exactly what the pundits on both sides of the aisle want you to believe, but prudent policy is key to good government. I read about Edmund Burke and his influence on conservatism. Burke argued that prudence was a conservative ideal (thus part of the code) because it emphasized policy that best served the interests of the majority. For progressives this should be part of their code too. Prudence requires what is most often needed in our government and that is compromise. Compromising on policy is not always compromising on principles. For example, everyone agrees today that immigration reform is needed but a majority of conservatives will vote for no bill that does not secure the border effectively and securely in the near future, because that is part of their code. It would be prudent for progressives to compromise on that issue, so the other items in the proposed law they like they will get. In turn, it would be prudent for conservatives to embrace some type of path to citizenship plan for the 12 million here illegally.
Finally, good policy is based on a good code. Policy based simply upon the whim of public opinion or the pipe dreams of whoever holds office is rarely good policy. Good policy stems from bills that are critically read by our representatives and filtered through the sieve of the code. Once that is done then the two sides hammer out the differences. While there are times that demand immediate, sometimes less thought out action--World War Two, 9/11, etc.--such policy in the long run may be detrimental to our democracy. Few would argue the Patriot Act was not needed after the terrorist attacks in 2001 but that law may not be good policy in the long run. President Roosevelt's decision to intern 110,000 Japanese Americans is now recognized as bad policy.
Politics is a beast. Policy is the leash that controls the beast but philosophy or the political code is the hand that holds the leash. There's rarely ever a perfect answer but having a code to ground yourself in is comforting.
Posted with Blogsy
No comments:
Post a Comment