Sunday, June 11, 2006

Division in a democracy

As a good friend of mine recently pointed out, no one here fits the label of "conservative" or "liberal" as portrayed by the media. This begs the question of why these labels are applied to people of differing viewpoints.

On May 6, 1999 when GW Bush was running for president he said "I'm a unitary, not a divider". Yet division is a popular tool of this administration. Now in an election year the issues of gay marriage and flag burning have been, so to speak, run up the flagpole once again. Polling shows that these are not critical issues with the American public - Iraq, the economy, (as it impacts those other then the extremely rich), and health care are the core concerns. What motive does focusing on these issues support other then dividing opinion and distracting attention from real problems?

No matter what labels we will accept for ourselves, in these times of self inflicted crisis we need to come together as a country. "Dividers" are not in our best interests. I believe Lincoln said it well.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free."

It appears that those in power wish to divide our country's opinion and oppress any dissent. All the while encouraging divisions that are in their political interests. As long as their "half" (or richest 5%) are free, the rest of us should just shut up.

Those of us who disagree with the actions of our central government are pushed into "free speech zones" where protests are confined, subject to unlimited wiretapping and portrayed, once again, as unpatriotic. The unitary executive now asserts his "right" to ignore any law passed by congress, refuses judicial oversight and denies any mechanism of overview of this administration, be it oversight by the congress, judicial branch or the public right to know, (reclassification of previously released documents is at an all time high). How can this be viewed as anything other then oppression of the people by the government?

Here is what Ulysses S. Grant had to say about a government of oppression;

"The right of revolution is an inherent one. When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of oppression, if they are strong enough, whether by withdrawal from it, or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable."

This isn't a new problem in the United States, we have had constitutional crises before. 145 years ago during a conflict over state's rights vs the power of a central government many in the southern states felt the need to throw off the shackles of federal government. The civil war came at a horrible cost to our country - nearly every family had someone die during those horrific 4 years. No war to date has cost more American lives.

Oppression of the people can not long endure. Perhaps it would be better to "withdraw" from this government - by electing them out - rather then suffer the costs of another civil war.


Anonymous Ludo said...

You arte so political fred :P

are you going to any conventions in the near future?

6:01 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home