POLITICS AND RELIGION -- BUT MOSTLY POLITICS

You might think from the title that this is going to be tirade about the religious right and how they have inserted their religious dogma into political thought and, for reasons unfathomable by me, largely taken control of the Republican Party.  Not so.

I am not saying none of that is true; that would be wrong.  And like my media hero, Rush Limbaugh, I never lie.  (How do you know that?  Because, like him, I told you so.)  No, what the "not so" statement above refers to is how we arrive at our political and religious beliefs -- and the consequences of that.


First, let's agree that there are very few facts in politics and -- and this will annoy some people -- even fewer facts in religion.  The point is, we adopt one political or religious affiliation on what we believe, not what we know or even want to know.  Let's talk about politics.

As it turns out, the people who care about something enough to investigate and vote are the ones whose vote makes a difference.  Their beliefs may accept faulty information and they likely have not always investigated alternative views thoroughly, but they have a strong belief about which political party, or candidate, will achieve that which they believe is important and they act on that belief.

As we know, about one-third of the voters are registered Democrats and one-third are registered Republicans.  These people are the so-called base.  Every party, every candidate learns to "play to the base."  But every party and every candidate knows that these are not the people who make a difference.  These people don't think.  They don't analyze opposing arguments.  Hell, they often do not even know what the opposing arguments are, except those ridiculed by their favorite (meaning biased) news network commentator or talk-show host. They do not weigh consequences.  They just vote the party line.  No muss, no fuss.  Elections are easy for them: vote as you are told.

They have no rational argument for voting as they do.  They have not joined the Democratic or Republican party out of some conviction arrived at after careful thought.  They have adopted the party of their parents, friends or co-workers.  When you think about it, isn't that about the same way most of us arrive at our religious affiliation?

I remember a political discussion with a young friend of mine.  She had all the party's talking points down pat, but could not offer a rationale for any of them.  When I finally pressed her on one point she ended the discussion, for all practical purposes, by saying, "I am my daddy's girl."  Meaning, as she clearly wanted me to know, that she was a _____ because her daddy was and she supported the party position.  This attitude is common and expected among children.  It should not be the response of a young adult.

And these people vote.  I don't worry about the wacko radical of whatever cause who may vote.  It is the people such as this young adult who want to pass off an accident of birth as their reason for voting one way or the other that concern me.


We see the consequence of this belief-posturing-as-thought form of politics in Washington.  Opposing political figures no longer consider it their responsibility to offer alternative plans or solutions.  They just wait until the "other side" proposes something and then come out against it.

The party faithful in congress and the people of your base back home will applaud you.  You need not be concerned with consequences; you can justify your seat in congress by supporting the party.

Many people who voted for Obama in the last election (or did not bother to vote) are now discovering the consequences of their action.  Wouldn't this be a better country if all of us took note and acted accordingly.  We just might throw out a lot of our previously held, although never examined, political beliefs and, as a result, throw out (of office) a lot of our previously elected political officials.

There is still a need for two, possibly even three, political parties because there are always at least two sides to every issue.  There is a vital need for our elected officials to look at national, state and local issues from every angle and consider the consequences of various courses of action before voting.  And, yes, I understand that political ideologies will necessarily filter into those considerations.  Hopefully they will have examined all facets of the issue before voting their party's ideology.

Regardless, we voters should require the political parties to convince us with rational arguments and clear evidence to support them.  In other words, make the parties earn our support.  We should never allow ourselves to be suckered into supporting a political party's ideology by the accident of birth.

Surely you will agree that our country is in serious trouble when more people defer to self-appointed TV commentators, political cartoonists and radio talk-show hosts for their understanding of what is going on than they do to their elected representatives.  Isn't it sad that some of these talking heads are better known and receive more media coverage than the people we elected to represent us?  Isn't it sad that some of our elected officials allow these talking heads to speak for them instead of speaking for themselves?


What do you think?