Grouchy Kitties, Forgotten Electorate
With so much urgently needing to be addressed in America right now why are our leaders in Washington so seemingly centered on reelection? We have two wars that need sorting out and an economy that was slowly recovering as of a month ago, now maybe sputtering. The wars themselves drain economic resources to protect the “interests” of companies that have no interest in everyday Americans at all many of which aren't even American. Yet in Washington once again we are subjected to another long drawn out piece of “hey look at me I'm doing nothing signifying I'm important to you, so you better remember that come election time or you'll be even worse off” drama being played out and for what?
The same thing happened over health care in 2009 and 2010 and really didn't sit well with people. It is perhaps hard for people to see how petulant they can seem from the inside of things when they believe their behaviors as seen by the public to be more important than meaningful actions. They believe the nation seeing them tussling and fighting it out after hanging loose and joking like they had a hundred inside jokes just a short time ago is going to reinforce the idea they stand for separate things.
Both sides of the political machine are threatened now. A poll taken in 2008 showed, “the proportion of voters who identify with the Democratic Party outright has not increased in recent years. Currently, 36% say they think of themselves as a Democrat, virtually unchanged from 2004 (35%) and 2000 (35%). Instead, as the proportion of self-identified Republicans has decreased, the percentage of independents has grown substantially, from 32% in 2004 to 37% [as of 2008].” (http://pewresearch.org/pubs/773/...)
Not that I'm the one to speak for them as I'm a registered independent, but there are many conservatives like those in the GOP based group the Tea Party that believe their party of choice for so many years has really let them down and they want leaders to address more specific issues according to a more strictly adhered to party constitution. Republicans don't want to see that element leave, so they are currently doing everything they can to look as though they can be and are that party those folks want.
But the GOP is a big tent party and has to be somewhat flexible to win over emerging voting demographics in the ever shifting dynamic of America today. They want to win over the Latino vote but there are so many conservative voices against realistic immigration reform that they look to for votes they, have to pretend they support Latinos and don't support them at the same time. I say Latinos as it's the issue of immigration reform that is perhaps the most important to that specific group of Americans. Yet because of how loud extremist elements are within their party they can't do a thing – or are afraid to.
President George W. Bush was pro-sensible immigration reform – even Vice President Cheney was. Senator John McCain was until he ran for president and needed to appeal to that loud element within his party advocating for spending billions rounding up maids and nursery workers working without correct papers instead of making an expanded temporary worker program fitting the current employment landscape and a pay a fine based system to locate and bring out of the shadows current undocumented folks living productive lives so law enforcement can focus on real actual criminals. But they are afraid.
Someone needs to point out to any extremist element believing by arresting all undocumented Latinos and deporting them, then building an impregnable wall around the entire country with gun positions every 2 ft manned by mutated genetically altered psychopathic mercenaries that live for shooting anything that moves, thereby preventing anymore undocumented immigrants from our southern borders coming in, Latinos would still be the demographic slated to become the majority. Sorry, but it's done.
In the same way the GOP are putting on a ridiculous spectacle to make it seem come election time they are relevant to that one segment of their voters, when let's be honest... the GOP don't care about debt ceiling raising. Historically they have pretty much been fine with it. As noted, “Since March 1962, the debt ceiling has been raised 74 times, according to the Congressional Research Service. Ten of those times have occurred since 2001.
“Expect more of the same over the next decade. Barring major changes to spending and tax policies, 'Congress would repeatedly face demands to raise the debt limit,' CRS wrote.” (http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/03/...) These involved Republicans along with Democrats.
As pointed out by the Washington Post, “Since 1980, the debt ceiling has been raised 39 times. It was raised 17 times under Ronald Reagan, four times under Bill Clinton and seven times under George W. Bush. Congress is currently in a contentious debate with the White House on whether to raise the ceiling by the Aug. 2 deadline, which would make the fourth raise under Obama.” (http://www.washingtonpost.com/bu...)
That's right, right now getting back to Reaganism is the trend among the very group of voters Republicans are afraid of losing if they don't put on this show. Yet that group might collectively pass out if that is something they believe to be true Reaganism. Reagan raised it a whopping 17 times.
This one isn't about principles the leaders stand on its about fears their party will fragment. Even Democrats don't want to see that happen as it could open the doors to their own party fragmenting and splinter parties forming. So what happens? As with health care we are again subjected to another waste of taxpayer time.
While this is going on so much more could be happening. How many necessary pieces of legislation are wasted while we watch them vie for relevancy? All this over making sure a segment of their party is held together. Is that really worth it? Do we pay them to hold a nation hostage to make sure their party is held together? The voting electorate is broken down by Democrats and Republicans but also independents.
Nowhere in our constitution does it say we are a two party nation. That's just what we've chosen or become accustomed to like poorly made cars in the former USSR. Sure three, four, five and more parties would be more difficult for wealthy corporations to get a handle on, but is that such a bad thing? Why should we care – the majority of Americans that is?
Had there been more parties around during the health care fiasco perhaps the whole mess would have not held us hostage for roughly a year. Had there been more parties in the lead up to the Iraq War maybe more voices would have questioned the bogus evidence. While the grouchy babies are fighting among themselves the other parties can make sure other important issues are also being introduced and voted on.
Right now the system isn't serving us as the world is growing beyond and too complicated for two parties. The majority of Republicans in leadership positions claim they want to go back to Reaganism we all heard it last election. But Reagan signed off on raised debt ceilings seventeen times. More than Clinton or George W Bush combined! Just looking at the Senate alone under President Clinton there was a unanimous vote to raise the debt ceiling regarding the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. (http://www.opencongress.org/arti...) Unanimous and under a Democratic president not to mention under Reagan.
This is just bs from both sides one saying we are liberal the other saying we are conservative and the president saying he is in the middle. A two party system is not enough anymore. Having more than two parties would not be a radical idea – we have had more than two in the past and seen parties come and go. Change happens - not overnight, but over the next ten or twenty years it can happen. It's up to us to know and realize when it's time approaches and when the same old same old has simply outlived its usefulness and requires some company.
To read about my inspiration for this article go to www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com.