The Dog Jumps-הכלב קופץ

I have been listening to the pure bull pucky of the Republican presidential candidates and combining this with the things I sincerely dislike about the the Progressives and the pretend Democrat Obama and this has resulted in two sentiments.

First, anyone who compromises their speech for the sake of electability is traitor to his or her ethics. This should not be a quality we reward. I grow weary of the ideal that “we can change it from within” or “it takes time” or “you have to get there to make change” kind of attitude. This is why I like Ron Paul, he is the only person I hear that I think actually believes in the things he says. It is also disconcerting to watch others around me take some kind of moral high ground by turning life long belief into background noise to a party line. I thought in the start this was about age and reason, but even locally in Hoboken I see this ethical slide in the name of politics.

Second, I have a problem describing my politics. I think I want a new rubric, something like reason above all else, but I tend to think it is Libertarian at the roots. Even when I find myself agreeing with my Progressive pals, we arrive at the same point in very different ways. Here are some examples:

• Legalize drugs/harm reduction – I am not sure we disagree that much, the money spent on the war on drugs is ridiculous, and we should tax drugs high heaven with low harm, and reduce harm for those that are more deleterious.
• Anti-choice/Pro-choice – I come about this form the perspective that this is a private issue and the government should stay out of my private life, again Libertarian in origin.
• Civil marriage – Same as above, government should mind its own business.

and I can go on and on.

Now where it becomes even more complicated is when I think about my point of view on universal heath care and taxation. I am not sure what you call this – Libertarian or Progressive or ?? – but I tend to think that the tax code is a mess and favors the rich. I do not need a lot of proof for this, just google around, or look around. I see this as simple. Put in a flat tax with 3 tiers, no deductions, no nothing. Done.

Universal heath care is a fundamental right and in the best interest of business and society. If we are allow people to be the best they can be, unleash their best potential, invent things, make a new American dream, then they have to be healthy. I see this as nearly equivalent to free and compulsory education. We need healthy, educated, well prepared Americans to make our future. What do you call this? Progressive? I am not sure, because I tend to think that if businesses were alleviated of the need to manage heath care, which is not their primary enterprise, we would get a lot more done.

I hear the Republicans talk about how we are in a mess that they seem to forget they caused: rampant tax breaks for the rich and for big business, selling jobs overseas, undercutting labor, failing to deal with immigration reform, profligate war spending, deregulated banking, etc… I really could go on and on. How is any of this the party of light government? It seems to me that this fetish of light government has to be balanced with with is the impact on society. Can we have that discussion?

But then I head the Democrats talking in that silly wishy-washy way they do! They simply cannot explain why the things they do matter. It is pathetic and so are some of their ideas. But I have to say, as long as the Republicans are overly beholden to right wing Christians (who are incredibly anti-liberty) and my Libertarian bents seems to align me with what the Progressives are up to, I have no choice but to vote that way.

But when a sensible Republican runs, I am all over it. I would seriously vote for Ron Paul, if he were not anti-choice. I see this as a fundamental dissonance in his Libertarian credentials that bothers me enough to say no thanks.