The Melting Pot

Have you ever heard the analogy that the United States of America is a "melting pot" - where different cultures, religions, ethnicity, and personalities come together to create something unique and special? I've always appreciated this analogy for its simple depiction of what makes America great - our pragmatic assimilation and appreciation of the good ideas in the world. This "melting pot" approach to American society and government can be traced all the way back to the original colonies in this nation. While many were British, there was also a great deal of influence Dutch, Spanish, and French society, as well. Settlers came to have opportunity, land, and freedom from the "old country." As time went on, the predominantly Protestant Europeans also began to be diversified among different denominations, and even Catholicism and some non-Christian sects, as well. By the time America declared independence, there was already a great deal of diversity of culture, religious denomination, and ethnicity represented.

Our political philosophy also traces through centuries of thought - ranging from John Locke to Thomas Hobbes to Aristotle and even Plato.

Something else that we Americans often forget is that even our own government system is a "melting pot" of sorts - at least at its foundation. Democracy was not unique to America. The ancient Greeks actually practiced a form of pure democracy, and the Roman Republic sported a Representative Democracy, something that the USA later mimicked. Even the bicameral nature of our Congress hearkens to back to the British Parliament with a smaller, more elite upper house and a larger, more "common" lower house.

Thus, diversity in our nation is not a bad thing, at its core. However, in order for America to properly function as a melting pot there are three key conditions that must first be met:

1. There Must be Mutual Respect for Individual Rights (Libertarian's excel at this)
2. There Must be a Desire to Unite as a Nation (Democrats are good at this)
3. There Must be a Foundation of Morality & Ethics (Conservatives are good at this)

I'll tackle each of these three in turn, to explain why this is so vital the America's melting pot.

1. There Must be Mutual Respect for Individual Rights

This is perhaps the most universally touted condition, but in many ways the least understood. It is also the most "American" of the conditions. In order for there to be any hope at progressing to Condition #2, individuals must be willing to respect the rights of other individuals in their communities, states, and nation. This is at the very core of the ideology on which our nation was founded. Just because one individual makes choices another disagrees with does not necessarily mean that someone has the right to interfere. Libertarians tend to excel at depicting this condition in society. At its core, it is very Lockean because it depends a respect for an individual's Life, Liberty, and Property.

One of the weaknesses of this condition, however, is that it does very little to encourage a melting pot - in fact, it segregates society into small, confined units of individuals that have little interaction. Many times, this is the weakness in matters of civil rights and diversity because it doesn't allow the full integration and growth of a community that is all-encompassing. It works in small communities, but there is little to no national identity.

2. There Must be a Desire to Unite as a Nation

The second condition is an uncomfortable transition from the first because now there arises the problem of competing values. It depends an element of compromise in the interest of unification. Conservatives (GOP & Libertarians) hate this. Democrats thrive on this. As frustrating as this condition is for many conservatives, it is actually fairly uncontroversial at its core - and it is the very basis of representative democracy. In a society of individuals, there will be differences. In order for the society to protect Life, Liberty, and Property there must be a universally respected structure that encompasses the nation-state.

There are many different political theorists that offer different views of government, but I hold most strongly to the Social Contract view which describes government as a conceptual contract to which individuals agree to uphold, whether consciously or subconsciously. Individuals grant to government the ability to make and enforce laws, and agree to abide by laws that are created in accordance with the social contract. In the United States, the government system is Republic in which individuals elect Representatives that pass laws, make treaties, and perform the functions of government. They can tear down "unjust laws" by replacing their representatives with new ones that more accurately represent their values.

The problem with unification and Social Contracts is that there will always be dissenters. Some individuals in
a society will simply refuse to abide by the contract. Whether consciously or subconsciously, they will operate in deviance from the norm. Governments historically create police forces that control crime and deviance by punishing those that are in violation of the law. Not all views, then, can be tolerated in a united society. Thus, a nation must balance competing values in a way that provides the best protection of liberty while also remaining united.

3. There Must be a Foundation of Morality & Ethics

This is the least palatable condition in contemporary America. I list this condition last, due to its controversy, but in reality, it is the very foundation of a just society.

Allow me to explain...

John Adams, one of America's founders once wrote, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, it is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." This is not an extreme statement. I will temporarily divorce this discussion from religious undertones (don't worry, I'll incorporate them later).
First, let's define "morality" and "ethics" before jumping to conclusions. Merriam-Webster should do fine:

Morality (n): Beliefs about what is right behavior and what is wrong behavior.

Ethic (n): Rules of behavior based on ideas about what is morally good or bad.

 Morality and ethics, at there core, are the glue that holds a society together. Without them, there is no way for a free society to function. The fundamental difficulty in any free society, though, is establishing whose morality and ethics will be followed. This problem isn't as pronounced in smaller societies. However, as any society begins to grow - whether intellectually, culturally, or geographically - the resulting plurality of beliefs and rules of behavior among the body politic begin to diversify at an alarming rate.

This is essentially why any great society - be it ancient Greece, the Roman Republic, the Catholic Church in the middle ages, the United Kingdom, and even America - all shift toward authoritarian government. There are other factors in this slide, to be sure. In fact, I could probably spend pages on the other factors, but I'll restrict myself for now. Fundamentally, though, this has been a consistent factor throughout history.

Now, the touchy subject is that I firmly believe the Judeo-Christian tradition - which is the the foundation of Western society - is the most stable and just model for an ethical and just society. Now, I'm not saying this because I am a Christian (okay, that's probably part of it) but for a few key reasons:
 - It emphasizes freedom and justice
 - It gives legitimacy to governmental authority while providing accountability.
 - It has proven the most revolutionary and successful philosophy.
 - It sees human nature as fallen and depraved - and therefore government as fallen and depraved.
Historically, the Republican Party has had the greatest impact in holding to Judeo-Christian values in society - largely a result of Reagan's ability to draw the Moral Majority into his coalition.

The great difficulty in America, however, is preserving this framework of morality and justice - despite the reality that many citizens do not hold to the basic tenants of Christianity - or even Western thought - whether through sheer ignorance or ideological differences. There are a few choices on how to approach this, ranging from forcing "Christian values" on a pluralistic society to abandoning religion-based morality to abandoning objective morality altogether. As terrifying as the third option may appear, in many ways tyrannical law is the only way to sustain a diverse population.

RNC vs. Tea Party

Well, I've been waiting for something that frustrated me enough to evoke a blog post, and then, I was supplied with an appropriate topic, as the 2014 election year kicks into high gear.

The GOP has sunk very, very low, in my mind, in recent days. If you've been following political news recently, you know what I'm referring to, if not, let me explain.


A short time ago, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was beat out by Dave Brat, who ran as the favorite for the anti-establishment Tea Party movement, within the GOP. This sudden defeat for the GOP Leader stunned many political pundits who had expected much greater success for Cantor in years to come - never expecting that the Tea Party would be able to amass so much support again, after such a dismal record, in recent months. However, many more conservative commentators were far less surprised, claiming the GOP establishment has not been overly attentive to the frustrations of constituents, focusing instead on political compromises in order to buy the centrist vote.

Now, I'm not a massive Tea Party supporter - I think in many ways the group has damaged how the public perceives the Republican Party in Washington, by utilizing excessive emotion and not enough clearly defined strategies to problems. I do admire the conservative ideals that the Tea Party represents, though, regardless of how convoluted those values may appear in poorly handled campaigns. It is important that constituents like you and I voice our frustration with the out-of-touch political elites in Washington that are more focused on winning the next election than on actual representing conservative policies.

This is why I am outraged about the actions taken by the establishment, and specifically Thad Cochran, who allied with minority democrats out of fear of defeat from Tea Party favorite Chris McDaniel. Check out the recording below, from a robocall made to many voters urging liberals to join with Republican Cochran to stop Chris McDaniel, a feat possible only through the open primary system in Mississippi, that has become increasingly popular in recent years. In addition, take a look at the flyer below, distributed by those in support of Cochran, in an effort to smear the Tea Party.

As many of you know, I am an outspoken fan of the RNC's platform and planks and I generally side with realistic solutions over idealistic dreams, but in this case, I am absolutely ashamed of my party and how it has sided with political opponents in order to smear the clearly conservative candidate in this race. Although I will admit that there is no concrete evidence, that I am aware of, directly linking Cochran or the GOP establishment to these tactics, the reality is that a significant portion of Cochran's victory was the result of outreach to liberals. 

I affirm the value of bipartisan efforts, but bipartisanship is only positive when there are two clearly opposing viewpoints represented, allowing for an actual solution to be created. That is why I fear that at this stage of the game, excessive "bipartisanship" by the GOP is not helping conservatives or the nation, it is merely allowing liberal policies to have their severity reduced, instead of stopped. Great work, guys. 

This is one of the reasons why I am a strong opponent to the open primary system and the problems that it creates. The closed primary system allows candidates from within each major party to chose the candidate that will run against the opposing party, and best represents the values and hopes of their constituents. This allows there to be an effective representation of the fundamental values of the parties, ideally rooted in the platform of the party. This isn't always the case, but this is predominately because of poor understanding of the political climate in the nation, by many uninformed voters. The purpose of a primary, in the first place, is to narrow down the candidates so that voters have a reduced pool to decide between in the general election. It also weeds out more extreme candidates from each ideological persuasion. This, however, is impossible, in an open primary.

The open primary allows voters to vote for any candidate they choose - whether they are registered with that party or not. Usually, this means that the top two vote getters, regardless of party, will face off in the general election. Well, this sounds "fair", but simply - it is not. First, an opposing party now has the ability to mobilize voters to choose the candidate they want from their opponents, if there is little competition within their party. It also opens up the possibility for two candidates from the same party to be represented in an election, which alienates an entire quadrant of the political spectrum from having any real impact with their vote. 

As frustrating as the open primary system is for me, however, the thing that I am most disappointed about is the blatant disregard for the beliefs of constituents. Cochran's campaign recognized the potential for defeat, in light of Cantor's loss, and instead of seeing this as a call to represent what his constituents sought from him, he chose to draw support from the opposition party, in order to crush his own party. This simply exemplifies the reality that many establishment candidates are more concerned about maintaining their office than actually representing the values they claim to uphold.

The solution to this problem is not to cry and weep about being betrayed. Nor is it running away and joining third parties, further destroying any chance for conservative policies to be enacted. The solution is to stand up and fight for real conservatives who can replace the current establishment. We must stop the Party Leadership from destroying the party that many of us claim to love so dearly, and we must do it soon, before it is too late.

The Core of the 2013 Budget Crisis

One hardly needs to be a politician to understand that our nation is in a crisis of leadership, right now. Today we enter the 4th full day of the government shutdown, and the American people are clearly fed up.

As Congress continues to debate over how "compromise" must come about, we have seen the government "shutdown" affect national parks, websites, memorials, and as I saw on facebook a few days ago, even the First Lady's Twitter feed.  In my opinion, this is true budget crisis. As a Public Policy major, I take an almost morbid curiosity in wondering "who will blink first," but even in the midst of this musing, I cannot forget what is truly on the line with this debate -- The healthcare system in our nation, and more importantly, the very meaning of compromise. 

From news articles to Twitter feeds to Youtube, we have all seen various perspectives on "who is right" with this issue. In a recent Op-ed in the New York Times, the author stated, 

"This time is different. What is at stake in this government shutdown forced by a radical Tea Party minority is nothing less than the principle upon which our democracy is based: majority rule. President Obama must not give in to this hostage taking — not just because Obamacare is at stake, but because the future of how we govern ourselves is at stake [emphasis added]" (Source).

While I respect the author's belief, I cannot, under any circumstances, endorse such a perspective. For one, our government is based on popular sovereignty, but not majority rule. In fact, there are numerous institutions within the American system of government designed to check the "tyranny of the majority" as our founding fathers referred to it (ex. electoral college, no term limits for Supreme Court justices, etc...). Additionally, I contest the assertion made that the shutdown was forced by a "radical Tea Party minority."

For one, it is not the Tea Party alone that contests the budget that Senate Democrats would seek to propose. Even Speaker Boehner, a Republican known to be greatly disliked by the more conservative branch of his party, has been a player in these debates, holding that democrats must work with republicans in order to fix our budget crisis. 

Even more to the point, though, the Affordable Care Act is really the key issue that has sparked this controversy. According to Rasmussen,

"Thirty-six percent (36%) of Likely U.S. Voters believe the government should require every American to buy or obtain health insurance, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Fifty percent (50%) disagree and oppose the so-called individual mandate. Fourteen percent (14%) are undecided" (Source).

The majority of Americans do not want ObamaCare implemented. However, the implementation of ObamaCare is what this entire budget crisis is really about. Democrats want it implemented, Republicans do not. Even more to my point - while house republicans have repeatedly offered to fund ObamaCare, with the proviso that it be delayed for one year (as it has already been delayed for Congress and employers). Democratic leadership, however, will not even accept this basic compromise. Republicans, who oppose the entire legislation, have agreed to compromise their own beliefs about the quality of the legislation, in the interest of passing a budget, but Democrats refuse to accept the proposal because ObamaCare is delayed. 

This budget crisis is, indeed, a serious issue. I agree with the those around me and desire that Congress pass a budget, but I stand in support of the House Republicans for being the only members of our government willing to work with the other side to achieve a mutual benefit. When Democratic leadership finally recognizes that they themselves are what is prolonging this crisis, I can only hope they will have the integrity to come to an agreement, and get our country back on track.  

I leave you with this short clip: