So here we are again on another Friday night at Stand Up For America. And we all know that we have turned Friday nights into guest commentary nights! I have to say that I really do enjoy the different articles that I get from people. They are well thought out and often have a different take on the issue than the one that I would have provided. When I did the first commentary with BlackFlag, I was skeptical about having others having such a voice on what was “my” site. What I have realized since is that this is not my site at all. It belongs to all of you. I post an article and you all have discussions. I get into them when I can, but the site is really about all of us learning, debating, compromising, and hearing differing opinions.
And because the site is as much yours as it is mine, there is no reason that I could see that the guest commentaries should not continue, and that is why I decided that every Friday night would be a guest post. Thus far we have seen some brilliant thoughts. And this week is no different. My only hope is that I will soon start to see some of the liberal folks on the site present some articles as well. They add so much to the discussion and I think they have, for the most part, debated well, and with respect. Because of this I am eager to see some articles from their perspective. It will help us all to better understand their positions and their point of view.
But tonight it is not a liberal that we turn the stage over to, but instead G.A. Rowe. G.A. has been a regular contributor to the discussions here at Stand Up For America. For anyone who doesn’t know, he also has a blog site that you can visit at: ROWEVINGS by G.A.Rowe
This article will eventually be posted on his site as well. With no further delay:
Tonight’s Guest Commentary from G.A. Rowe
In a free society, be it Democratic or Republic, what role does a political party have?
To provide a person a financial base for a political campaign for public office, and to also provide an accepted political platform to which a candidate could proclaim allegiance to.
Looking at only what we see in this modern world of ours, this rapid and far flung communication tool called the Internet, it would seem that anyone who would desire to aspire to any political office could get their point of view out to the general public in a timely and economic fashion. So why would we need a political party to get that word out if an individual could do just that without incurring the astronomical costs of commercializing oneself in a political ad?
My point reaches further than just the above simplification. I believe that political parties were originally developed to bring like minded folks together in a common cause in which to influence the minds of those who do not share their beliefs. That sure isn’t the case in today’s political world. As we can plainly see, our two main political parties have done much more harm than good, and some might even argue that they have never done any good.
I believe that there is a growing trend toward what was originally termed “the popular vote”, and I keep hearing from friends and relatives that none of the politicians who have made the national scene truly reflect their political views because of the political party that they belong to.
I also hear the complaint that when the majority votes some measure or other in, then the courts decide that this measure is “unconstitutional” and throw it out people ask what does their vote count for if one judge can negate what thousands of people actually voted for.
So that brings me back to what are political parties good for? It seems that now we are not in control of our country as our founders intended us to be. It seems that once elected our politicians head off in whatever direction that the political party demands that they do. I believe that this is due to the astronomical costs of running a campaign, be it local, state or on a national level.
This last national campaign raised enormous amounts of money for the candidates. It afforded them to scoot around the country in privately chartered large passenger jets, hold enormous rallies replete with professionally made signs and Hollywood type props, produce mega-movie style commercials, and to even run a very long informercial on literally every television network (cable and satellite included) in a prime time coverage slot nationwide.
And now we are protesting the winner’s seemingly uncaring and oblivious mega-spending of our tax money with a nationwide grassroots style tea party? Just what did we expect from him after that lavish two year donation funded campaign run? Why did we expect that we elected a penny pincher after that Hollywood inspired spending spree that he was on? But I am getting off topic here, I shall save this for another time.
Okay, after a cup of decaff or two, I am back on track.
In many recent elections the talking heads on the boob tube have brought up that either one candidate or another had “won the popular vote” but lost the “electoral vote”. More and more voters are asking why did their vote not count in the long run?
I will leave the explanations of what the electoral college is to those who have more of an understanding of that illogical mess than I have been able to muster. (an acquaintance who has a degree in political science tried in vain for three weeks to get my befuddled brain to comprehend such abstract notions as the electoral college and how that can determine a candidates winning or losing an election without regard to the actual number of votes that candidate received) Lets just say that in that abstract reflection that I am numerically challenged. I suppose that in keeping with the evidence, I have no understanding whatsoever of Picasso Paintings either.
So we are back to square one. If a candidate says one thing, and his political party say another thing . . . . . Who are we to believe? And once elected, did our vote count, or does the candidate march in lock step to the dictates of his political party who provided him with all this lavish luxury during his campaign?
We have also heard of late the evils of lobbyists who coerce the politician into supporting or not supporting legislation that he is hired to influence. And with all this supposedly outside influence, then a candidate or politician has no other choice but to follow the dictates of their political party platform.
Before I go any further let me say one small thing here. In no way shape or form do I consider myself an intellectual. Yes, I have an extended education. But as I have said before, I am numerically challenged and as a result of that little problem I do not have any degrees. Period. I have had one supervisor tell me that he has never before met anyone with so many college credits and classes under his belt without obtaining a degree in his entire life.
So, not being an “intellectual”, I shall not waste my time in trying to quote some philosopher or other in trying to get my argument across. My sole purpose is to get those who read these words to engage their brains and think.
I will say this, though. I believe that our first President, George Washington, was a man whose intelligence far outstripped anyone else in his time period (I think Jefferson and Madison could keep up with him, USW). I also believe that he was way ahead of his time when he said that he did not believe that political parties would be beneficial to his emerging new country.
Most of the mess that we find ourselves in today, I believe, is due solely to the adverse effect that political parties have had on this country of ours. We do not need them.
What we need is an election system that honestly pits one candidates honest beliefs against another candidates honest belief.
Dump that illogical mess called the electoral college and let the majority decide who gets the job. Then hold that employee to his campaign statements.
Works for me.
But then, that is just my humble opinion.