A Modern Revolution

I was riding around town with a friend last night, now keep in mind he has his BA in Political Studies, Im working on mine in the same field, we are both former republicans who are totally disgusted with the party, and if you ask us both to name our favorite President you will probably get an Answer of Theodore Roosevelt. Well last night while riding around town we got into a political discussion about the future of the Republican Party, and of the country as a whole. Based on polling numbers right now, with the top three Republican candidates for president not being high on the favorite list of the evangelicals, I made the prediction that another schism could be coming in the GOP. Historically this is nothing new. Theodore Roosevelt split with the Republican party in 1912 and ran on a progressive bull-moose ticket against his handpicked successor. Roosevelt ran again for the presidency because he was fed up with the ultra conservative shift the party had taken. I will spare a lot of the boring (to most) details of the conversation but we came to a point where we were talking about the ultra conservatives today who are pushing all of the moderates and progressive members of the party right out the door. And the question came up, if their where to be the rise of a new third party between the ultra liberal wing of the democrats, and the ultra conservative republicans, if it was put to you to lead the movements, could/would you do it. Now historically this has happened before, the old Whig party ceased to exist after splits in the democrats and wigs formed the Republican Party. Could this be the beginning of the end of the GOP, is this all just a repetitively vicious cycle. The other, far more horrific outcome we came up with was that things are going to continue to get worse; the government will become the Hobbs model of a leviathan that ensures obedience by just scarring the hell out of the people. Now ideally the model would be that of Locke where the people are the leviathan and the government should fear the people and be obedient to the people. The horrific part of that is in order for that kind of “revolution” to happen it would require the vast majority of the population to unite in one voice behind one person/entity to lead the population in this revolution, and in order for that to happen would take a massive and catastrophic catalyst that would pale 9/11 in comparison. So again the question posed, could you be that person, could you be the one to lead the country to a middle road, and not even the country could you do it on a state level, could you be the one to lead? And honestly neither one of us could say yes to that question.

Morality

I am again going to channel my Political Philosophy class here, the last couple of day we have been discussing estrangement, power, and touched on morality. In response to the argument by Thomas Hobbs that the only way to keep people in line is a gigantic leviathan like government that would make everyone get along, in response I have asked the question who tells the leviathan what is right and wrong. My point in this is who dictates morality, who is to say what is morally right or wrong. Certain things can go without question, murder, torture and things like that but other things are vaguer. Morality is a big word and has implications further reaching and more deeply rooted than anything else in our culture root. Again who makes the rules, who makes the morals, who says homosexuality is immoral, what makes that person right, or what makes them wrong. Take the case in Utah, Polygamy, while I do not question it being immoral to force a 14 year old into an arranged marriage, who is it to say that multiple (of age to consent) wives is immoral. The problem as I see it is so many of our “moral” standards are based on a Christian viewpoint of what is morally acceptable, but does that infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion is it truly freedom of your religious belief when the laws you must live and abide by are based on a moral code that may not be the same as your own faiths code of moral conduct. For example, what gives a Christian the right to prevent me from taking another man as my husband, does the fact I have sex with a man effect their life, does my love for a man effect their life, so what makes their “moral” beliefs superior to my own or my won superior to theirs, can both exist? Is there a compromise somewhere? So here is the real kicker question, is morality the root of human estrangement, or is morality a power to be sought and wielded to keep others in line with your way of thinking? Moreover, as the introduction to my Political Philosophy book says, I will spend my time asking questions; it is up to you to find the answers.

Deep Thoughts

BW