Alternate Current: Loyal opposition or just opposition?
America”s brand of democracy has been pretty successful up until now. Of course, we don”t actually have a true democracy of “one man, one vote” or actual equality as previously pointed out while discussing the unfair representation in the Senate. To quote Winston Churchill, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”
One of the underpinnings of our democracy is the concept of having a “loyal opposition” to balance the ruling power of the moment. George Washington did not advocate political parties, feeling this would be too divisive and could damage the country, but his view was almost instantly left behind and we were off on the course that has led us to this moment.
The concept of loyal opposition was based on the premise that bringing a counter-point to the table would strengthen and temper the final product. All parties would work toward advancing the good of the nation and its people. My question is “When does loyal opposition simply become opposition, regardless of the damage being done to the American people?”
We are now witnessing a spectacle never before seen in my lifetime of nearly 60 years. No longer is the opposition loyal, but personal, with no regard beyond politics. We have always had private citizens who have exercised their right of free speech in the media. The difference now is that members of our government, in Congress, have declared openly that defeating Obama is their first priority. Suddenly it has become acceptable for Sen. Jim DeMint, R, S.C., to plainly state that, “If we”re able to stop Obama on this (health care), it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.” Clearly he does not recognize the president”s right to be president, as though he had somehow taken office without the overwhelming vote of the American people and that he is somehow illegitimate. It”s one thing for a talk show host on hate radio to spew this thinking, but a member of the Senate?
Those who wielded total control over this country for so long and who bear the responsibility for the depth and breadth of our problems today, on so many fronts, feel absolutely no obligation to help us out of this mess. Instead of being ashamed of themselves, they prove daily that they are literally shameless, hoping we will forget who put us in this position. Maybe they”re right. It”s possible that the spectacle of folks dressed up in their cleanest T-shirts with tea bags stapled to their hats will make us forget all about who really ran up the deficit or that the borrowed money was spent on foolish wars or tax cuts that went almost exclusively to the wealthiest few.
Maybe Americans will decide that it”s fine to spend money building military bases in Iraq instead of rebuilding bridges, hospitals and schools here. Maybe Americans will again decide to elect people to run our government who despise it and want only to destroy it, or as they say to “starve the beast.” When they talk about starving the beast, they never talk about cutting military spending, only on cutting domestic spending that might actually be of some benefit to the people of America.
It is my hope, however, that enough of us keep the light of truth shining brightly on the real culprits and not “the fall guy.” This requires courage because the “hatriots” are mean-spirited, not bound by facts or honesty, but are simply fueled by irrational rage and ignorance. Too many who know better have remained silent for too long; that”s how we got here. It takes more effort to struggle than to accept that we are simply trickling down the supply side towards oblivion. I”ve been asked why I”ve been writing these commentaries. That”s why I do it.
