One-dimensional musings

On the cusp of another snowstorm (that's four inches of snow down here in Canonsburg - I know you Erie folks are giggling about it, as do I, but there really is a lot of snow here that they don't know where to put because of the mountainous hills), I've realized that it's been a month since I last blogged.  That's breaking the cardinal rule of blogging:  Blog on a regular basis.  Keeping it up.  Keeping it fresh.

Yet every time I think about it, I think the media has burned me out.  I've been constantly listening to family, friends and the media complain about the state of this country, why Republicans are crazy, why Democrats are socialist nutjobs, and quite frankly, I've become tired of it.  Maybe not tired:  It's a word that my younger readers would appreciate, and that is "meh."  I like me a good drama in the news, but ever since Obama was elected, the shouting on both sides of the American political spectrum is louder than ever, and no one seems interested in getting anything done except firmly planting the blame of the state of the American economy on the shoulders of either political party.

With full disclosure, both my husband and I are independents.  We made that decision after moving back from the West Coast, with me doubting every potential Presidential candidate who stepped up to a podium in front of the media.  We are finding that both left and right "ideals" are often contradictory, selfish, and downright unhealthy for a decent political debate.  We often had the best debates about politics with a dear friend of ours, who is Canadian and knows truly what socialism is, after he'd been traveling the globe.  Disenchanted with Cheney and Big Oil, angry with manipulative unions, watching the debt ceiling raised higher than ever, and pretty faces (Palin) blurring partisan shortcomings, I threw my hands up in the air and suggested to Spence that we leave both parties and let them figure out how to get our votes.  It was the only way I could think of to demonstrate my displeasure with the Left and Right political discourses.

As it is, American politics are sorely one-dimensional:  Do you swing left or right?  Blue or red?  Conservative or liberal?  To which I started asking back:  Are politics only meant for swinging between two points, one single line?  I really don't care that the Independents don't have many promising candidates:  Running on an Independent platform is what I like to call slippery dipping:  You can pick and choose your values, and yet in putting together your political agenda, leaving yourself to the mercy of a media who likes to paint you "more conservative" or "more liberal," perhaps to translate your oddities to an American public who only know the way forward is to go left or right.

Does it seem like a political dead end?  Does it seem too much for a person who wants to step outside The Line, to explain to others that it's okay to be pro-life and demand equal pay for women in similar job positions?  Is it okay to be a member of the NRA and endorse affordable health care?  Can rich people endorse welfare?  Can poor people endorse lower taxes for the businesses?

If rich people understood that there are people in society who truly need the help of the village, as it were, to survive, then they'd be more amenable to paying more taxes into a welfare system that helps the elderly, disabled and hungry, while at the same time finds the freeloaders and stops supporting them.

If poor people understood that businesses create jobs, they would understand that lower taxes for businesses will help their businesses grow and keep more jobs in the United States.

If women and men understood that fertility is an equal responsibility between them, then it would be easier for men and women to support equal pay for equal work.

If understanding that the reason we are not physically invaded by a country is because, on average, every man and woman in this country has at least one firearm in their home, then we understand that basic health care is a right, not a privilege:  Basic rights of self-defense of our country should include basic rights of self-defense of our bodies, whether we have chronic or acute conditions.  (Whether you endorse a public option or shopping across state lines for health insurance is a completely different conversation, however.)

And that, dear readers, is only a few of the many reasons why I can't read a newspaper, online or otherwise, without my eyes crossing and my soul delving into a deep state of indifference.  Politicians are afraid of "reaching across the aisle" without thinking about their competitors accusing them of waffling in the next election, so they hold fast to a single line between two points.  The dominant parties are in a state of turmoil, what with Obama's favorable ratings plummeting to Earth and the loss of Mr. Kennedy's Lion Seat to a Republican, and with Palin a Presidential hopeful in 2012 while endorsing a Tea Party with no clear agenda and fractured factions.  Less voters are asking important questions about how the government as a whole will help them, and instead asking for their piece of the pie, and perhaps it is in this way we are led to a government stuffed and obese with pork and special interests.

Perhaps - and this is a theory - it is not so much the politicians' fault for trying to grab federal funds, but our own.  Perhaps our indifference to letting the same people try to steer this country is the reason why no one can agree on Capitol Hill.  Perhaps it is us, the People, the voters, who need to find their voices again and appoint better people to find that middle ground that could make this country even greater.  Politics don't have to be complicated, you know.  Don't let anyone tell you that you're committing heresy by changing your party affiliation as much as you like.  In fact, the idea that anyone would accuse me of a grave religious sin based on my party affiliation is insulting:  I should be able to move freely between political parties, because my God doesn't swing left or right.  Voicing your political distaste doesn't have to start and end with your vote, as I have so aptly learned:  the Independent vote is just starting to become a bigger slice of the pie, and I'm willing to let the politicians figure out just how to earn that vote.

Edited at 10:08 p.m.: CNN is reporting that yet "another" centrist Democrat will not seek re-election due to his disgruntlement with Congress, left bloggers and partisanship. There are five open seats for Dems and six open seats for Republicans for the upcoming November elections.

Edited at 10:15 p.m.:  Just noticed the homepage title of the above-quoted article reads thusly:  "Too tough for a centrist?  Bayh retiring".  You betcha.  Instead of being favorably described as bipartisan or compromising, centrists are frequently viewed as weak, waffling and/or floaters in the unforgiving political arena.  The most liberal and conservative wings of each party should tread lightly - if this kind of walk-out continues, what will the fractioning of the two dominant parties do to American politics?

Red, Blue, Purple, It's All the Same

You know those ads for "Divided We Fail," with the purple donkeyphant (Elenkey? Delephant? Whatever it is)? It's a great concept. There's nothing better than to reach across the aisle and shake hands with an opponent and to figure out what's best for this country, not bickering about who's conservatively liberal or liberally conservative. Too liberal, too Neocon, religious freaks, baby killers, too female, not black enough, on and on and ON. (What's with the labeling, people?)

In essence, while it's great to have a team to be on and use to identify yourself politically, the game centers around one thing: elections. The Super Bowel* (*hah! True typo there! I shall leave it) or World Series of Washington DC. No matter what elected officials do in office, they do it so they can stay there. And in the USA, elections come down to two teams: Republicans and Democrats, the Reds and Blues. Hence the reason why Divided We Fail asks the two teams to compromise for the sake of the people, to stop playing the game once it's over, and to make some stinkin' progress on issues that mean most (stinkin' progress being my own words).

But Divided We Fail, while a noteworthy cause, also is endorsed by a certain organization that the Reds and Blues would court for reelection, sickeningly, over and over, because they include a huge percentage of the American voting bloc that may very well spell trouble without their support: the AARP. Interestingly enough, the website states this on its front page:

We believe that health care and financial security are the most pressing domestic issues facing our nation.

Considering the baby boomer generation is approaching AARP membership, this statement is not at all surprising. I think of how our health care infrastructure might cripple beneath the declining health of the baby boomers, notwithstanding the fact that most of this country is terribly overweight. Financial security? Just put it into a $75 tank of gas in a rental minivan on a trip to Missouri this past weekend. That's only for one tank of gas. (I'll keep my beat-up 2002 lil ol' Sunfire, thanks.) My IRA rollover is holding surprisingly well, considering I made back about 5% of what I had lost over the past year.

The problem is, the aging generations need these things, but what about the rest of us? I doubt the implied "United We Stand" slogan will happen soon. We like the game too much. We like to sit around the water coolers and argue about who will get to the White House this year. We groan and complain about talking heads on CNN following candidates' every move. But you know what? We like it. Either we like the game or we like to complain about it - either way, we all want a seat in the stadium to watch, to cheer, to boo.

Thusly, both my husband and I have decided that we don't want to belong to either party. We live in an Independent household now. I don't want to be the religious freak or the Neocon (as I've heard pro-life folks tend to be labeled). Nor do I want my environmental activism, freedom of speech and my right to privacy to label me liberal or tree-hugger. I am not either - not even both. Hi, my name's Becky! That's who I am.

Perhaps my aversion to being defined by my political affiliation is testament to the fact that I don't like being tied down to one thing all the time (save my poor husband) - I like trying new things, seeing new places, trying new foods. Then again, I'm also sick of seeing a game that never really quite finds a winner, teams who bicker back and forth constantly in the off-season, and the pressure on me to wear the team colors. Maybe being Independent gives me some other kind of label, but blissfully, I am unaware for now.