/*amazon_ad_exclude = "christian"*/ The Skin I Am In: Parodoxical Ideals

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Parodoxical Ideals

Since I recently opened the political can of worms on my last post I feel this would be a good time to broach another bothersome issue before changing the subject. It has been ruffling my feathers for quite some time, and although I'm sharing these thoughts mostly as a way to express my frustrations about society, I welcome comments that may be able to shed some understanding and justification on what I see as contradictory ethics and rampant hypocrisy.

I'm referring to the basic ideology of right-wing politics, aka, the Republican party. Without attempting the daunting task of dissecting a wide array of individual causes, examining their partisan principles in a nutshell exemplifies my point. Now before you accuse me of being an extreme leftist, you should know that a few of my personal stances actually fall within the parameters of elephant territory. One example is that I do not unequivocally oppose capital punishment, especially considering the advancements in the field of forensic science and the accuracy of DNA. In fact, if anything I advocate a more expedient process with fewer appeals and tax dollars spent on executions. I additionally hold moderate views regarding immigration laws and reducing the negative impact illegal immigrants have on our economy.

However, the conglomerate of Republican ideals is riddled with contradiction. Interestingly--and although I would never be so cavalier as to say all--it is relatively safe to say that most right-wing citizens practice and/or value Christianity (in fact, some even say they vote for the conservative candidate primarily as a result of religious views). For this reason I find it extraordinarily intriguing that these very same conservatives not only support, but often fight for such issues as the death penalty, gun rights, and going to war! Equally ironic is that one of their big ticket issues is maintaining low taxes (including for the wealthy and multi-million dollar corporations) while simultaneously demanding we spend oodles of government funds on not only maintaining a super-sized military, but attacking every country posing some sort of perceived threat, realistic or not. Meanwhile, our children are receiving the worst educations of nearly any civilized country, our natural resources are rapidly declining, and the rest of the world is losing respect for the United Bullies of America--issues that left unchecked have me wondering just exactly how we expect to be the world super power in future generations?

Secondly, I find it rather peculiar that so many of the Jesus-followers who vehemently oppose abortion rights also oppose government aid to the needy! Admittedly, our welfare system is extremely flawed and in desperate need of reform, but how can anyone be so callous as to support allocating billions of dollars for bombing and rebuilding other countries, yet advocate abandoning the less-fortunate citizens of our own? And how can people be so naive to think that a society benefits from dictating our human rights and then refusing to help the people affected by those very regulations? And how, pray tell, do these belief-systems coalesce with the teachings of their supposed Savior?

I honestly can't make the logical connection between Christianity and the Republican party as there seems to be a gigantic gap between these religious and political ideals. Let's simplify: Pro guns. Pro war. Pro big business. Pro God.


On the flip side we have: Anti-welfare. Anti-public eduction. Anti-gay rights. Anti-stem-cell research. Aka, anti-progress.

It would seem that Republicans oppose anything that doesn't directly aid in lining their pockets or mirror their assumed morals. (Morals, mind you, which preclude victims of rape from ending an unwanted pregnancy, yet tolerate tax dollars contributing to the killings of innocent children and babies in far away lands because, although unfortunate, those means are justifiable.)

Again, I am perplexed. Pro life. Pro war. Now take a moment to stop and digest the irony in these words: Pro life. Pro war.

I certainly wouldn't suggest that either side is free from corruption or exempt from contradictions, but based on its fundamental principles, the Republican party is plagued with hypocrisy. Whether or not you agree, I have come to this conclusion: After boiling down all the bureaucracy of partisanship to get to the bottom line lies one fundamental difference between left and right, blue and red, donkey and elephant: A Republican fights for himself, while a Democrat fights for the people.

Interestingly, it isn't the Christian dominated party which prioritizes human rights over profit and power.


Ferd said...

I'm sorry I didn't see this post until just now. Maybe you're already over the feelings of this rant.

I am a gray zone person. One of the communication problems my ex and I had is that she is a black and white kind of thinker. For her, things are either right or wrong, good or bad. For me, reality lies somewhere in the middle.

That's how I see the political parties. There are so many issues, and each candidate has a particular slant on them, that it seems impossible to be absolute about Republican v Democratic agendas. Within each party, there are members that have slightly different takes on the same subject. What you see as hypocrisy I see as the reality of real life forces at play.

We can generalize about the parties, but it stops there. When it comes down to individual candidates, I have to try to sort out how close they come to my way of thinking. I may not agree on each and every one of the issues, but I'd like to know the candidate will represent me on the ones that are most important to me.

I wish we had more parties, more candidate choices. I think the idea of a Libertarian Republican appeals to me.

The Blogger Exposed said...

I agree with you 100%, Ferd. I feel very confined to a two-party system. Obviously there are other parties emerging, but they just don't have any kind of following or influence yet. I think it's unrealistic to encompass so many major issues within only two sectors of government, which is why I have refrained from labeling myself one or the other, although generally speaking I fit within the liberal ideology, although I don't agree with many of their positions, either.

Here's a confession: I have never before even voted in a presidential election. And the reason is because I feel it is such a big responsibility to know what the person you're voting for stands for, that I never felt educated enough to make a knowledgeable decision.

Although I don't see Obama changing the world, I would MUCH prefer to see him in office. I do believe he genuinely wants to make our country a better place.