Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

I’ve considered my views on how our social values impact the political process many times. I dislike the terms “liberal” and “conservative” as they are used to describe a political philosophy because they really have no meaning in that venue. I tend to use “leftist” as a derogatory term because of my views on socialism. I want to be as clear as I can in this that I mean to talk about social and cultural beliefs, not their parallels in politics.

The base definition of liberal is a perspective which views change as good, counter to conservatism which sees the staus quo as good. A social liberal is one who believes that as long as someone doesn’t impose themselves on others, they should have the freedom to do as they please. A conservative would expect all to behave in a similar manner, even if coerced to do so.

Now, consider those two concepts for a second and think about which fits the actions of the different “groups” in this country. Don’t simply respond in knee-jerk fashion. Think about it in some detail, especially in light of current social issues.

Now consider that the concept of socialism is for total equality in all things for everyone, regardless of ability, talent, or work ethic.

Where do those who consider themselves to be liberal really fall in this measure? Those who consider themselves conservative?

A true liberal doesn’t care what your skin color is, or what sexual partner you prefer. A conservative does care, and wants you to care, too. All must believe alike. A true liberal would believe that some people can graduate from high school with only 10 years in the classroom, but others might need 15. A true conservative would believe everyone should finish school in the same amount of time.

What we see now is that the two terms have really become reversed in many ways. I’m considered a conservative. But I don’t care about anyone else’s sexual preferences. I just don’t want them in my face about it. I don’t want to know anything about Madonna’s sex life, either. It isn’t a heterosexual/homosexual issue with me. That’s my freedom. Those who are today considered liberal want everyone to celebrate someone’s homosexuality. Everyone. Think about that for a while in terms of other issues and see if your own beliefs match something other than you thought.

Today, Nathan Hale has an interesting perspective at The American Thinker. Perhaps in this highly-charged political atmosphere of the day, we can all sit back for a while and ponder our own biases and beliefs in the larger context of World History. And consider that this nation was formed by a group of men who understood very clearly that no colony had ever before successfully divorced itself from the Mother Country. They knew history, and they knew the risks. They looked at themselves very closely before deciding on a direction. We know which way they chose.

Can you make that monumental decision for yourself? Will you let others tell you how to think? Can you weigh the consequences of a wrong decision without resorting to clich

Francis Poretto, the Curmudgeon, takes us all to task for not understanding politics:

Nothing shakes the crowned heads of America’s kingmakers like a sense of connection between a sitting president and the general public: “Why, he might cease to cater to us and start heeding the cries of the great unwashed! We could lose our seats on the gravy train! This must be stopped at once!”

He’s right. We are often lemmings when it comes to politics. It is the primary reason I don’t identify myself as a member of either major party. I have donated to the Bush campaign, but when the Republican Party calls asking for a donation, I tell them I don’t donate to groups, just individuals. Any money I donate to the RNC may end up funding someone whose candidacy I don’t support, such as Alan Keyes. That’s not a slam at Keyes as a person, but he has no business running for office in Illinois. Nor did Bobby Kennedy or Hillary Clinton have any business running in New york.

But our own “elite” want the country run as they see fit. Both parties are guilty, but the Democrats carry the main load. And please, don’t give me this “for the rich” argument about the Republicans. It just ain’t true. Teddy Roosevelt broke that early in the 20th century. Ken Lay was not a creature of the Bush Administration. He donated to both parties, and spent at least two nights in the Clinton White House. Enron got the sweet deal in India through the good graces of Clinton’s Commerce Department. That deal fell through and Enron went bankrupt as Bush took office. Both parties depend on donations from the wealthiest of Americans.

It might interest you to take a look at the Website for the Federal Election Commission. The average individual donation for Bush’s 2000 campaign was $300. The average for Gore was over $800. Bush simply received more donations from “the little people” in this country. Both Bush and Kerry are running neck-and-neck this year, and with the Campaign Finance Reform laws in place the average has jumped to over $1000 per individual. Funny, I thought all that money was going away from the political process.

And BIG MONEY still dominates. Either more than ever, or more openly than ever. Aren’t all these celebrities millionaires? How about George Soros? The 527 organizations are spending lots of money. No, they can’t endorse a particular candidate (wink, wink). So all is fine, right?

This election is really shaping up to be a referendum on ourselves more than anything else. Do we really want a political class in this country, people whose entire lives are wrapped up in being a “member” of Congress or the Senate? They like to call it “public service”. Almost every politician I’ve dealt with in person as a non-constituent has acted as if I were supposed to serve him. Public service is doing volunteer work, not drawing a healthy paycheck and enjoying the perks of office. But the phrase sounds good and plays well to political groupies.

Thomas Jefferson advocated term limits. I’ve never considered that a good thing. I’m beginning to change my mind.

I need a new soap box. I’ve about worn this one out.

***UPDATE*** Gary Aldrich has been through the Establishment mill himself, and can tell you about it.