CONTACT CAROLINE
facebook
rss
tumblr
twitter
goodreads
youtube

  • Home
  • Write Away Blog
  • Books
    • Books
    • Trompe l’Oeil
    • Heart Land
    • Gothic Spring
    • Ballet Noir
    • Book Excerpts
  • Video Interviews
  • Press
    • News
    • Print Interviews
    • Plays
    • Ballet Noir in the Press
    • Trompe l’Oeil In The Press
    • Gothic Spring In The Press
    • Heart Land Reviews
  • Contact
  • About
  • Resources
    • Writer Resources
    • Favorite Blogs
    • Favorite Artists



The Government We Deserve

Feb 06, 2015
by Caroline Miller
Michael Kinsley, negative political campaigns, Republicans vs. Democrats, The Anger Game
2 Comments

When I ran for public office, I described myself as a fiscal conservative but a social liberal.  Over time, I came to see my description was facile and without meaning.  What was I saying about myself?  That I don’t want people to pay much in taxes, but I wanted day care and health care for the poor, good libraries, good schools and housing for the homeless?  How could I have been so naïve and so thoughtless concerning the inherent contradiction in my positions?  I didn’t mean to deceive my constituents; I was being dishonest with myself. 

 Over time, I came to admit my folly and left the Republican Party, which had become so extreme that abandoning it was easy.  I didn’t register as a Democrat, however, because  I don’t believe  government should oversee too many facets of our lives.  (Blog 2/5/15)   Becoming an independent was the best I could do, an ambivalent position which,  I suspect, others have taken for similar reasons and which may account for the  government’s lack of direction.  How can we expect our leaders to lead, when the populace isn’t sure about  government’s role?

 In his essay, “The Anger Game,” Michael Kinsley makes a good case that Congress is confused because we, the people, are also. (“The Anger Games,” by Michael Kinsley, Vanity Fair, 2/15 pgs. 74-75). A prime example is our constant complaint against negative campaign adds.  But, as Kinsley observes, “…politicians don’t bicker for exercise.” (Ibid, pg. 74.)  They do it because we keep sending them back to Congress.  In truth, we don’t want those whom we elect to compromise.  We want them to get in there and fight for the issues we care about.  The problem is what we care about as a nation isn’t clear.  We seem to want “incompatible things from the government (more tax cuts and more social benefits)…” (Ibid pg. 75.)  Not even Aladdin’s genie could satisfy those contradictory objectives, and yet we send our leaders to Washington to accomplish the impossible.   When they fail, Kinsley notes, we blame them instead of looking at ourselves.

 His point may be  well-taken, but like the weather, no one does much about it.  How often do we, as individuals, examine our positions or question our logic?  Most people, I suspect,  would describe themselves as fiscally conservatives with a social conscience.  Do any of us know what that means in terms of government action?  “To be a good citizen,” Kinsley concludes, “you need a framework to help you sort through all the ideas and candidates out there.” (Ibid pg. 75)  Without that clear framework,  we become, like our politicians, bloated with empty phrases.

 Joseph de Maistre (not Alexis de Tocqueville) wrote  in 1811, after the French Revolution revolution, that ,“In a democracy, people get the government they deserve.”  I fear it is still true.

Republicans vs Democrats

Republicans vs Democrats courtesy of reference-journal. rhcloud.com

 

Social Share
2 Comments
  1. Pamela February 6, 2015 at 10:46 am Reply
    This is one of the first times I've disagreed with you, Caroline. I don't see any naivety in the notion of a fiscal conservative and social liberal. Suggesting otherwise, IMO, suggests there is no nuance to being or idealism. One can believe money for public services should be prudently given, carefully allocated, and subject to oversight, while also believing it is crucial that we focus money on human projects that are maintained as public interest, rather than sinking funding into protection only for the business and military and suggesting that certain "invisible hands" will appear to neutralize and steward. Suggesting that Republicans don't believe in spending money on social programs and Democrats believe in government in more aspects of our lives is a false continuum. There is a core philosophical difference in the stated and unstated actions of our current two-party system, both which are clearly flawed. It exists in who can better maintain overall social balance. Today's Republican party suggests business--mainly HUGE business--can better facilitate human needs when it runs unfettered and unregulated. Democrats suggest that there are certain human needs such as food, shelter, healthcare, opportunity, that are not served by unregulated business and are better maintained by government intervention. The Republican party, despite claims, is FAR more interested in regulating norms and therefore injecting government into our business, unless it impacts business growth and profits. The Democrats are far less interested in regulating our choices and behaviors in regard to a defined morality. I also do not agree that most people would define themselves as socially liberal. A contingent that I interact with certainly does, but I meet many, many people these days who decry our perceived liberal mess and fully support a "return to Christian values," or their image of America in the "good old days of John Wayne and Mr. Reagan." A good number of folks I see on FB and encounter in situations seem to yearn for boundaries and a clear-cut direction. IMO many folks are far more comfortable with having a roadmap for their professional and personal trajectories. It's more difficult and takes far more introspection and self-awareness to forge your own path or question the status quo.
    • Caroline Miller February 6, 2015 at 11:58 am Reply
      Since we're talking personal viewpoints here, and not facts, there's no way to resolve our difference of opinion, if we have one. I agree with your last point which was that of the blog as well: It's more difficult and takes far more introspection and self-awareness to forge your own path or question the status quo."

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

*
*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Contact Caroline at

carolinemiller11@yahoo.com

Portland, Oregon author Caroline Miller had distinguished careers as an educator, union president, elected official and artist/advocate.

Her play, Woman on the Scarlet Beast, was performed at the Post5 Theatre, Portland, OR, January/February 2015

Caroline published a serialized novelette, Marie Eau-Claire, on the website, The Colored Lens.  She also published the story Gustav Pavel,  a parable about ordinary lives, choice and alternate potential, on the website Fixional.co.

Caroline has published four novels

  • Ballet Noir
  • Trompe l’Oeil
  • Gothic Spring
  • Heart Land

Subscribe to Caroline’s Blog


 

Archives

Categories

YouTube-logo-inline2 To access and subscribe to my videos on YouTube, Click Here and click the Subscribe button.

Banner art “The Receptive” by Charlie White of Charlie White Studio

Web Admin: ThinPATH Systems, Inc
support@tp-sys.com

Subscribe to Caroline's Blog


 

Contact Caroline at

carolinemiller11@yahoo.com

Sitemap | Privacy Notice

AUDIO & VIDEO VAULT

View archives of Caroline’s audio and videos interviews.


Copyright © Books by Caroline Miller