Political Thoughts by Richard Bleil
After decades of railing against Roe v Wade, after political shenanigans that should be illegal to load the Supreme court, after finally achieving the goal they so longed for, now that they are facing midterm elections many Republicans are suddenly not as staunchly pro-life as they said they had been for so long. Polls and early pre-election results show that their sure-thing chances of taking back the Senate is suddenly not so certain as it seemed earlier.
It is not my desire to badmouth Republicans (although the way this has started it might seem that way), to elevate the Democrats, or change anybody’s mind on the topic of women’s rights. Rather, it’s an interesting study that one of the parties (the Republicans, of course) have after many years successfully accomplished one of their long-standing goals (clearly women’s rights) of questionable popularity. Even when it looked as if they would be successful, many members of the party began warning of the damage success in this endeavor could do to candidates in the midterm elections, even to the point of some members backing away from this endeavor.
This is a glaring example of why I do not align myself with either party. In this case, it happens to be the Republican party that has done so, and as midterm elections approach, many of their candidates are backing away from their previous staunch position to a softer more middle-of-the-road message to the people. “It wasn’t me” seems to be the new mantra for the party.
On the other side of the isle, the Democratic party seems to be pushing hard with this weakness. My liberal friends have coined the phrase “Roevember” to remind people of the decision by the Supreme Court that so damaged women’s rights. But the thing is, the Democratic party is the same. In a similar situation, they, too, would waffle on their stand if it were to be of benefit to them. Keep in mind, for example, that the Jim Crow laws, a series of state and local laws specifically designed to oppress minorities after the Emancipation proclamation (by a Republican president) were written and championed by the Democratic party. Of course, we all have skeletons in our closet of which we are ashamed, incidents and opinions of our past that we wish we never had and have since matured from, and perhaps these laws are the equivalent of the Democratic party. The point that I am trying to make here is that BOTH parties have a past of which they are or should be ashamed. And politicians from both sides of the aisle will waffle, as we have seen many times before, on stands that they suddenly find unpopular.
Which brings me to the true point of my post. Politicians, any politician, will say things that they believe will increase their popularity in an effort to win. They are, after all, trying to get a job. There is money and power at stake, and they will say and promise what is necessary to get that job. This is why voters should vote based on a politician’s actions, their votes, their proposed legislation rather than what they’re saying.
In reality, it’s not easy for a tiger to change its stripes. A politician who supports censoring school books to whitewash (quite literally since these efforts seem to focus on making white people look like the sole heroes of our past) history can claim to be pro-education, but their actions tell a different story.
In an America I would like to see people would divorce themselves from their parties and vote on actions rather than promises. When people are devoted to a party, they’re more likely to be blind as to the actions of that party. They’re more likely to overlook actions of their party that they would otherwise find morally reprehensible. US law allows for immigrants to cross into the US at legal boarders when they are seeking asylum and provide for them a limited time to fill out the forms and perform the necessary actions to request residency, and yet, not long ago, they were arrested en masse, separating mothers from children and forcing them to sleep in what amounts to kennels. My question to those who supported these actions, was it the action that they are supporting, or their party? If you feel that we were doing the right thing all along, that’s fine, but remember that my point is not whether or not it should have happened, but rather to provide an example of reducing one’s own morals to support a party. As I am not beholden to either party, I can vote based on the actions of individual candidates, rather than to support my party.