Political Conversation: Emotional or Intelligent?

Last night I had the chance to catch up with an old friend, the kind you care about and had great times with but now live in different states and go through the natural ebb and flows of communication.  We finally got back in touch, and it was like nothing had changed and yet everything was different, but for the better.  Our friendship, mutual respect, all the important stuff was the same, the way I believe true friendships should be.  What was different was us, we were older, wiser, more sure of ourselves, and yet still able to be friends.  We had grown up, but we had not grown apart, it was something truly miraculous these days.

The conversation discussed the usual, what are you doing, how have you been, are you ever moving back to Colorado? There was one yes and one no.  The thing I find so awesome about our conversation is that I lean left, and Kristin leans right, but we both consider ourselves more moderate.  I used to be Catholic, and Kristin has recently taken Catholicism up.  We were able to offer each other differing viewpoints based on intelligent thought, mixed with emotion, and each allowed the other's viewpoint to change their viewpoint.  Now, when I say that I do not mean in the superficial or flighty meaning.  We didn't back down from our view just because someone else didn't agree with us, we simply allowed their viewpoint to broaden our viewpoint, to consider what they were saying and reconstruct how we each thought about healthcare, religion, etc.  It was one of those conversations that in this day and age is so rare, it makes you smile.  Imagine, a political and religious conversation between two friends that don't necessarily agree on everything being held in a civil manner, each bringing opinions and facts to the table and each leaving with a broadened view.  Is that even possible in this day and age?

I ask if it's possible because you will see in the media that politics have become SO dividing.  I find it interesting that these politicians are so intent on fear mongering and hateful propaganda of the other side when their true job is to do what is best for ALL Americans.  They may believe their agenda is the better one, but I don't think either side is doing a very good job at making this a better place for ALL Americans.

When you take away all the dividing factors that politicians put before you to make you choose you should realize that in reality, we all want the same thing.  We all want a safer country, whether it be across the street, the town, the state, the country or the world.  We all want to be healthy, have access to healthcare.  We all want our children to have the best education, to grow up, succeed, etc.  We all want criminals to be punished, the heroes to be rewarded, and to be able to drive without fear of bridges collapsing (I-35W) or guardrails falling off onto their car (E-470).  These are fundamental things we all want.  The very things we all want, are really being sidestepped by emotions, sensationalism, fear mongering, etc. 

I know some Conservatives will blame Liberals, and vice versa.  I see on twitter, facebook, and in the non-cyber world both sides bashing each other ALL the time.  I even saw someone on twitter saying they will tweet on each lie President Obama says during his State of the Union speech.  I thought it interesting that they chose that method, as I am unaware of a fully morally intact politician, I think the two are oxymorons.  So while others blame the parties I blame Lobbyists and Politicians of both sides.  Politicians are so concerned about what they can ear-mark for their state, what deal with the devil they have to do in order to get their bill through they've lost sight of what is really at stake, what's right for us.  Lobbyists only help the matter by paying millions of dollars to convince politicians to vote for what they want versus what the American public wants.   Truly, this is what democracy is all about, and what our forefathers fought so hard to establish.  I think they're rolling in their graves right now.

I remember watching The Daily Show (I do love Jon Stewart, as he makes fun of Republicans AND Democrats) and seeing that 30 white, male Republicans were voting no on Senator Al Franken's amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations Bill.  Now, let's be honest I do not know what qualifications Al Franken has in politics, and I didn't vote in the Minnesota elections but rather the Colorado elections so I had no part in getting him to that office.  However, the amendment was in regards to female workers of government contracts over in the Middle East could at the present moment not file charges against their male co-workers or bosses if they were raped or gang raped by them in court but were forced to go through arbitration.  I fail to see how this is a partisan issue.  I wonder how these male politicians can even disagree with this amendment.  Several stated that the government has no such business in terms of enforcing or regulating employment contracts.  While that might work in any other case, these were government contracts, the government was paying these companies to perform a duty.  These employees were then raping their coworker while under contract with the government and being paid with government dollars, or more importantly TAX PAYER DOLLARS.  Many of the opposers stated that they felt this took away a woman's right to arbitration if we made it so they could also file a suit in open court.  This was not the case and was more than likely a cop out.  The most frustrating part of all this is if you just listen to the politicians twist it they make good cases, and then you have to fact check .  Jeff Sessions said he opposed the bill because it would put the will of Congress on individuals and corporations in a retroactive fashion.  However, this particular bill is for the 2010 fiscal year and cannot be activated retroactively.  Nice try Senator.  Senator Cochran of Mississippi said that it was not the government's business and that he would think about voting yes if it only covered rape and did not extend to sexual related abuses.  Senators Chambliss & Isakson of Georgia state that it's unfair to the rape victim to have to go through the court process as this amendment dictates and strips them of their arbitration rights.  Again, this is untrue, this amendment simply opens up the option of an actual court process like any other United States citizen is entitled to, while allowing them to choose arbitration as well.  One noteworthy bit - the Department of Defense also opposed the amendment.  This example only shows the Republicans who were twisting the truth and providing cop outs to voting no.  I am not saying Democrats do not do the same thing, I am simply using this case as an example because it infuriated me as a woman.

In the end, I have become less and less involved with politics.  I find that no one wins when politicians are up for sale and do deals with the devil.  I don't trust any one of them. To those Libertarians out there, your ideas to me sound great in theory, but it requires 100% committment from 100% of the population.  I apologize for sounding pessimistic but I do not have faith in humanity, or rather in fellow Americans to deregulate.  Like communism & Reagonomics,  deregulation is a great theory if people weren't stupid, greedy, evil.  And while not all people are evil, stupid or greedy, even 1 in a thousand in the population can ruin it for the rest of us.  Sorry.