Really?!
Once in office and voting on decisions on NATIONAL policy, party ideology needs to disappear. And, as Speaker of the House, with members of the opposing party, he has a responsibility to the entire House membership.
Another reason for the dissolution of political parties.
If political parties disappeared from the process, ideologies would continue but in greater diversity and the aim would be for all points of view to come together in order to fit as many pieces of all of those ideologies into a more comprehensive framework for all of us. We need to get away from this idea of one side gets to win at the expense of the other just because - this time - they're in the majority.
Think about this jerking back and forth between the 2 MAJOR parties we've been living with; how has it benefited the country? It's a little like the card game, War. At some point one player wins nearly the entire deck and sudden the game shifts the other player wins back and the deck is nearly all his. This can continue for a very long time with little resolution or conclusion often ending when both players are bored. It's a waste of time and pointless. It's really a stupid game.
The Constitution needs to be reviewed with an eye toward inclusion, toward consensus and away from "majority rule" which by definition and result means the exclusion of large numbers of the citizenry who's "party" loses this time around. It's based on winners and losers; on competition rather than on cooperation.
It's a major flaw in the system.
Accepting the inevitable breadth and depth of diversity among the population, it's much more sensible to address that diversity by attempting to governing to include the diversity. The citizenry is a large conglomeration of unique, diverse individuals. We're not cut out with cookie cutters. If you look at 5 individual citizens; at their philosophical, religious, political, spiritual points of view, their family make up, their socio/economic situation, their intelligence, their dreams and wishes, you will not find any 2 the same.
This desire to fit the entire population into a handful of categories, depending on an issue, is laziness, ignorance and foolishness. Just think of the people you work with. There are shy people, outgoing people; there are intelligent people, less intelligent people; there are pleasant people and unpleasant people; there are skillful people and barely competent people; there are industrious people and very lazy people; and everything in between and in all of these in various combinations. That's just your workplace. We're talking about an entire country of nearly 317 million individuals. And, we try to fit them into 2 political boxes?
Duh!
Definition of this post - (don't worry I'll cover all the political ideologies)
liberal - (www.merriam-webster.com)
1. a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberaleducation>
b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2
a : marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver>
b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <aliberal meal>
c : ample, full
3
obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4
: not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation>
5
: broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6
a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism
b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism;especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives.
My definition 1. is 2.
New Product
No comments:
Post a Comment