Before diving in to this week’s topic, a quick salute is in order to Harold Camping and his spot-on prediction of the rapture (yesterday at 6:00 pm). True, I’ve not lost one single potential reader, but that only means no one was “selected” to rise above the rest. So much for holier-than-thou attitudes, huh? Ironically, every religion quotes from its personal scripture of superiority to the detriment of others not so like-minded. Yup, Harold, your prediction was flawless. It just turned out that you and other rapture hopefuls were simply not worthy. ‘Nuff said...
Boy! What a week for Newt Gingrich. Much ink and audio tape has been used to discuss his past (infidelities), present (engaging mouth before mind), and future (poster boy for the "What I Meant To Say Association") so re-plowing that ground is a waste of my time and yours. One would think, though, that a career politician would consider avoiding these common mistakes as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. Unfortunately, in this age of microscopic vivisection of every word, the above "fish/barrel" analogy would provide simultaneous endorsement from the NRA and condemnation from PETA. But I digress. Within his discussion of Paul Ryan's budget proposal, Newt had an interesting thought. To paraphrase: he considered social engineering from the right no more desirable than social engineering from the left.
The firestorm of controversy was immediate. So much so, in fact, that the meat of his opinion was ignored as pundits and politicos zeroed in on right vs left. The meat? Social engineering. I'll be the first to admit that I've never heard that term before, but it seems to imply a methodical attempt to shape a society in a given way according to a given set of principles.
"Perish the thought", you cry. Hold on a minute. Our society is comprised of a Constitution and a boat load of laws all aimed at creating some semblance of order out of chaos. These documents were written in an attempt to shape our society in a given way according to a given set of principles. Engineered, if you will, by many legislators over the past two centuries with differing opinions, but one over-riding tenet: the continued success of this country.
Maybe Newt was onto something. Or maybe not. It seems that he is opposed to any engineering from anyone regardless of which side of the political highway it originates. Doesn't that take us back to the chaos that gave rise to the previously mentioned documents? I'd say so.
In light of the current political atmosphere where one side (the right) is threatening to hold its breath until it gets its way, Newt's stance is intriguing. On some level, he knows that Ryan's proposal has no chance of passage so apparently he'd rather have nothing instead of anything that might come from somewhere left of center. That sound you hear is generations of forefathers spinning in their graves.
Perhaps this is a logical evolution of the "me" generation. The squabbling and separatism have reached all-time highs while those of us in the trenches suffer as much from inaction as unintended consequences. Isn't it time for us all to get along? OK, how about at least meeting somewhere closer to the middle? And by "middle" I don't mean right of center as the left moves ever closer to the right in the hopes of appearing reasonable.
Our society is nothing but a group of folks adhering to common principles established through laws, ordinances, and other constructs that dictate a general expectation of behavior. Yes, you can call it social engineering and no, it is not perfect. But it's all we have and failing to recognize that and refusing to entertain compromise will surely lead to the chaotic scenario no one wants to envision.
Scrapping established social systems like Medicare and Social Security simply because they are unsustainable in their present form is childish and lacks any kind of rational thought for the well being of you or me or those around us. The next time you wake up in the middle of the night, far removed from emotional response and more willing to entertain reason, try to admit that you, too, realize that universal health care is right and proper. And face the hard fact that a decreasing number of worker bees cannot continue to fund an increasing number of retirees without tweaking the associated programs.
It doesn't start with Washington, you know. It starts with us and whom we choose to represent our interests. Not our individual interests, but rather our common ones. We can continue to elect firebrands while complaining about legislative gridlock or look to a new group comprised of a more moderate mentality that might be able to slowly steer our ship of state onto a more appropriate course.
No comments:
Post a Comment