I’ve found it increasingly hard to identify with either political party because the basic principles that used to define Democrats and Republicans have evolved as both parties purged their moderates. Party members now must support an increasingly cumbersome package of rigid positions on a growing list of issues.
The Democratic party traditionally has stood for a strong central government, supported organized labor and, since the 1960s, has embraced civil rights and an anti-war foreign policy. That package has expanded in recent years to include:
- Unlimited access to abortion without restrictions
- Elimination of religious influence in government
- Extension of civil rights to gay/lesbian and now transgender folks
- Expanding government regulation to every sector of the economy
- Higher taxes
- Expansion of welfare
- Government spending to stimulate the economy
- Supporting government employee unions and resisting government accountability
- Opposition to school choice
- Reducing military budgets and placing restrictions on military operations
- Support for the Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter movements
- Unrestricted immigration and legalization of illegal immigrants
- An environmental agenda to eliminate fossil fuels
- Neutrality in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Nor have Republicans been idle. The Republican tradition has included emphasis on private business as an engine of economic growth, a strong military and relatively muscular foreign policy. The Reagan era and hijacking of the party by right-wing Christians expanded the portfolio to include:
- Absolute opposition to abortion
- Incorporation of religious principles into law, including opposition to gay marriage
- Tax cuts as a way of stimulating the economy
- Reducing government regulation and increasing economic freedom
- Restrictions on unions and support for right-to-work laws
- Support for the Tea Party
- Reducing welfare
- Increasing military budgets and supporting overseas military intervention
- Support for school choice
- Taking Israel’s side
- Border security and limited immigration
- Energy independence and expansion of fossil fuel production
I keep thinking of more issues to add to these lists but do not want to spend the rest of the day doing this.
Regardless of which party you join, you’re obligated to support the whole package as an all-or-nothing proposition. The Chinese-restaurant-menu approach – one from column A, one from column B – is not an option in the voting booth. That may be why a record 43% of Americans now identify as political independents, outnumbering those who claim allegiance to either party.
But this year may be different. Republicans have their golf pants in a wad because Donald Trump, their presumptive Presidential nominee, has broken the party’s package. They’re howling because their candidate is NOT a conservative. He wants to rebuild the military but opposes military intervention, is pro-business but anti-trade. Trump’s position on social and religious issues can best be summed up as “whatever.” Pundits are saying this is the end of conservatism and they’re probably right. Blame it on those pesky voters.
Meanwhile, Democrats are expanding their package thanks to Bernie Sanders. Double the minimum wage! Free college! Transgender bathroom rights! Solar panels for coal miners after we kill their jobs! Not to mention a permanent state of obligatory outrage at whatever Trump says.
The irony is that after all the drama about candidates’ position on issues, and the unforgiveable sin of changing positions, voters will make up their minds about what really matters: whether Hillary Clinton is a crook or Trump is a racist.
Self-driving cars and Darwin
Self-driving cars are in the news these days as the technology starts to gel and businesses begin to make strategic investments.
Self-driving cars could make a dramatic improvement in public safety by preventing many traffic accidents. Drunk driving could become a thing of the past, and senility would no longer limit mobility for senior citizens.
I have only one quibble. Driving motor vehicles is an opportunity for the least intelligent and most foolhardy members of our species to improve the gene pool by removing themselves from it. I’m a big fan of the Darwin Awards. Self-driving cars will allow the worst drivers to survive and reproduce. This may not be a good thing.
Darwin’s natural selection does not work in my adopted home state of New Mexico because motorists rarely encounter traffic. Our sparsely populated hinterland is safe for inept, inattentive and inebriated drivers who would never survive a big-city freeway. Bad driving may be genetic here, with entire families who have not used a turn signal in generations. That may be why my auto insurance rates went up when I moved from Chicago to Albuquerque.
I once attended a conference in Seattle, which has particularly strict jaywalking laws. When I walked back to my hotel late at night, the streets were deserted with hardly a car in sight. Yet lonely groups of pedestrians were dutifully waiting at the curb for the traffic light to change. They gave me incredulous looks as I confidently strode across the empty streets. It was eerie.
I guess it’s compassionate to help people who do not have the sense to look both ways. But do we really want people who can’t cross a street to populate the next generation (or the next election)?
So I worry a little about the impact of self-driving cars and jaywalking laws, but the human race probably will continue to evolve. After all, we still have motorcycles.