It's 1:27 a.m. and I just watched a Sports Center showcase on the first day of the Citgo Bassmasters Classic; this country's going to hell in a hand basket. Well, probably not, but sometimes I do think that we've started to head in the wrong direction, and frankly, I don't think I'm alone.
The interests of the people, of the vast majority who live honestly, work hard and simply seek comfortable and peaceful lives, have been hijacked. Politicians on both sides of the political spectrum, backed by money from special interest groups, and corporate lobbyists are to blame. What's worse is that everyone seems to recognize the problem, yet nothing is ever done about it. My solution: create a new party, one that is reasonable, that espouses the views beneficial to the majority, that is the center of the American political spectrum. Lets take a look at what positions this party would take on various issues.
Campaign Finance: Take all money out of politics. Now. No money, none. Money is not speech, speech is speech. Giving money isn't a statement; it's buying votes, just like if I went into a store and bought a candy bar. If you want to go make a political statement go cast a vote. Elections should be financed by the government. Seeing as we spend billions of dollars on office supplies I don't think it would be so bad to drop 100 million or so deciding who's going to run the country for the next four years. How do we decide who gets the money? If you're polling at 3 percent or above you get it, the same amount as everyone else. Done, end of story.
Gun control: Do you think "a well regulated militia" is "necessary to the security of a free state?"(2nd Amendment to U.S. Constitution) Well guess what, it isn't. Militia, as defined in the OED as denoting "a 'citizen army' as distinguished from a body of mercenaries or professional soldiers." It's not the army, it's just a relic from the 18th century that is currently not necessary to the "security of a free state." As such, the 2nd Amendment is null and void. Every gun should be taken out of every home because they pose a threat to the majority of citizens.
Environment: Look, global warming exists, and unfortunately for us we only have one Earth. As this is the case we should do all we can to protect it. We need to ratify the Kyoto Treaty and reduce our emission of greenhouse gases. We need to find alternative sources of energy now, not later. This would function to help the environment, our economy, and our national security, all for the low low price of a few less oil millionaires.
Economy: Tariffs bad, globalization good. Protectoral tariffs like those George W. Bush levied on steel imports hurt the American people. A few workers keep their jobs and continue to inefficiently produce steel, and as a result, auto, aerospace, shipping and any other industries using large quantities of steel see rising prices, resulting in larger layoffs and increased costs passed on to the consumer. This is because politicians know it's politically better to help a small group in a concentrated way (resulting in guaranteed votes) then it is to help a lot of people in smalls ways (because it may not garner any votes).
Furthermore the anti-globalization protests of recent memory have no point. Keeping America closed off hurts everyone -- prices are raised, markets are closed, information and technology are exchanged slower. If you want to live in the 1950s don't harass everyone, just move to Idaho.
Affirmative action: I do think affirmative action has its place in society. Helping the underprivileged is a perfectly reasonable idea, however the way in which affirmative action is applied today is quite the opposite. Is it right that a white individual who has the same financial background, lives in the same neighborhood, goes to the same school and does equally well academically as a minority, face disadvantages with respect to getting into colleges just because of the color of his or her skin? Of course it isn't. Diversity is great, buts it's more than just race, and as such a new criterion for the application of affirmative action should be developed.
Healthcare: This is shaping up to be a disaster. HMOs and insurance companies are hurting the public and the doctors who try to treat them. Several European countries have implemented public health systems and the results are not good: either extremely high taxes or rationing of health services. Both of these options are not good (think: "you can have this operation, you'll just have to wait a while"). What would be better is the destruction of the HMO system, a loosening of insurance companies' control over people's lives and privatization of the healthcare system. Privatization means competition, better services and better prices.
