Saturday, December 14, 2013

What, exactly, does the concept of “political unity” mean, anyway?

I was at the GOP Christmas Gala last night, a well-organized and attended event and that was the theme.

But what, exactly does it mean, anyway?

I believe it’s one of those nebulous terms… an oxymoron of sorts… something along the lines of “jumbo shrimp,” for example.

“Unity” with who?  About what?

I’ve heard it discussed in terms of percentages: for example, if I agree with Candidate X 80% of the time I should, therefore, support Candidate X.

That’s a simplistic view, to be sure.  It’s an attempt to formulize the issue… to put it in its most simple terms when the issues can be at its most complex.

For example, I can state that I agree with about 70% of what Ron Paul says.  Some of his domestic policy ideas are certainly worth exploring and possibly implementing.  His positions on the Federal Reserve Bank, which seems so inept it can’t turn on as light switch properly, are certainly worth close examination.

But his positions on foreign policy show an unspeakable breadth of ignorance and a lack of understanding that takes my breath away in its impact… And that foreign policy ineptitude overwhelms the domestic policy initiatives that could have made a real difference.

Recently, for example, Paul came out in support of Obama’s unbelievably stupid actions in caving to, and then wasting $20 billion on Iran, as he threw Israel and our tenuous Middle Eastern initiatives under the proverbial bus.

So, when it comes to the issue of “political unity,” how does that concept apply here?

What are we as individuals to set aside for the sake of “political unity?”

I spent a little over 6 years in Germany.  Every day I was there showed me, up close and personal, what can be lost for the sake of “political unity.”

It seems to me there’s a fine line between “political unity” and “blind obedience.”  Of suspending disbelief in the name of a common goal when achieving that goal can lead to the ultimate in disaster.

I believe, for example (regardless of how many would argue to the contrary) that my positions are well grounded and based on fact.  Fact equals reality.  Party labels have long since lost their luster for me as a reason to support anyone.

Recently, the House GOP that the people fought for has betrayed this country yet again on the so-called Ryan-Murray bill... a bill that gave the democrats everything they wanted… while giving the country nothing it needed.

Those reading this are likely aware of the multiple failings of Ryan-Murray, so I won’t reprise them here.

As someone on the lower echelons of the political realm who utilizes analysis for a living, I have to wonder:  What is the point of “political unity” when dangerous idiocy like Ryan-Murray is going to be the result?

Our own congresswoman again screwed the people of her district by again voting with the democrats and ignoring the needs… and the pleas… of the people she allegedly represents.  She continued her pattern of voting with the left while ignoring the needs of her district in just the latest of her many failures… most notably, her failure to do anything legislatively about the CRC Scam except… talk.

Is it as important to get a candidate elected with an “R” after their name no matter what else they have done… are doing… or failing to do… for us?

Or should the focus be to elect the person who not only most closely reflect the values of the district who elected her and who will then, actually and proactively do her best to see those values implemented in government?

Even if that means dumping the incumbent who, if there was a political tombstone to be erected for her political career, would have to have verbiage most closely reflective of “all talk and no action?”  An incumbent who's primary method of communicating with her constituency is the abuse of her franking privilege with smoke and mirror mailers full of fiction... and who is terrified at the thought of actually facing her constituency in a town hall setting?

To that end, what good has it done to “politically unify” behind Herrera when she’s been such an abysmal failure in the office the GOP unified in their support of her?

The local GOP is likely unified in their opposition to Herrera’s support of policies they abhor.  Not too long ago, they let her know, via letter, that they were upset with her.

Her most recent action in voting with the democrats for the idiocy of Ryan-Murray indicates that  either she didn’t get the letter, or more likely, ignored it.

So, what has the local GOP done about her political perfidy?


“Political unity”

At what price?

No comments: