Getting Started…

It took me a long time to decide on a name for my blog.  After all, it provides you the reader with the first impression of who I am and will undoubtedly provide a whole host of pre-conceived notions about me.  Since this blog is about my exploration of my points of view on various subjects, I would encourage you to read through my text as I will invariably include a definition or two so that you are clear about the foundation from which I am exploring a particular point.

There are a lot of challenges facing our nation.  I am hoping for some good solid discussions and debates on the subjects about which I blog – it’s one of the reasons I’ve decided to do it. I’m very open to learning about views that differ from mine and I’ve got no problem with healthy discussions that are based on reliable documentation and logic. I’m hoping to discuss things a specific as line items in regulations to loftier philosophical concepts surrounding the development and current state of affairs not just in the United States but the world.  However, disrespectful and inflammatory content is not okay with me and you can be sure that I’ll let you know when I think you have stepped over the line and we need to get back to a controlled debate.

It’s probably best to start out with a few definitions as a basis for discussion.  These definitions were all found online in the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary.

 re·pub·lic:
1 : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president;
2 : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law;

 de·moc·ra·cy

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

 con·ser·va·tism: 

2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

 lib·er·al·ism:

b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties (freedom from arbitrary governmental interference (as with the right of free speech) specifically by denial of governmental power and in the United States especially as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights); specifically : such a philosophy that considers government as a crucial instrument for amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class).

 Progressive:

b : one believing in moderate political change and especially social improvement by governmental action

I’ve got to say, based on these definitions I am a quasi-conservatively liberal republican – in other words, there are pieces of these definitions I would associate with, but there are also pieces with which I completely disagree.  For instance, under Liberalism, I’m good with the definition right up to the point where the definition identifies “government as a crucial instrument of amelioration of social inequities (as those involving race, gender, or class).”  I’m pretty much of the mind that government, as an entity for the last 100 years, has been the cause of much of the social inequities in the United States.  But more on that later.

Likewise, I’m also good with the conservatism definition right up to the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change”.  I don’t have a problem with change, but my comfort level and agreement with the change is entirely dependent on the nature of the change, the forethought and analysis that occurred to initiate the change, and the change control utilized to affect the change.

I am definitely in line with the definition of republic, and hence, I guess I can call myself a republican.  When it comes to government, I believe less is more.  I have some strong feelings about the role I believe that government should play, and I’m sure that I’ll get to a blog post sooner than later on what the role should be, but for now, it’s enough that I can identify myself as a republican under this definition.  The rub?  I don’t think that this definition is the one that is associated with Republicans nowadays. 

Likewise, I can’t disagree with the definition of democracy, although I think that the inclusion of the “absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges” is a tad naïve.  Class distinctions and privileges have been around for millions of years (if you believe the scientists, even cave men had hierarchies of command and control – probably the result of mimicking wildlife – and I challenge anyone to point me to a country, state, area, region, or other entity that encompasses more than 1 person and DOESN’T ACTUALLY have a hierarchy based on gender, race, or socioeconomic conditions).  It seems to me if we haven’t been able to breed it out of the human race by now, it’s not likely to happen.  Not that we haven’t tried – and tried hard here in the United States – but at this point, it’s just the definition of insanity.  Of course, I’ve got some thoughts on WHY there are still such disparities between classes and how they should be handled, but that’s another blog, too.

What I do find interesting is that the definitions of liberalism, conservatism, democracy, and republicanism are so close; all four revolve around the same core values of that the purpose of our government is not to run our lives for us, but to protect our freedoms and rights so that we can collectively create opportunity, sustain self-responsibility, and find our own brands of happiness.  You would think that since we are all so much alike, we could get along better.  But, power DOES corrupt, eh?

And progressivism?  I’m not in agreement with any of that.

So beware when judging my blogs – know under what definitions I am working.  Since it’s my blog, I’ll assume that when you use these words, you’ll do so utilizing the definitions I’ve outlined here or provide me with a new definition that is your basis.

Advertisement