This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License.
Tis the season to be political. This season is much more divisive and political than any year since 1964. For those of you who don't remember, that was the year that Barry Goldwater ran against Lyndon Johnson, and lost.
Tis the season to be political. This season is much more divisive and political than any year since 1964. For those of you who don't remember, that was the year that Barry Goldwater ran against Lyndon Johnson, and lost.
Goldwater was one of the last of the old-style Roosevelt-hating Republicans who boiled at the slightest sign of public spending. The unions were in full fury to make him lose his bid for the Presidency in 1964, the same as the unions are gunning for George W. Bush in 2004. One major difference between then and now: in 1964, labor accounted for approximately 30 percent of the total workforce, compared to less than 13 percent of the total work force in 2003.
Many people, mostly Republicans, complain about unions "influencing" elections. It is hard to find a television program or film made in the last 40 years that portrays unions' endorsements of political candidates in anything like a favorable light. This view holds that unions, and other organizations of just plain folk, ought to abstain from politics: as if politics is an individual right. Unions are labeled as "special interest" groups pulling forward a "political agenda." Like people getting together to exercise political influence in their own interest is a bad thing, unless they organize an official political party.
Interestingly, the same people who wail and moan about the bad influence of trade unions on politics, see nothing wrong with churches exercising this influence. In fact, the Bush campaign has been sending letters to every pastor, minister and preacher in the country, urging them to "get out the faithful and elect Bush."
This is a view that contrasts starkly with the views of the Founding Fathers. They had great suspicion of the joining of religious and political action, and for good reason. They realized that politics is all about people working together to make the best outcome for all. When you get a lot of people involved who think they're dead right, and other people are dead wrong, then you end up with a dangerous and volatile situation. Just ask anyone who lives in Iran or Pakistan about what happens when you give religious zealots too much political influence.
Whenever I hear a predominant voice, in the media or elsewhere, decrying the political influence of one group and encouraging the political activism of another, I ask myself "why?" The answer to this question is very simple: the voice emanates from a group of interested parties who have more to gain from the latter group than from the former. It never has anything to do with what is right and what is wrong.
The tough nut to crack here is that we all want people in government to operate on the basis of honest principles, rather than to tilt in whatever direction the winds of political expediency blow. If we believe that abortion is murder, we think the people we elect should make it illegal, regardless of the views of the majority of the people. This is good religion, but bad democracy. It also gives liars an easy way to get elected: they only have to promise one thing to get elected instead of offering valid proposals for solving real problems.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 Unported License.