RE: The Fuzzy Criteria Problem

[Denise Hood <hoodsx3@aol.com>]

Basically, I see two competing mindsets emerging in this discussion, which is a pretty accurate representation of the two different mindsets that have been controlling our national agenda for YEARS.

There's the mindset that is all about "smaller government," at least on the surface. Why let bureaucrats do what we can do so much better OURSELVES? These folks are for shrinking everything...shrinking government, shrinking regulations, allowing a free market economy not burdened with cumbersome regulations and government control and oversight, free from the burdens of excess taxation, free from entitlement programs that "rob from the rich and give to the poor!" These folks fret about the erosion of their rights and freedoms, their "First Amendment rights." And ABOVE ALL, for GOd's sakes! Give them their TAX RELIEF!!! THey see themselves as unfairly targeted and burdened with shouldering the weight of supporting this top-heavy government with a disproportionate percentage of their tax money. They want it BACK, and they want it back NOW. They are on the cutting edge, and favor bold moves from the government, but only when it comes to things like returning their taxes to them, and experimenting with things like partial-privatization of social security, and "freeing" the business sector from the harsh burdens of having to comply with environmental regulations, demands from workers for an increase in minimum wages, OSHA regulations that enhance the health and safety of workers. They favor eliminating the Capital Gains tax, the marriage penalty, inheritance tax, etc. And they support Bush's bloated tax-cut for the wealthy.
 
But when it comes to bold moves that would enhance the lives of ALL Americans, such as common-sense gun control, to address the horrendous rise in school shootings, improvements to public education, raising the minimum wage, supporting legislation to help assure Americans cleaner air and cleaner water, and preserve our national treasures,and address the problems of the poor and needy, the working poor, the elderly, our nation's children, making sure that prescription medication is affordable for ALL, they take the Ebeneezer Scrooge approach, chanting a mantra of, "Not MY money! Not MY taxes!" They favor a return to the failed economic policies of the Reagan-Bush years, supply-side and trickle-down economics that bankrupted this country. In true "Gingrich-ian" fashion, they would prefer to let Medicare and Medicaid "wither on the vine," and turn back the clock, pointing this country back into the past, in the direction of Dickensonian England, with poor houses as the only entitlement our nation's neediest citizens deserve. This self-serving mentality doesn't serve us well, as a nation, embarked on a new millenium. They would have us take a giant step backward into a shameful past, where environmental regulations are rolled back, as well as the hard-fought rights of our nation's workers.

Then there is a second, more pragmatic group, who see change as  a necessary, and a good thing, who believe that regulations are needed, and function to guarantee the common good, who don't view government with suspicion, and resent it as meddlesome and interfering. Who have a basic trust in the system, who are always willing to adapt to change, to discard failed systems and replace them with fresh,new ideas and innovations, to keep re-inventing the wheel. They see the Constitution as a living thing, not some ancient, yellowed-document in a display-case, with articles, sections and paragraphs chiseled into stone. They realize that what makes us dynamic in the USA is our willingness to change, and adapt, discarding what may perhaps once have worked, but is no longer workable, and to embrace something new, something different, maybe not perfect. But they know that as problems and challenges come up, these can be dealt with innovatively, and they are up to the challenge. They also tend to be people with a social conscience, willing to "give" of themselves to better humankind. They don't see life as "every man for himself!" and "What's mine is MINE!", but feel that EVERY man's burden is ours to share, and we must shoulder these burdens together as a society, because it will make us all better, individually, and as a society.

And nowhere is this "clash" of these 2 opposing philosophies more apparent than right here, on this discussion board. Both sides bring their opposing philosophies to this discussion, in a microcosm of what is being played out on the national stage. It seems that there is no way to accomodate these 2 opposing mindsets. Is there NO common ground? Can there be NO compromising?

Basically, I see the debate about Campaign Finance Reform as having come about due to an awareness that the present system by which we finance campaigns is NOT working. With every election cycle, the amount of soft and hard money contributed breaks new records, and where will it end? And with all that money comes expectations from the givers, comes influence. The money comes with strings attached, that control our elected officials like puppets, until we can't escape the conclusion that we, their constituents, have lost ALL hope of getting a hand anywhere near those strings, and our elected officials dance to the dance of the special interests, who jerk their strings.

The debate comes down to: do we have the right to demand that those "strings" be severed, and our legislators be "freed" from the control of their puppetmasters, and returned to us? Or must we all be held captive to the notion that these wealthy individual contributors, these special interests, these corporations, who have outspent us, and taken our voices and our representation away from us HAVE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS THAT MUST BE PROTECTED, first and foremost! And that if the pursuit of THEIR First Amendment rights should somehow infringe upon or negate OURS, it's only fair, because in politics, you have to to "pay to play," and he who has the most money has the most First Amendment Rights? Are We just supposed to accept that?