Provisional
Truth |
Essays | November 2005
Color Me Purple
I live
in a “red” state, but, please, color me purple. As the 2008
presidential election campaign gears up this month, three years
before election day, so inevitably will arise again the need to label us
red or blue by those hard-working political pundits trying to fill the
roughly 25,000 hours of news airtime between now and November 4, 2008.
I'm
not kidding about the 2008 race. Let's assume current Vice President
Dick Cheney does not run, which now appears a safe bet that until
recently was mostly related to the VP's physical health. If so, 2008
will be the first election since 1952 in which an incumbent president or
vice president is not seeking the nation's highest office.
Despite my residency in a red state, I certainly don't see myself as red
or blue. More like purple,
a mixed bag, and like most Americans whether or not they will admit it.
I mean, I like salt and pepper on my food and at the dairy bar I
usually order chocolate and vanilla mixed. And in my political
views, as well, I think I'm far more in the center than I used to be.
The candidates know this.
If you
asked, generally I would define myself a “conservative” which
automatically places me in the “red state” column, end of sound bite.
But there's another side of me, and many others like me, of which the
presidential candidates and their advisers are well-aware.
On my
“red” side, I think that we Americans should be able to pursue life,
liberty and happiness and the American Dream with as little government
assistance or intrusion as possible. We should keep more of what we earn
(but require everyone to shoulder at least some, even minimal, portion
of the tax burden). We should be responsible for our actions and we
should not allow our hard-won freedoms to be chipped away under the
new threat of terrorism.
To me,
“government” should not be the mother of all safety nets should someone
not save enough money for retirement. Or, perish the thought, be
required to take a ferry to the mainland (Alaska's $230 million “bridge
to nowhere”). Or build a house below sea level. And other than to
maintain economic stability or defend ourselves from attack, our
government should spend only what it collects in taxes, reducing
the deficits that will mortgage the future of our children and our
nation.
Finally, free markets and free enterprise have created and sustained the
largest, most successful economy in the world, supporting a standard of
living unimagined by the Founders, so let's not fix too often what
doesn't seem broken.
So
far, so “red,” but here's where my “blue” starts seeping in.
In my
view, church and state must stay separated for the good of the republic.
An observable drift toward theocracy has frightening implications that
the Founders were wise to prohibit, having observed the ill-effects of
theocracies firsthand and throughout the ages. So, yes, “grinch” that I
am (with apologies to The Grinch), to me that means no religious
displays or statues on public property and no “faith-based” initiatives
involving tax dollars funneled through religious organizations for
social service programs.
Government does have a role in regulating our free market
economy, among which to ensure everyone is playing fair (Enron, anyone?)
and that gigantic software companies or big-box retailers don't deny
others the chance to build and sell better mousetraps. And government
has a role in providing equality of opportunity (but not outcome)
for all of us pursuing our American Dream, which does include
redressing past sins of omission, commission and discrimination.
Our
government should have very limited ability to engage in pre-emptive or
offensive military operations even if we think bad things may happen if
we wait.
I
agree with a woman's right to choose as well as an individual's right to
end his or her life under certain circumstances if the intent is
previously documented in a valid living will. (Terri Schiavo would have
died with dignity years ago had she stated it in writing.)
And
since the word “marriage” already has been defined by vote in many
states as comprising one man and one woman, amending our federal
constitution seems unnecessary. Having said that, we must
insure that all rights and
responsibilities of marriage, whatever we may call it, are conferred
upon those consenting adult couples whose composition does not meet the
one man/one woman test.
Lastly
I believe passionately in your right to disagree with everything I say
in this essay.
So color me
purple, whatever you
do. The soon-to-be-declared 2008 presidential candidates know this and
if one listens carefully, a familiar sound recently has been their
movement to the center – that temperate zone of “purpleness.” More than
likely in 2008, Oklahoma again will be a “red” state as the news
networks fill in the map on election night, but the candidates and their
advisers, and the eventual victor, know purple will be the winning
color.
Top
Home
|
