ideology

Fundamentally the two major parties right now are basically the same on their individual policy slants. What is different is the ideology they supposedly base party membership on. The actual practices and members are so varied however as to make the core values indeterminable.

So with that in mind, here are what I feel the 3 major core values as to the nature and function of the state (any state, not just ours).

1) Centrism. Fundamentally, this is the core value of most governments. Both Republicans and Democrats share this value on some issues (Republicans generally with moral and defense matters, Democrats with social engineering). The root belief is that the function of government at the highest level is to organize and centralize a particular issue, such as say health care or education. Effectively, the national government will determine and enforce policy and levy taxes for the funding of said practices. Occasionally there are matters on which this makes sense, for example in time of war, it is crucial that the defense of country be organized at the highest strategic levels, otherwise it will be doomed to failure by the thousands of little hands pulling in different directions. In a democracy, this is what I refer to as 'the tyranny of the many'. Effectively, once power is consolidated in a central area, it will appropriate more and greater powers which the people will come to depend on and even demand. In theory, the centralising authority makes for quicker and responsive decisions. In practice, the crushing weight of bureaucracy often makes it impossible to breathe. Nevertheless, as I stated, there are times when this belief is useful.

2) Socialism. This differs from capitalism in that it also represents a social government, where as capitalism merely requires a social structure and a government suspected of bribery and corruption. It is also distinct from centrism in that the government assumes direct control, rather than merely establishing national policy. For example, at the moment a variety of companies operate as government-mandated monopolies in necessary fields such as telecommunications or transportation, this is centrism. But it is government funds that build and maintain roads, this is socialism. Government funds also build and staff many schools. Thus public schools are a form of socialism (which includes the series of indoctrinations that we must perform in attending them). The principle advantage is that public monies and will is applied to matters which require organization and public use. Private roads would be somewhat odd and create a network of roads that would not be available for the use of others for example. I suppose tollways could be viewed in this light, but in practice, anyone can use them if they wish (for a fee). Constructing private phone lines or tv cables would likewise create a bizarre mishmash of intersecting wires over our heads that would soon become impossible to maintain. Where this fails is when it tries to direct matters that should derive their usefulness from competitive markets. It would be better, I believe, if there were fewer car companies, but not better if the government made them. There is a sort of inefficiency sometimes from too much of competition, but conversely, it manages to force levels of efficiency into our economic and social landscape that otherwise would not exist. Socialism, while professing to attend to all our needs, will succeed in meeting none. It does well when it has limited tasks to perform or a small arena in which it works. Not on a national level. We will find mostly Democrats who will hold to this belief that it is government which mandates and controls wealth and disperses it to the people for their amusement, rather than the other way around. What it does do well is point out when society is screwing with people too much and demands action on a particular problem. Whether that action should be forming a government agency however is another problem entirely.

3) Libertarianism. This last core value has a party supposedly based on it. Intuitively, most of us do not wish to have much government interference in our lives. Even those of us who may depend on government assistance for disability or poverty will not wish to have overbearing surveillance and required obedience in exchange for our handouts. Consequently, it is surprising that the party best representing this belief has fared so poorly on a national, indeed, even a local level. There are of course core platform issues that many in this country will find distasteful or even unworkable. This is true of the major parties as well however. What is at work at the base is the fundamental belief that less government is better. What is good is the full provision of civil liberty and freedom (within reason, don't start killing people and peeing on park benches yet). What is bad, well there isn't a whole lot of government programs to help people. That can be bad. But in practice, governments aren't always good at that sort of thing. What governments tend to do better is distribute such aid more coldly and equally. Private charity on the other hand goes more swiftly, but only where the money wants to go.

Governments exist to provide for law and order for the protection of civil liberty, for common defense, and the regulation and promulagation of free and fair trade. What is odd about our political landscape is that this belief is not defined as the extreme right. In fact it is the far extreme to state emphatically that government does not belong in this matter. It is not somehow further along the same line of thinking to state that government belongs because there is a moral-religious (bs) issue. That is in fact a leftward thought, to involve government where it provides no fundamental value to society. Thus I propose that the Religious Right be renamed the Religious Base. I don't want them anywhere near me politically and in fact they aren't. Sometimes they agree, most of the time not. Thats the nature of all ideologies. They coordinate at times and matters, and most times not. The interplay of these is essential to good governance. Until they are fully exposed and represented by clear and ideologically based parties, we will have no choice but to accept bad government and have only ourselves to blame for the mess.