Welcome to mcdowellnews.com. Skip directly to: our Keyword Search, Section Navigation, Content.

mcdowellnews.com - The McDowell News

HomeNewsEntertainmentSportsLifestylesOpinionCommunityWeather Online Tools Jobs | Real Estate | Shopping | Classified

Britt Combs: Readers ask what I stand for

I can't get my mind around pragmatic politics

By Britt Combs | The McDowell News

Published: May 12, 2009

In response to last week's column about the hopeless (in the short term) fragmentation of the Republican party, one reader asked what I stand for, adding that I appear to lean left. Another said that, given the dire straits America faces, I can't "sit on the fence."

I and everyone else, he said, must choose. Democrat or Republican. If I don't advocate for one or the other, then I don't stand for anything.

I simply can't get my head around pragmatic politics. I can't condone compromise. Compromising with dishonest people never works out well.

I'm the kind of person who sees things through the lens of history. Consider Germany between the world wars. Those folks were a lot like us today in many respects. They had suffered an economic collapse and were going broke fast. Unemployment was eating them alive. Their industry was mortally wounded. Their currency was losing value every day. They had lost prestige due to bad gambles by power-mad leaders.

The Germans were faced with two primary political alternatives; the Communist party (workers of the world, unite-socialists) and the Nazis (nationalist socialists). One party was for class interests and loyal to "the one-world government" as it was then understood, in other words, Moscow and the Bolshevik Revolution. The other was for national greatness and what they called "racial purity."

Their choice was limited to socialists. That is to say, Germans got to choose between two parties who agreed that the government had unlimited power; that the rule of law was a chimera; that the government itself was the sole determiner of the limits (if any) of its own authority. Germans basically flipped a coin. They voted for the lesser of two evils, as best they could perceive it. They chose evil.

"At least the Nazis love our country," the Germans said to themselves as they cast their votes. "At least they are loyal."

The Republicans and Democrats are playing a duplicitous game. The Republicans basically champion rural interests and the Democrats are for urban ones. They both take oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution, but they have no intention of honoring that oath. They believe they can do whatever they want, whatever the voters want, that there is no fundamental, organic law, no such thing as inalienable rights.

They focus their efforts on protecting the interests of the aristocracy while buying off the voters with empty, meaningless promises. They keep you voting and contributing by stirring up controversy about issues that could be easily resolved by honest leaders in mere minutes.

For example: Republicans, after nearly 40 years of being the anti-abortion party (so they claim) have accomplished nothing on that front. The plain, clear, bleeding obvious solution to the abortion question is to define it as a state's rights issue; each state determining for itself what rules, if any, would limit abortion. That solution would settle the matter and reinforce peace and tranquility.

Or, on the other side, actually ratify an amendment to clearly state federal jurisdiction on the issue, giving the federal government legitimate power to regulate and fund abortions. Again, it would put the matter to be once and for all.

The problem? The abortion debate is a money maker. On both sides the debate provides employment, retirement, and a lavish lifestyle for great numbers of people – people of great influence in Washington. A large percentage of the funds raised by both abortion advocates and opponents goes into the campaign treasuries of politicians. No one in Washington, lobbyists nor politicians, wants to see that cash fountain dry up. The debate is worth millions upon millions of dollars.

That's just one example, but the rule applies to many issues: immigration, the "War on Terror," economics, and so on. To Washington, the endless debate means money and power. A resolution means slipping into irrelevance.

So, we know what you're against, Combs, the reader said. What are you for? Not much, to be quite honest. How about a government that takes the law seriously? That deals squarely with us?

I know, I know. Grow up. Get in the real world. I honestly envy some of you. You can get outraged when the Republicans spend us into the poor house and make savage war against poor third world counties and then think it's fabulous when the Democrats do it. Or vice versa. But I just can't see past the fact that these leaders of ours are lawless scum. I wish I could. It would be fun to join up with you. But I can't.

I know. It's trendy now to be a "bad boy." Oh, Bush is cool; he tortures people and bombs villages. Clinton is far out; he rapes women and burns churches. They're "rebels – totally rock and roll." I guess I'm just not "groovy." I'm a "square." I'm not "with it." Well, I guess I'll just have to live with that.