There is a need for the conservative and liberals to be sensitive towards each other and move out of "my interests" zone to the interests of common good, all of us would be better off in the long run. Every American must feel a sense of security, safety and freedom. If we can learn to accept the otherness of others and respect the God given uniqueness of each one of us, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge.
Unlike most communal organizations, the government has coercive power -- the power to regulate, to mandate and to tax. These advantages make it all too easy for the state to gradually crowd out its rivals. The more things we "do together" as a government, in many cases, the fewer things we're allowed to do together in other spheres."
Read on for insightful essays on this subject.
MIKE GHOUSE, President, Foundation for Pluralism, Dallas
In a representative democracy like ours, Barney Frank's words reflect our sentiments, "Government is simply the name we give to the things we choose to do together." Indeed, unlike the monarchies, dictatorships and communists where the rulers decide what is good for the subjects, our system of government does the opposite of it. We the people decide what is good for us in the form of legislating it through our elected representatives.
The role of men and women who represent us is to ensure that they collectively follow our Constitution to honor our "... unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The coerciveness of the government occurs when we the people are not collectively represented in the pursuit of our happiness. And it is our failure, rather than the failure of our government, to ignore the checks and balances built into our system.
Government is not a different entity; it is us, by us and for us. Ross Douthat of the New York Times summarized it very well, "the government is just the natural expression of our national community, and the place where we all join hands to pursue the common good."
Two examples jump out, the destructive wars and the health care bill were a product of a mob rule called democracy. It is embarrassing that very few in the Senate and House questioned the bills. It was a sheer system failure. The administration and both houses of Congress were monopolized by the Republican Party and their coercive powers cowed the Democrats from standing up and do the right thing, which was to oppose the war. Had they strongly opposed it, we would not have been in this mess today.
We the people were not fully represented in that decision, nor was it representative of the will of the people in that coercive frightening condition. We acted as non-representative democracy then.
The second disaster sprang from the very same problem. The administration and Congress were monopolized by the Democratic Party, and they passed the health care reform, when the priority should have been job creation. Even though many Republicans opposed it, it passed like the other bad act of war.
I have been an advocate of consciously electing and giving simple majority to each party in the two houses. The stalemate is bad, but at least unilateral fascist decisions will not be made by us for us.
I propose an amendment to our Constitution that says when we are faced with critical decisions like the war and health care reforms that affect every American in the pursuit of their happiness, we need at 80% or higher votes from both houses to pass a bill like war or health care that would amount to be a true representative democracy.
Our courts have done well in upholding the laws that check the prevailing emotions by knocking out the California proposition and other popular sentiments that undermine the long term pursuit of happiness of the people in general.
I hope we the people consciously keep simple Republican majority in the House and simple Democratic majority in the Senate and those who bring stalemate against common good will be routed out, as we did with the Republicans in 2008 and Democrats in 2010.
Had it not been for the liberals, we would not have lived in the houses we live. We would have lived in caves and nothing would have been invented. Conservatives of the time did not even believe the world was round. They opposed the use of medicine to cure patients, and they initially opposed everything good that has started in our society. Our life style would not have changed a bit.
On the other hand, had it not been for the conservatives, we would have drowned ourselves or gone out of the orbit with thoughtless experimentations. The survival of the society depends on strong conservatives and liberals but most certainly, an active moderate majority who speak up and I consider myself a strong pluralistic moderate sensitive to every one of the 312 million Americans.
There is a need for the conservative and liberals to be sensitive towards each other and move out of "my interests" zone to the interests of common good, then all of us would be better off in the long run.
Every American must feel a sense of security, safety and freedom. If we can learn to accept the otherness of others and respect the God given uniqueness of each one of us, then conflicts fade and solutions emerge.
. . . . .
Mike Ghouse is a thinker, writer speaker and an activist of pluralism, interfaith, co-existence, peace, Islam and India. He is a frequent guest at the TV, radio and print media offering pluralistic solutions to issues of the day. His websites and Blogs are listed on http://www.mikeghouse.net/
