Listening to the Democrat Biden/Harris and Republican Trump/Vance campaigns and the presentation of their cases to the nation, one might think their differences can be described with statistics, trends, budgets and public opinion polls. But more than any other recent presidential contest, their dissimilarities are so enormous that numbers, labels and quotes astonishingly fail to reveal the massive depth and breadth of their disagreements.
These candidates and their minions are such polar opposites that conventional political debate fails to enlighten the nation of just how divided we are as a country when these two options are our last standing available choices. There are many voters who are not admirers of any of the candidates. Political observers are calling these people “double haters.” November 2024 will see millions of votes cast against, as much as for, a candidate. It is critical that every American voter understand that Democrat climate policies; Republican southern border strategy; liberal elite criminal reform programs; conservative convictions regarding DEI – these and many other issues are just an indication of what truly lies beneath the surface of this looming political conflict.
Joe Biden and Donald Trump represent the tectonic collision of decades of accumulated opinion, belief, investment, “sweat,” tradition, and ideals in the hearts and minds of millions of Americans. The best possibility of making any sense of this struggle and having any confidence that it can end peacefully – lies in separating the personalities and rancor from the social, economic and political issues and their underlying principles. All these varied subjects, conflicts and disagreements can be broken down into four basic spheres of divergence.
These four spheres of divergence are;
· The role of Government
· Sovereign Nations vs. Globalism
· Objective Faith vs. Subjective Philosophy
· Free Speech vs. Academia’s “Shoulds”
The Role of Government –
Republican views can best be summed up with the 1981 quote of Ronald Reagan, “Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.” Conservative Republicans believe that government’s over reach often impedes personal freedom and liberty by trying to supervise and manage American lives, commerce and the redistribution of wealth. These are things Constitutionally left to personal choice, individual effort and the free market.
Democrats favor government that sees its role as scrutinizing American society and looking out for people they feel need assistance and support. Biden/Harris Democrats feel an unmanaged civilization abuses the weaknesses and rights of those who have not enjoyed privilege generations earlier. It is the government’s responsibility to have the resources and power to ensure a level playing field for those who feel they don’t have it.
A conservative philosophy of limited government discourages politicians from expanding and growing into new areas. A progressive outlook encourages a larger and growing government as wider-ranging borders for Federal control are discovered.
Sovereign Nations vs. Globalism –
Following World War II there was a re-aligning of world loyalties and coalitions. Western nations had fought against and defeated the Axis powers of Germany, Italy and Japan as they tried to overrun sovereign countries to control their people and steal their natural resources, The Allied victory and restructuring of world alliances unfortunately created a more divided, distrustful and resentful world. The United Nations, initially conceived to be a sounding board for resolving differences and policing hostilities, morphed into a collection of “haves vs. have nots & oppressors vs. oppressed.”
Democrat policy has been shaped by over fifty years of liberal academia elites, disgruntled UN activists and third-world country autocrats. Their message; the western world has no right to their prosperity, freedoms and security. As a globalist, Biden believes the United States has a moral responsibility to generously open our borders and liberally share our resources with a world in need. Western affluent nations have abundance that should be redistributed.
Conservative Republicans believe the United States, as well as most other western nations, are prosperous and free because as sovereign countries they have embraced liberty and rejected dictatorship, corruption and nepotism. They have diligently strived to secure their country’s borders, forms of government, cultures, commerce and lifestyle. What is enjoyed by American citizens, as well as citizens in other western cultures, can and should be the goal of other nations - within their own borders – if they were to mobilize the same efforts, values, disciplines and commitment themselves.
Globalism does not share prosperity equitably with those who may not have it. Instead, it robs the resources and benefits from those who have worked to develop, establish and protect it and gives it to those who are not entitled to it.
Objective Faith vs. Subjective Philosophy –
The practice and protection of an individual’s private faith is secured in America’s Constitution and The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Conservative Republican candidates believe this is a foundational and inalienable right of every citizen. Personal faith is tied to embraced truths and principles. Not every resident must accept the same beliefs and values, but the issue of personal faith and its open expression is not subject to government management, disapproval or reprisal.
The Democrat platform has increasingly enforced a liberal view regarding personal faith that sees religious belief as merely feelings or a subjective philosophy. It cannot be allowed to infringe on the feelings of others who may not share that faith or are offended by such beliefs - even if the upset group is a small minority. Opinions and behaviors that proceed from religious convictions are liable to be, in a Biden/Harris society, regarded as hateful and subject to censure and even legal action.
Free Speech vs. Academia’s “Shoulds” –
A lecture and discussion on an American University campus can be a confusing and even hostile exercise when a student or speaker does not know what terms, facts or opinions are allowable. But this is not just limited to campus lectures. It can now affect public and even private conversations at every level of American life.
Democrat policy has expressed support for the positions and values of elites who believe they are wiser and more decent than the rest of society and thus entitled to direct and guide humanity. As the enlightened best of us, they have anointed themselves worthy to pontificate on the way the world should function. Their words of wisdom are not to be questioned. Progressive college professors have been given license to expel students and guest lecturers who deviate from the accepted narrative. This narrative is not based on evidence, tradition or truth, but rather tied to the “shoulds” of these academic elites. Namely, “This is not the way the world has been operating, or how it may be working now, but we believe this is the way the world SHOULD behave from now on.” Democrats have made it clear that differing opinions regarding transgender claims, the “climate crisis,” illegal immigration policies and public safety decrees, to name a few, are not to be challenged in the marketplace of public discussion or policy making.
Conservative Republican candidates are dedicated to the concept that public dialogue is subject to the Constitutional protection of free speech. Any expressed idea, opinion or suggestion is open to the scrutiny of aligning with facts, the comparison to traditional viewpoints, the feelings of the majority, the practical evidence of results and the notion that there are many situations where it is alright to “agreeably disagree.” Trump, and other conservatives, will not abide by laws and policies that burden the majority with regulations and edicts merely decreed by the minority, whoever they are.
“This is the way it should be” as espoused by progressive elites, will not have its way with conservative Republican candidates who will see to it that truth, statistics, evidence and the will of the majority make the final call.
In a contentious political arena, with a media that cannot be trusted, it is helpful to break the issues into these four basic categories. All the varied concerns will likely fall under one or more of these four basic spheres of divergence. This will make it easier and more consistently reliable when we perform our due-diligence regarding, not only the Presidential race, but all the assorted choices of other candidates and resolutions.
PRINCIPLES –
· Complex issues can be broken down into basic categories
· It is critical that citizens be informed and knowledgeable when voting
· Elections should be decided on principles and policies, not personalities
· The essential role and need for an unbiased and trustworthy media
Comentários