I've been enjoying a lengthy respite from politics and my usual business.  I'm still on a limited schedule as far as that goes.  Sometimes, I find that I learn more from sitting back and reflecting about what is happening.  Still, I do read the news, and I feel like writing a little bit tonight about Arizona.

For those not already aware, Arizona has recently passed a controversial immigration law that allows state and local police to check to verify the citizenship of anyone being stopped for some valid reason.  It is important to note that this is not a law as some are reporting that is seeking to locate illegal immigrants directly, but rather to take action against those who commit some other action.  It has become a huge issue as there are accusations of racism flying already.

I tend to think that is crap.  I firmly and fully believe that identity politics, whether they be on the basis of gender, race, or any other category, serve only to engender hatred, mistrust, resentment, and are to the detriment of everyone.  You cannot slap a label on someone, give them a different status than another person, and think that creates equality.  I would fully agree that there are issues and people have racial biased attitudes, but the identity politics never solves these.  So, I will throw out the race card.

But, immigration is a real issue.  It's something that cuts to the center of American tradition, as we are almost all children of immigrants.  People wanting to come here, make money, contribute to society, and seeking a better life for their family are living the American dream.  I respect and honor that, but there has to be laws in place, and there desperately needs to be comprehensive immigration reform.  It needs to address the law enforcement issues and the fairness issues in a way that respects people as individuals.

To this point, neither side has done anything.  My presumption is that Republicans did nothing about the issue of illegal immigrants because they were scared of racial politics and because too many business owners liked using cheap illegal labor.  The Democrats did nothing because having the issue out there was a continuing way to motivate on a class basis, in an effort to make Latino voting patterns mirror that of black voters.  So, the Feds did nothing, and wanted the states to do nothing, because they accepted the status quo.  It's good that Arizona brought this up.

People have different views, of course, but here's my take on immigration.  I think we should be welcoming to workers who want to come here, but that they should have to follow the same rules as all other Americans.  Guest workers should be registered, should be paid the same minimum wages, should pay for the services they use, and should not be given an automatic path to citizenship via amnesty.  I think we should have a separate citizenship process, but one that is fair, inclusive, and gives an opportunity for people who want to move here to do so.  With such a program in place, those who are not registered should be deported back to their nations of origin.

I know that many people worry about illegal immigrants providing cheap labor that takes away jobs.  This solution would put American citizens on even ground.  I also think that states should go after business owners who seek to skirt these requirements.  America is not in the business of sweatshop labor, and we should hold ourselves to a higher standard.

The worry that a law like this one passing in Arizona will be used to execute mass deportations is just, and it will be destructive to certain areas of their economy.  Yet, it is an effort to deal with a law enforcement issue, as drug related violence coming north from Sonora and other Mexican states demands a response.  I wonder how many people know about the ransoms and kidnappings becoming more prevalent on that border, or the growing radical movements within certain Latino communities that seek separation from the United States.  Look up Aztlan if you're curious.

The Federal Government should have solved this issue and still can do so.  The sad thing is they won't, because it's political season always.  Both parties screwed this one up, and I hope someone has the guts to fix it.  But, if they don't, I'm glad to see states looking for their own answers.
 
 
I believe the "Tea Party" movement will diminish far more quickly than most people anticipate.  It does not make me happy to see this happen, but the decisions and conflicts that are happening today make me think that it is inevitable.

The basic concept in all marketing is that you want your product or service to appeal to the largest number of possible consumers.  When it was first introduced last year, the "Tea Party" represented a fresh movement for citizen protest, that was not explicitly linked to any one party or ideology, and that recognized that Bush as much as Obama were just as responsible for the growth of a rapidly expanding state.  There were Democrats, Republicans, and Independents motivated and hopeful.  This is rapidly changing.

With the Democratic Party controlling the government, their more liberal wing is in ascendancy and has been pushing with surprising force and speed to expand the role of government.  Despite loud and vociferous protests, they have continued forward and are now actively pursuing a strategy of division, where they seem willing to stand and fight for their beliefs.

In contrast, the Republican Party has made extensive overtures to the "Tea Party" movement after the drubbing they took in 2008.  With the Democrats offering no alternative that would be acceptable to these voters, the nature of our system is such that the small government voters are coming en masse into the GOP, despite many having reservations.  Promises are being made, but will they be kept?  I tend to think not, but more on that later.

Recognizing their problem, that they lack the infrastructure to compete with the forces of the conventional left, the Republicans are trying to co-opt the "Tea Party" into their ranks.  Through funding, name recognition, and the selective use of media, I believe they are succeeding.  I've watched over the last few months how a message of liberty and limited government is being subtly expanded to seem more like the GOP platform, with values and military flexing being added.  There is, perhaps, a new coalition forming in this, as both the GOP and "Tea Party" will be changed by their encounter, but it strikes me as a bad marriage for both political reasons and practical ones.

As stated at the beginning, the real value of the "Tea Party" was that it was perceived as independent.  It meant people had a reason to listen.  If the GOP provided that, there would not have been the need for this movement.  Now that the "Tea Party" is quickly becoming "Teabaggers" in the eyes of much of the public, unfortunately defined by the most extreme elements, their efficacy will decline and politicians will keep them at arm's length.  Being loved in a primary, neglected in the general, and forgotten once elected will not endear these voters to the politicians who are now pandering to the "Tea Party" movement.

For their part, I think the Republicans will find the voters whom they assume are their new groundswell of support will not stay behind them.  Should they succeed in 2010, there will be high expectations that will not be met because of the divided nature of government, the corrupting influence of money, and the impracticality of seeking so much reform at once.  It won't happen.  But the politicians are raising such expectations with campaign rhetoric, as I watch repeatedly, and should a few be fortunate enough to get elected, I wonder whether the amount needed for re-election will be enough of a draw to encourage those first compromises.

Contrary to popular belief, politicians are not usually bad people.  They are, however, often vain, and rarely like to lose.  The rationale becomes that I make one deal so that I can fight for another day.  That is why many successful politicians position themselves as reasonable and moderate (especially in fairly drawn districts), because they can shift to reach the largest number of voters.  I am betting most of the conservative constitutionalists will soon discover this fact for themselves to the lament of their current supporters.

You can see some fault lines emerge where the movement and politicians will part ways.  But between the expectations of ideological purity from the base, and the pramgatic calculations of the politicians, hearts will be broken on both sides.  If you're still not convinced, look at some of the issues.  The values stand that the GOP is bringing to the "Tea Party" means government regulation about how to live, anathema to liberty.  Or, look at the aggressive foreign policy posturing:  How can you spend indefinitely in wars without bankrupting a budget?  I could go on, but I don't think I need to do so.

Desperation over the successes of the Obama Administration have forced this alliance and I suspect it will hold through the 2010 elections to good benefit in many places.  Electoral success is a priority of most "Tea Party" groups, and you see the leadership of these movements becoming GOP leaders like Dick Armey through FreedomWorks and other similar organizations.  It is true that the movement has no leader, but that is because no one had the money or media savvy to make it so.  As that changes, so changes the movement, the identification, and the grassroots nature.  The Republican Party will gain new infrastructure from this and will change somewhat, but I don't think it will be anything other than an elephant with makeup in the end.

In 1994, promises were made by a starry eyed Republican Congress.  By 2006, judge for yourself the successes of their accomplishments.  Republicans, conservatives, limited government, Contracts with America, and promises of a smaller state.  What happened?  Why did it happen?  Would it happen again the same way?

If you read here often enough, you know that I think it will, and you know why I think that.  The nature of the two-party system, how it selects winners and bend lines, and how it is funded makes this inevitable.  It's winning politics, and losing government.  In the "Tea Party", there was hope for change based on principle first, but as winning becomes more important to those frustated, the future loss will be twofold:  loss on principle, lost in a party.

I've never been happier to be an independent, but as a fan of liberty, localized government, and sanity, I sometimes feel that it is a very lonely place to be.  I hope more of you will join me there.
 
 
I’ve avoided writing about health care as long as humanly possible because there is no topic which I have found more difficult throughout my political involvement.  Literally an issue of life and death for some people and some families, the equation has always come down to an inhumane choice between cost on one hand, and quality of life on the other.  How can we have an unfunded mandate against how can we watch someone suffer because they lack the resources or coverage?  I struggled with this in my abortive state legislature run, and almost never talk about it because I could not articulate my thoughts clearly enough.  I will do so today, so this may end up being a very long discussion, and I will talk about the pending legislation in light of my personal views.

I believe access to quality health care should be treated as a right.  I fully agree with those who state that it is not included in Article I, Section VIII of the Constitution, and that it was never the intention of the framers to see this.  To them, it would never have occurred to be a problem because the relationship between the doctor and the patient was direct, and health care was as simple as a bottle of whiskey, a couple of aspirins, and a house call.  Times have changed, and I find this is a question we should be asking ourselves as a society.  Given the resources we have and how we would choose to spend them, should we invest in our own future through making sure that everyone who wants access to health care has some ability to see both they and their families are covered.

Like many people who follow the issue, I have known that health care reform has been desperately needed for some time.  The present mishmash of public programs, emergency room visits, and underfunded clinics only costs more money because it is so disorganized.  It is misleading to some extent to point out only the structural costs of any pending legislation because we are paying all these other costs now.  Comprehensive reform, executed properly, would save many billions of dollars, and could help us compete as a nation with other countries where their businesses do not have the shoulder the burden of health care costs.

Having spent years as a Republican, I learned how to make a very effective economic argument for health care reform.  The truth, however, is that the real calculation has always been a human one for me.  When I walked the trail and talked to people, I learned of the real mishaps and misfortunes that people faced.  I learned about people losing their jobs because they got ill, and losing the insurance that sustained them.  How can you ever go to someone, whatever their background, and say in good conscience that your life or well-being just isn’t worth the cost?  Imagine the society that such thinking would create.  We like to believe we haven’t been that way, but I wonder.

I agree with the requirements that people with pre-existing conditions neither be excluded from health care coverage nor be dropped upon their discovery of an ailment.  Having insurance that only covers people in their health is ridiculous, and the sign of an industry that has the justifiable distaste of many people.  I do not trust health insurance companies as they stand between you and your doctors.

This debate has made it clear that the reason many people oppose this reform is out of fear for losing what health insurance they have.  I agree with and am very sympathetic to those fears.  I also see the fears of those who have no insurance at all, and must hope for the best.  I see those who are on public health care now, and who don’t have access to good care.  I see a need for change, and a challenge for our nation in facing the issue, and showing what we believe.

Life, liberty, and property:  I’ve argued time and time again for these three rights.  Health care is life.  In an age where we live in a land of great prosperity, seeing that all Americans have access to health insurance is morally right.  This is my belief, and I will defend it in private and in public.

Having shared that belief with you, I strongly oppose the bill before Congress this evening. 

The most important reason why I am opposed to this bill is because it requires an individual mandate whereby you are forced to purchase health insurance or you will be subject to civil penalties, scrutiny by the Internal Revenue Service, and the potential for criminal action as a result.  This is the exact thinking that I became involved in politics to oppose, and that I believe is the complete opposite of the American tradition and intent.  Government should not be able to force Americans to do anything, but this bill would do that.  Functionally, this bill says get covered or get charged.

I have explained how I believe that every American should have access to quality health care as a fundamental right, but I also believe that the choice of getting that care must be reserved to the individuals themselves.  In America, you should have the right to say “no”.  Whether it is advisable or not, whether it serves the public interest, we are still a nation of individuals living under liberty, and we should be able to say “no thanks”.  Not for others, not for people who are suffering, and not to turn a blind eye to a problem that is bigger than people’s ability to handle.  But for ourselves, yes.  We have that right, and no government should and no power can ever remove that.

I have other issues with this bill.  I dislike how it has been drafted, with many meetings in secret, and numerous perks designed to attract specific votes.  I believe legislation that is well written should stand on its own merits and not need such lather.  I honestly do not think we can afford it, and having read more about how this will work, worry how the funding being reassigned from both Medicaid and the Social Security Trust Fund will help, especially as those programs are already on a trajectory for insolvency.  I could go on for a while talking about things I don’t like, but you can read that elsewhere.

There are those who might say that while these objections are fair, that we should pass the bill because providing support now to the people who need help matters most.  They do need help and we should act quickly, but we cannot afford to act rashly either.

The fundamental relationship that drives the health care equation must return to the doctor and the patient.  Health insurance plans are not going to achieve this.  New government programs are not going to achieve this.  This bill does not achieve this.  If anything, it empowers insurance companies, many of whom support this legislation because they know the requirement that people must buy insurance will increase the number of people they serve.

When I came to understand this bill, it reminded me precisely of why I mistrust Washington and why I’ve rededicated my own career path to local politics.  I am sick of arguments so rancorous and partisan where every argument is an attack designed to score points for the next election cycle.  This is a real problem we are facing here.  But, this bill is a combination of elements that don’t fit:  designing a public policy solution from an administration that wants a public answer, mixing private and public parts in a way that just doesn’t add up to me.  If you limit what people can be charged, but limit what companies make, and force employers to pay more, what will happen is that you will reduce choices, harm business, and hurt employment as larger businesses will cut their marginal employees.  A fully public option, or fully private option would work better and make more sense, but this is neither.  It’s a collection of ideas, some of which are good, some of which are bad, but that come together to make a new bureaucracy which will not be efficient and will have damaging effects we can only guess today.

We should ask these questions and have been remiss in not doing so, which is why we face the situation that we do today.  This Administration and this Congress, for better or worse, have been willing to do so where everyone should have done so long before.  Too many Americans have been sick and dying, and we simply accepted this.  The anger, the fear, and the needs of our fellow citizens have led us to this moment, and the government is responding to them.  No one else did.  That was our loss.

I support health care reform.  I support access to health care for all Americans who choose coverage with any conditions they may have.  I do believe it is a moral question, and one we should have all been asking with that degree of clarity.  But, even though it may already be too late, I wish there would have been a better way.  Not for the Republicans or the Democrats, but for a nation that needs to find a way to heal wounds that are more than just physical at this point.

I’m tired.  I’ve listened, fought, and tried to understand over this issue.  I know that I’ve managed to alienate my friends on the left and on the right, and it makes me quiet and feel sick.  I’ve seen hatred and a country dividing itself.  What makes me sad is a conviction deep inside wondering if it was all necessary, and the unshakable feeling that it wasn’t.  I blame everyone and blame no one, but I hope one thing:  I hope that whatever else this bill does, if it passes, and survives the numerous parliamentary, constitutional, and state obstacles, that people get the help they need.

More than ever, our failing as our nation isn’t our government.  It’s that we can’t solve our own problems anymore, and this was a big one that we just punted.  That’s the saddest thing of all to me.  This never should have become the problem that it is.
 
 
Answering questions is easy. Solving problems is hard. In many successful campaigns, the candidate who wins is the one who frames the issues such that their answers appear as the obvious and popular solutions to the problems. The issue can be terrorism, jobs, taxes, health care, or whatever, but they pick somewhere they can win, and basically say “I understand and he doesn't.” And they often win.

But how many problems do we leave unsolved because they are too hard? I am not the sort of person who can look away from big issues because they are hard to resolve, or because they don't fit easily into my ideology, or because they might cost me votes. But, they are hard for a reason, and sometimes, there are no clear answers.

I've been looking hard at poverty. Sometimes, we tell ourselves as a society that this is a personal and moral issue. It is the deficiency of people who refuse to work, who choose an alternative life, and we cede any jurisdiction over that with the easily defensible position that any individual can succeed. We know this to be true, and celebrate the success stories that are there, but what of those who do not?

I wish things were so simple. They aren't. We live in a society where there is more wealth than ever before, but where the disparities continue to grow greater. Forget the stereotype image of a leech milking the system for one moment, and instead think of the person who only has limited education trying to make a living on under ten dollars per hour. This is a person willing to work, let's say, who suffered through a substandard education system, might have had only one parent, and I wonder what their future holds. Not too good.

Take a poor urban neighborhood. Housing is depressed, where many people live in places surrounded by all sorts of crime, violence, and drug abuse. Families are haphazard in their existence. Schools are known more for their security than their academics. Decent jobs are hard to find because private capital has gone where the money is: the suburbs. Compare that with the background of someone you might know, who went to a decent school, who had a two parent family, and the opportunity to go to college and compete. Is it surprising the results are so different?

I understand there are those who would say it is not their responsibility what happens to others. I get that. And it is true that not one of us as individuals caused this. But each of us pays every day the costs of these failures. We pay in the programs that subsidize poverty by the Federal Government and that offer no real solutions. We pay in the crime and violence that exists, or the many people jailed at government expense. We pay in the cost of our society, where we find ourselves with a truth that is sickening: Is an American Dream where someone who works hard and wants better for their children now impossible for some? Is it?

You could argue that it is a cultural matter. I agree with that. I think that exists now and will continue to exist. If we sit back, say nothing, and simply say people in these situations bring this on themselves, they will continue to think that. They will continue voting for the people willing to talk to them, who argue that a big nanny state is needed, because at least they care. We need to offer a better alternative.

You all know how much I believe in limited government, specifically because I know government is a corrupting agent that accumulates power to itself. Few have done more to promote the idea that we should rollback our state apparatus. But when the government itself has created what are basically ghettos, holes where private capital will not go, where communities have become lost, I think we must find a way to help them reclaim themselves or our society will not survive. If that means local government has to become involved, I think it should. As much as we all deserve to be treated and judged as individuals, America needs to get past old divisions and unite under a cultural and governmental understanding based on responsibility, liberty, and community.

People are real. Suffering is real. And hope seems illusory. Obama won because he spoke to that. As much as anyone, I've painted a caricature of that, but the support that elected him (and that I think is now abandoning him in many ways) did so because they have real problems and real hopes. His call was that government would solve these. It cannot and will not. But maybe, those of us out there who care and who respect individuals, we can find a way to help people who are lost find respect for themselves.

Part of it means taking a hard look at our own beliefs. We celebrate capitalism, and the choices of a free market. What does it mean when we lose jobs here because other countries pay slave wages for their labor? Are the cheap goods worth this price? We don't want a set wage, but we know people work jobs at a rate at which no one could possibly live without subsidy? Do we accept that? Employers will have employees work 40+ hours per week but still list them as part-time for their bottom line. Is that something we should support? How much leeway do we give business over the worker, money over labor, power over those who have to follow?

I don't have the answer. I think about it for hours. I am long since past being an ideologue because I've seen too much. Empathy will do this to you. But, I think that any time that any person, institution, or entity has too much power over anyone else, that is when tyranny results. Whether it is government mandating programs that the people don't want, or whether it is businesses manipulating employees with no other choice, the fundamental question is one of justice and fairness.

And so I leave with this question that I hope everyone thinks about: What sort of society do we want to be? What future do you envision?  For myself, I tend to think that if it is one worth building, it will have to be one where everyone has a real chance to succeed, where work has d and purpose, and where we use our liberty as individuals to show our responsibility to one another.

 
 
Being a historian gives you a different perspective on things than many other observers.  We often celebrate our past, wrap it in symbols and glory, but do we understand it?

America was a nation founded on act of sedition, a choice of violence, and many years of armed conflict between citizens and the government which claimed to represent them.  Where we know George Washington as the founder of our nation, history might have easily remembered him as a traitor to the Crown in the Royal Colonies of America.  Had the British won, this would have been true.

When you pause and think about that, it really makes you have to consider what is right and what is wrong.  I think each person has to find that answer for themselves, but what I know I cannot accept is blind loyalty to any nation, party, or ideal.  We are rational people with rational minds, and must always reserve to ourselves the choice for how we would live, and what we will and will not accept.

I am neither an extremist nor a zealot by nature, but as the state encroaches further on the liberties of all men, I know that violence can only escalate as people seek to defend the right to make choices that are being taken from them.  This is the ground of conflict for this next generation:  liberty vs. security.

The sooner we realize that the old left/right paradigm no longer applies, the better we will be served.  The choice is whether or not we will seek to have a state that handles all of our needs at the price of individual liberty, or whether we will embrace liberty with the cost being inequity that is inevitable.  Intelligent people can make arguments for either, but as people feel that they are either losing or being deprived of basic rights, anger will rise and so too will even greater polarization.

This is what history suggests is happening in America today, and though no future outcome is certain for good or for ill, we should all make the effort to be aware of what we support and what we want our future to look like.  We create that through our actions and what we are willing to do today.  The time to get involved is now, while it is a matter of choice, and while words and actions can still accomplish much.
 
 
These are going to be the colors for my brother's forthcoming wedding (Congratulations, James!), but that isn't why I'm sharing them tonight.  After looking over what was said at the State of the Union Address last night, it has me thinking about what I think should happen.  Here's my tri-color strategy for improving America with our current government.

White:  We start with a blank slate, taking all the bills pending off the table as America neither wants nor can afford them.  The issues remain salient, but anything that will be passed will require real communication involving both parties as well as the people themselves.  Call it a white flag of truce or surrender, but there is something better to be found, and I know this Congress lacks the resolve now to carry forward with anything discussed previously.

Green:  People need more green in their pockets, and since we have an administration that is committed to being involved, why not involve one of their favorite items:  green technologies.  Use green technologies to upgrade the national infrastructure, revitalize our industry, and create both blue collar and white collar jobs so people can have some green in their pocket.  Wall Street does not create wealth.  Jobs, small businesses, and factories do.

Black:  After spending to create jobs, focus on getting this nation into the black.  Now that the debt ceiling is about to rise to $14.1 trillion dollars, we absolutely must get this down or America will be bankrupt.  This is not a partisan issue; it is a national security issue.  Cut all other spending and allocate toward debt reduction.

This isn't what I think will happen, but if Congress and the President had vision and a willingness to work together for the good of America, this is the best I can imagine they could accomplish together.
 
 
I read an interesting article in the Financial Times today talking about the new role of America in the world.  Countries that are nominal democracies such as India and Brazil gladly line up with China as partners, looking for something different than they once did.  I am not so naive to believe international politics is about anything more than power, but when you look at the geopolitical situation, and bring it back home, you have to wonder.

America has spent much blood and treasure in the world.  Some of the motives were pure, some were not.  But in sum, for all the missteps, we created a world where the idea of freedom was possible and desired.  We have an idea where people would prosper in liberty rather than toil under authority.  Even now, we find that battle happens daily under our own shores as we have a government that seems more concerned with the interests of the few rather than the benefit of the many.  But, I ask now, what would we become as Americans?

I have a vision of a nation that finds prosperity through liberty.  Democracy means nothing where people don't have the chance to think and decide things on their own freely.  We have celebrated that ideal for too long, not recognizing that democracy without the idea of individual freedom is just a rubber stamp for mob rule.  I am not claiming any country is that, but I also know democracy alone will not make the world safer or better.

We live in a dangerous world, and to pretend otherwise is folly.  America, for our benefit, security, and our own people must look to its own.  That we depend on other nations for so much of our resources and industry is a threat to our security.  Moreover, it is foolish.  We have people here who want to work, who are industrious and willing, and ample natural resources to produce for all our needs and be the great traders of the world.  What we lack is leadership that shows the vision how we can take those resources, take our very best beliefs, and build a future both prosperous and just.

It is not the responsibility of one man, one party, one government, or one state to do this.  Instead, I think of this as our mission to share together, where we can find and create the America of our imagination.  There is no other place in the world that can do this, or desires to do this.  They would have wealth, but what about justice?  They would equality, but what about plenty?  What about the individual?

It is this conflict that will define this decade, and this century.  Will humanity chart a course whereby we choose to become a social organism, sublimating our desires and skills to some larger created purpose by a fortunate elite?  Or, will we choose freedom, ushering in an era where the innovations we create serve to allow each man, woman, and child, a chance to better their lives?

The world seems to be making their choice.  We must begin making ours.  Liberty or security?
 
 
I make it a point to read different sources.  Some are from different viewpoints ideologically, some are from different nations, and some are just plain different.  But, I note a recurring theme in some quarters that questions how America can make decisions without regard for what the rest of the world (and by this, I really think this means more their governments than their people) think.  My answer is:  Easily.

I am someone who enjoys communicating and sharing ideas.  I think it is a great thing to work with others, to find common ground, and to realize that there is a shared investment in our future.  After all, we are one species, and our success will ultimately be measured by that same standard.  But for all that, it doesn't mean we should compromise core beliefs for the purposes of being agreeable.

You can either have a system rooted in principle or in consensus.  America, for better or worse, has stood strong based upon clear and easy to understand laws, designed to protect liberty, with respect for the individual, and that cherishes that.  In contrast, consensus seeks to deny the rights of the individual when they interfere with some social good.  They ask sacrifice, but I think we as a people, must choose individually where and when that is warranted.

If every nation on Earth wanted to come together, under no other protection that a well-intentioned bureaucracy, I would work more tirelessly to make sure America remained apart.  We must stand for beliefs, and stand for a simple and enduring hope:  that we are individuals, and will not be treated as anything else.

We will work with others.  We will lead.  Sometimes, we will follow.  But we will do so on our terms, not because we're better than anyone else, but because we believe that what you believe is always more important than who you partner with.  It is why we, as a nation, were first to help the nations rebuild that fought against us.  We are all people, but how we choose to live, that is what makes us American.

There are those who will never understand this and who will denounce us as simplistic and arrogant.  Let us hope we never count ourselves among them, or I fear no nation will stand up for the rights of the few against the dominance of the many or the powerful.
 
 
Having been to more than my fair share of political gatherings over the year, I've heard the lament:  "If only people made decisions based on ideas, the world would be a better place" at least a thousand times.  But it made me wonder...

Throughout history, people have defined themselves in many ways.  The most basic unit is the family, and then the town, and then eventually the nation, but it was always grounded in some concrete relationship.  Whether the binds be the red of blood or the green of the earth, there was something physical that transcended all people and was all inclusive (or at least, had the potential to be such).  Tribal identity, if you want to call it that, was predictable in that it brought people together to some social norm and some set of common expectations.

Functionally, it is hard to imagine there was a previous alternative as people needed to work together for their survival, against the elements, against other predators, and against one another.  Specialization of labor results, but people still bought into the idea of a shared identity, based on location and need.  While there were communities based on ideas (the most prominent of which were religious), these were largely isolated and existed outside the state, and found themselves being integrated more often than not.  Also worth noting is that these were often as compulsory as the state itself.

Today, we have something different happening.  Thanks to technology and the advent of the internet, our social groups are changing.  We now can build communities based on ideas and identities we choose that transcend borders.  Our physical needs being met much more easily, I wonder what it means for civilization when we can so easily choose just to associate with those who share something in common with us.

Can you imagine a new future where classes aren't economic, but simply societal?  The nerds, geeks, jocks, drama people, and all the groups that exist in high school never having to blend, never having to find some center.  Imagine politically, a nation divided house by house into two worlds with different ends and in contempt of one another.  Not knowing each other, not caring, and feeling justified in their righteousness.  And in absolute freedom, could there be absolute chaos?

I don't know.  It frightens me.  Without a sense of social responsibility (which I freely admit is cultivated), I could imagine that.  The sort of elitism that pervades groups set apart (which I know too well from my own education and some of the people I met) could easily become a dividing trait hidden beneath the veneer of an all-encompassing individualist ethic.

I don't have an answer for this, but I have a suggestion.  Read something that you disagree with, not to change your mind, but so that you can understand a more basic truth:  what unites us is greater than what divides us.
 
 
One of the recurring challenges that I face in my efforts to organize politically is that many of the people with whom I associate are proud individualists.  I find this makes for many interesting personalities, and I respect and embrace that the idea of liberty encourages us to each seek our own path.  I enjoy meeting people who have their own reasons for doing things, but sometimes, it makes it harder to work together.

One of the big questions that we face, though we rarely phrase it as clearly as this is whether or not we should be more concerned with individual rights or collective needs.  We don't exist in either extreme in most cases, but I've learned that one reason why people on the left tend to be able to pull people together better is because they naturally accept the idea of banding together for a cause, for a mutual benefit that is not always congruent with each person involved.

I'm not a collectivist.  I understand the mentality that you need to be aware of everyone, and what is happening to them, but I cannot get past the idea that it is up to people take responsibility for themselves as much as possible.  Most of the people I know feel the same way.  The problem is that this leads to people thinking that if we just let people do their own things, situations get resolved.  It isn't like that.

Sometimes, you need organization and teamwork.  Sometimes, you need to work collectively to achieve goals.  I spend hours each day working at this question of how we get people working on the same page, people who are happy to do their own thing, realizing that unless we use our abilities in at least some common pursuits, we can work as hard or as much as we want, and we will find laws come into being that simply force policies we don't like because we were too busy being ourselves.