For the massesSubmitted by ClydeBarberVotesRP on Mon, 05/21/2012 - 13:58
Culture is our only hope
Priorities are how we achieve culture.
So what should your priorities be?
First to your morals, which could come from either god or family.
Although at first this sounds like a surface issue, in reality, this makes up the entire public domain known as politics. If you as a person put your morals first, weighed the short term, and long term effects of any policy, you will find that the simplest answer is usually the more correct answer.
Take for instance the implementation of Planned Parenthood. The short term effects of this is that a special group of people’s are subsidized because of a general behavior, at the cost of everybody else in the given society, which is the united states, obviously. If first, we would consider the moral implications of taking from a hole group to give to the special group, how this could intern effect your family, then the country, lastly how this effects the party, I don’t think PP would have gotten as much support. If the billed were named “Federal subsidized abortions and contraception” I do not believe this would garner as much support.
At the same time this philosophical view of economics can be applied to policies such as military actions taken in Germany, if we first thought of the moral implications of garnishing a countries sovereignty, how this could intern effect family members in the military, what the effects could be on the country then lastly the effects of a party, I think this country would have a different view on military action around the world.
Finally, this argument holds true to voting. When analyzing the men to lead our country I think we should start thinking first on the moral implications of the actions one could make, given that no longer is the executive branch bound the constitutional law of which once bound many of presidents. Is this man going to be tempted to start a war, because where in the past the congress could restrict a president, now any president can declare war for years, like in Syria and Lybia, without any regard to the constitutional law. Next we must think of how this man is going to affect our home life, and our family. Will there be an incentive to help the average joe, or is the incentive found in wall street, do they determine productivity based on the household or the stock market, if the latter holds true, god help us. Next what can this man do for the country, I would argue the premise should be framed around the countries needs derived not from previous economic policy but from the areas in which are losing capital consistently, this would not be the banks and the big business often so quickly to be bailed out, but the general foreman who could use one extra worker but can not afford it because the taxes and healthcare on the worker would be too much of an overhead, the kind of economic policies are often overlooked because of the short term effects this decision has on the party, then the country, and not the morality towards the foreman. Lastly is party, because the party is most insignificant constituency of all, although it seems drilled in our head to follow the party line, I feel, priorities must first be considered before the “party line” can be followed. If the party in itself concludes that it will be represented in a moral obligation that counters your morals, it is then that only the ex-patriot can accept the tenets of that party. If this moral obligation were not followed before the party, we would have never become a country, the whig party would have forever held their ground, the republican party would have never been founded by Lincoln and the left right paradigm we know and love today could have never came into existence. Heed my warning.