I hate you, you hate me, we're a happy fam-i-ly?

 I saw on Friday where Texas Governor Rick Perry used his veto pen to kill a new law that would've made texting while driving in Texas a crime. Governor Perry said texting while driving "is reckless and irresponsible" but that he saw the bill as "a government effort to micromanage the behavior of adults." It was co-sponsored by two Republican legislators, so its hard to cry some sort of partisan foul has occurred. Gov. Perry just thinks that adults should be left to their own judgement with regard to texting while driving. He doesn't condone it, yet won't permit a law making it illegal. Its not the correct role of Government to formally weigh in on this, according to the Governor of Texas. I happen to disagree with Gov. Perry. I've heard others on the Left say some pretty outrageous things about Perry for not signing this into law. Rather than consider that Gov. Perry is quite within his powers to veto such Bills, he's ridiculed as a nutjob. He's anything but. The comments are uncalled for and do nothing to advance the debate about the risks of texting while driving in Texas.


 Reasonable people can agree there are limits to the role that Government should play in our lives. It is, perhaps with the possible exception of the economy, the largest fundamental issue voters may be considering when they vote in the next Presidential Election in November, 2012. Many feel the Federal Government should be reduced in size, to more closely resemble the scope of Government the founding fathers held. Our 16th President, Abraham Lincoln said, " we should do together (via a Federal government) what we cannot do or do so well for ourselves." Typically, Conservatives feel that meant a national army, an organised system of national highways to facilitate transportation and commerce, etc. It never meant Federal agencies involving themselves in the protection of our environment, educating our youth, providing health care on a national level, space exploration, etc. 


 The rhetoric of the last three years or so has become super-heated. People that supported programs protecting the environment, education, health care, space exploration, etc. in decades past were rarely called Socialists by a meaningful percentage of Americans. Yes, there has always been an element to the extremes that engaged in labeling the mainstream something other than it was. But, its just that...the mainstream of people's opinions. Was it a fringe element that put us into the space program? No. Were there protests in the streets against the race to the heavens? No, there weren't. Nor was there much significant outrage toward the EPA, government's involvement in education or providing health care to those oldest and poorest among us. There was some, but it clearly didn't carry the day. Now, people who support such Federal programs and Departments are often the sworn enemy, in some minds, of the United States of America. In the 1990, the controversial "Individual Mandate" requiring every citizen to acquire health insurance was the chosen strategy by the GOP to defeat the Clinton's health care reform plans. Now, its code-speak for a "Socialist" program that will eat away at our God given rights. If Medicare is really a Socialist program as former President Reagan told us it was in 1961, why haven't the good people of the USA voted to get rid of it? Have they been tricked? Duped? Or, has it actually helped many and earned respect over the years?


 It (the political process) has changed from a reasonably polite differing of paths forward to a fundamental battle between good and evil. The "good side" is whatever ideology we feel resonates most closely with our own. The "bad guys" subscribe to a group of ideas NOT found within our hearts and minds. The middle ground of compromise is eroding away at an alarming rate. While the winners assume office, the losers no longer fade away back into their previous careers and small towns. They all too often secure a job with a sympathetic cable news network and offer up ad hominen attacks on the people now trying to serve the people. 


 As witnessed by the last mid terms, when the Country wishes to effect a change on Washington, it knows how to do that. 


 Its very disturbing to me how nasty the rhetoric has become. I do not think its a partisan issue as I think there was just as strong an anti-George Bush flurry of hate speech, insults and name calling as we see today towards Barack Obama. What began as a fairly civil debate in our Congress 230+ years ago has degenerated into a two way battle of demonization. As a result of the toxic campaign advertising and equally toxic talk radio blabber from both sides, we now position our Country to see one of two outcomes. If "our" side wins, Good has prevailed. If "our" side loses, then we've lost our Country, Freedoms and Liberties to the "evil-doers."



 I suggest its going to cause long term damage to our national interests if we persist with this polarization of our political process. If the more inflammatory remarks during the long Presidential campaign are mostly a device to win an election, it positions us after the election to reject coming together under common goals. How does 40% of the voting electorate go from despising and fearing the opponents on Election Day to opening their arms the day after? The act of unification is feigned. The rhetoric may be toned down, but only for a while as there's the Mid terms in two years to begin to undo whatever progress the "other side" has achieved. So it ramps up again. And again. And again. 


 Make no mistake, politics has always been a contact sport. Most Presidential campaigns are rough. A difference I think is that technology today adds an immediacy to what is said. We not only see it and hear it almost in real time, we see the most sensational lines played over and over and over again. The drone of the incendiary comments dulls our collective senses and we begin to want something more heated, more personal, more attacking to the opponent we dislike. Its not intellectual. Its visceral. Its a feeling of a mob that we want to belong to. If Santorum decides to pass on the chance to further attack Romney as in the debate last week, he's immediately criticized by all sides as weak. Which then perhaps compels him to respond more vigorously later last week when Romney chose to not sign a "Pro Life Pledge." Now, Romney must respond and vice versa. 


Is this the best we can do? Or, rather, is this really what we want every election cycle? 




Sources: 


http://www.statesman.com/news/texas-politics/perry-vetoes-texting-while-driving-ban-22-other-1547116.html

http://www.ycdemocrats.org/node/143

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2011/06/18/romney-rejects-pro-life-pledge-flawed