As readers of this blog already know, I am a political independent. I do not belong to any political party and, during my nearly 30 years of voting, I have voted for candidates from both major parties, as well as for 3rd party candidates. There are several reasons for this. First, I view both major parties as two sides of the same corrupt coin, more concerned with doing whatever they can to remain office and do the bidding of their high dollar donors rather than actually tackling any real problems that exist in the country. But beyond that, I consider myself a political independent - or a political agnostic, if you will - because my own beliefs don't fit nicely into the purported political dogmas of either of the two major parties.
Consider, for example, taxes. In general, I believe that lower taxes on both individuals and companies are better. When individuals pay less in taxes, it provides them more money to spend on consumer goods, housing, travel, education and other items that help support the economy. I believe that individuals know better how to spend the money they make than does the government. I also do not believe that forcing wealthier individuals to pay more taxes is the answer. Why should people who are more successful or who have more money be penalized for that success? From that standpoint, I am generally a fiscal conservative. I also believe that all people should be taxes - yes, even those who do not make very much money. With regard to corporate taxes, I believe that less money paid in taxes by companies affords them to the opportunity to invest more in research and development and possibly higher compensation for employees. However, I also do not believe that federal, state and local governments should give tax breaks to companies. Doing so is the equivalent of the government picking winners and losers and my opinion is that the government should stay out of business and certainly not be putting its sizable thumb on the scales of some companies but not others. Companies should survive and thrive on their own merits and not because they were able to cut a sweeter deal with the government. From that standpoint, I'm probably a little less of a fiscal conservative and perhaps a little further toward the left of center.
Another topic is abortion. I abhor abortion and would love to see a world where abortion doesn't exist. However, I think the answer to that isn't outlawing abortion or preaching abstinence alone. Rather, I think answer is improving access to contraception and birth control, as well as improved medical care of women and men alike. If we can focus on improved access to these things, we have a 100% of reducing the number of abortions in this country without imposing new stringent laws or penalties. Abstinence should be the ideal but we also have to be realistic. If 0 abortions is your goal and these things can get you closer to that goal, shouldn't every so-called "pro-life" person be in favor of those steps? But yet, we often see these same people railing against these same solutions. So, I'm pro-life but perhaps not in the manner some Republicans desire.
Also, let's look at the other side of the "pro-life" ledger: capital punishment. It never ceases to amaze me when people who are adamantly pro-life when it comes to abortion but who are, at the same time, very much in favor of the death penalty. If you truly believe the commandment that "thou shalt not kill," how can you be okay with capital punishment? Government-sanctioned killing is government-sanctioned killing, whether we're talking about a fetus or a convicted felon. My position on this issue is generally closer to the Democratic position than the Republican viewpoint.
Yet another hot button issue is that of gay marriage. On this topic, I take a "live and let live" approach. If two consenting adults are in love and wish to spend their lives together, who am I to interfere? I don't believe the government shouldn't interfere, either. Honestly, I'm not sure how the government got involved in "marriage" in the first place. Here's my solution: get government out of the "marriage" business altogether. Instead, the states should offer "civil partnership" licenses to the aforementioned consenting adults, regardless of whether it is to heterosexual or homosexual couples. These civil partnerships would be legal partnerships with inheritance rights akin to marriages now. Then, it would be up to the couple if they want to get "married" in a religious ceremony or if they just want to go down to the county courthouse. There would be no difference whether they did or did not. It's a legal partnership between two adults with the same benefits regardless of the sexual orientation or gender of those entering into said partnership.
Minimum wage is another area of disagreement among many people. There have been highly publicized marches and demonstrations demanding that minimum wage be raised to $15 per hour. I think such an idea is a bad one. Raising low skill, entry level wages to that level will result in fewer employees (automation has already popped up in some fast food establishments in the form of order kiosks instead of human beings) and higher prices, which will only serve to water down the value of those increased earnings by the employees who get them. Do I think that people can survive on minimum wage of $7.25 or $8 an hour? No, I don't. But I also don't think people are SUPPOSED to be able to survive on minimum wage. It is intended for entry level jobs and people who work hard and apply themselves in their jobs should be able to move up from that fairly quickly. If not, they should find another job that will provide better pay and benefits. Another viewpoint - do the sometimes lazy, disinterested people who you see working in fast food (for example) - you know, the guy rang up mustard and pickles on your cheeseburger even when you clearly said you wanted it plain - really DESERVE to make $15 an hour? Do we really think that they are going to suddenly be better at their jobs if they make a handful more dollars an hour? I think not. So, for the most part, I'm on the right end of the spectrum with regard to minimum wage.
Finally, we have the topic of healthcare. This is arguably the most difficult of all of the above topics. First of all, it's clear that the American healthcare system is broken. When even gainfully employed people with very good jobs have to fret over affording healthcare, it is clear we have issues. The question is how do we solve these issues? Is healthcare a right or is it a privilege? I struggle with this topic because I think people should be able to visit a doctor and get healthcare with as little hassle as possible. However, I'm not exactly comfortable with putting government in charge of administering our healthcare system. If there's anything government has shown us over the years, it's that the massive bureaucracy does very little very well and typically does almost everything it does poorly. However, every other industrialized nation on earth provides universal healthcare and many of them have better overall healthcare and life expectancies than we have in the U.S. I'm very fortunate to have a job that provides good benefits at a below market rate, in terms of the premiums I pay. Would I be willing to pay significantly more than I do now to ensure that everyone in the country has healthcare? No, probably not. I know that sounds like a terrible, selfish answer but it's also an honest answer. So, in general, I'm on the right side of middle on healthcare while also acknowledging that it is a bad thing that many of our fellow Americans either have no access to healthcare or the access they have is prohibitively expensive. There has to be some sort of a reasonable solution to this issue, but so far, neither party has really come up with such a solution.
Intelligent people can disagree with one's position on any or all of these topics. That's okay. But the key is to try to understand the position of those with whom you disagree and to try to find some common ground. From that common ground, we should be able to start chipping away at solutions to some of these issues. But, in our current political environment, compromise is seen as a dirty word and our elected officials have no desire to actually work with people across the aisle to solve anything. This is true of representatives from BOTH parties and it's way I remain a political agnostic.
Thanks for reading.
