I was going to write this earlier in the fall but waited because this needed to be received in a less charged atmosphere.
I thought if I waited, Republicans as well as Democrats would be less reactionary and less likely to dismiss my contemplations as being motivated by partisan rhetoric.
Neither party has a monopoly on principles, but what I witnessed this fall was a Republican Party that betrayed our collective security to win an election.
They did not win.
But to dismissively refer to the simple act of losing an election as a consequence for such deceitfulness only continues the fevered antipathy showed for this electorate by the sheep that followed paid GOP strategists down the Palin highway.
An open dialogue regarding this is essential if we hope to continue referring to our system as the worlds most evolved democracy.
If concerned about the future in a country that historically speaking may be nothing more than an experiment in progressive politics, then check your emotions and consider what troubled many citizens this past fall.
Both sides have their party hacks who will vote based on a historical notion that one or another party articulates their views.
That’s dangerous and objectionable, hence the title of this piece. The other evening some friends of my in-laws were quick to brand me a liberal Democrat, because I suggested that John McCain lost my confidence vote when he chose Sarah Palin to co represent the Republican Party.
Their jump to categorize me as well as their assertion that they “like” Palin points to the divisiveness many have cultivated in our two party system.
I don’t consider myself a liberal or a Democrat, conservative or Republican.These convenient labels lack any descriptive power.
I wanted John McCain to earn my vote; turns out the John McCain I knew sold out his integrity when Republican strategists suggested it was the way to gain votes.
Who am I politically? You tell me. I own guns. I’ve spent the past fifteen years in places like Bosnia, Rwanda, Cambodia, Sri Lanka and Sudan; consequently I don’t trust the human experience enough that I don’t fully support our need to be the militarily sharpest nation on earth.
I would like to see the smallest government possible and accordingly the lowest tax’s possible.
I would support the death penalty if I knew that we were killing the right people. And I feel that any government that has the time to prioritize and undermine decisions I should make within my family is a government that’s too big and beyond arrogant.
While the Palin trick may have pulled in some easy votes it was hardly a strategy that had national interests in mind.
It became clear that she doesn’t read, could not name the countries that comprise NAFTA and that she feels states that support her agenda are more American than those that don’t.
Can anyone argue she was remotely qualified for the world’s highest office? I argue that placing such an obviously under qualified individual in the possible position of leading this country just to grab a few votes is an act of treason. Consider it.
For the record, I’ve never been so optimistic following an election but I remain unaffiliated and will continue to look for inspiration in American politics that transcend party affiliation.
Richard S. Kaplan (richardkaplan2@msn.com) lives in Poudre Canyon with his wife and five-year-old daughter Alexandria Ru Xi. He is currently doing research and writing on civil unrest and security for NGO’s operating in failing states.
EDITOR’S NOTE: This is an online-only column and has not been edited.
