EZE DIRECTORY

Article Word Count : 686

The recent midterm election has certainly passed with some interesting results. The Democrats, against the odds, took control of both houses of congress. However, the results of many bills have come up as a mixed bag of conservative and liberal choices by the voters. This almost ambivalent passage of bills may also be backed up by the sorts of people who were elected in this general election. While the Democrats have won this battle, it was the social conservatives of their party that took the day. And if you’re wondering how one can be both a liberal and a social conservative at the same time, you may not be alone.

Six states passed bills to raise the minimum wage, among them Colorado. Arizona rejected a ban on gay marriage while at the same time seven other states including Virginia and Wisconsin passed such bans by amending the definition of marriage. Once again Colorado was in this group, passing the marriage amendment and failing one that would have given certain civil rights to gay couples. South Dakota voters rejected a ban on abortions. And by the end of the day, any question as to the moral standing as an indicator of votes remains ambiguous.

The fact that various fiscally liberal bills passed while while socially liberal bills failed does correlate with the election results for new representatives. I personally question the meaning of these results. In my opinion this seems to create a picture of America heading toward economically supporting and possibly creating more social programs, but only for certain segments of the population. We are willing to spend more money for those people that fit the correct moral mold that we have created. I find that to be a dangerous position.

I have written previously (Home of the Free? http://www.sustainabledemocracy.org/?p=8) about social rights and the welfare of citizens. I do not believe it to be in the good conscious of our nation to let moral issues dictate legislation. A nation is not in any way morally bankrupt if it makes decisions from a rational utilitarian standpoint. And for those who believe that we must decide on policy based on Christian doctrine because of our governments basis on those values, you should read the Treaty of Tripoli (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html) for a refresher on the ideas of the Founding Fathers. It is as we begin to develop our laws alongside dogma that we lose both sight of the law and the intent of religious dogma as a personal rather than governmental guide.

We cannot stand apart from the view that we believe the governments of Muslim states to be against democracy because they follow religious dictates and then propose that our own laws do the same with impunity. A compass that points south at noon and north at midnight is certainly not a useful tool. In the future this must certainly be considered if we wish to remain as the keynote speaker among nations for democracy.

Will this midterm election make a difference? It has set a tone for the rest of the time the Bush administration has left. If you side with or against the president, there is absolutely no clear guide as to how these two final years will go, even if his party is not the current congressional heavyweight. These will be times in which the political battles should be watched very closely, especially if one wishes to ensure that political infighting and partisan divisions do not create a system in which our democracy becomes an untenable contradiction of programs, policies, and terms.



Chris Schaffer graduated with his BA in psychology from Mesa State College in 2006. He is the founder of the Sustainable Democracy website and movement.

View their website at: http://www.SustainableDemocracy.org

Article Source: EZEDIR.COM