Idealogue
I*de"a*logue\, n. [Idea + logue, as in theologue: cf. F.id['e]ologue.] One given to fanciful ideas or theories; a theorist; a spectator. [R.] --Mrs. Browning
Following a link to another page, I found this on Answers.com:
A person who zealously advocates a particular idea, concept, theory or ideology.
Perhaps President Obama is an idealogue with respect to certain topics. However, his actions prove him to be anything except an idealogue in terms of health care and the environment. He has, with the aid of a Democrat-majority legislature, a health-care bill that was the Repugnicans' proposal during Bill Clinton's presidency. Obama has also taken the road of getting done what can be done, taking, proverbially, the ham sandwich in lieu of the whole hog. He has given in tremendously to the BEP (defined below).
The Repugnicans are what used to be the Grand Old Party, but has become, in recent years, the Block Everything Party. Vocal Repugnicans exhibit their religious zealotry with each bill they introduce. For example, State Senator Richard Ross, from Massachusetts (of all places!), introduced a bill that takes away a woman's freedom of free association if she files for divorce, giving her would-be ex-husband the power to decide whether she may copulate with someone else, even though theirs is already a failed relationship. This kind of preaching by Repugnicans makes that party less and less popular among the general public, which is surprising if, indeed, half the voting public is made up of Repugnicans themselves. Perhaps they are ashamed but will not speak openly against their own leaders. Well, they ought to be ashamed. But voting is private for the protection of everyone, which includes those who agree with my point of view as well as those who disagree, so I'll continue to support their right to continue to do so, as long as their attitudes are well-informed. However, it appears that most American (public) opinions are formed without vital information.
I know I likely am an idealogue with respect to the environment, though I recognize that, as an idealogue, I am, therefore, a hypocrite, because although I understand the high social and environmental costs of some of my actions, I go through with them, anyway, for personal reasons. I do, however, try to minimize my carbon footprint (see earlier post), and conserve resources where I can. I know it's a drop in the proverbial bucket, but I'd like to think that those drops add up.
Do not take me for a Bleeding Heart Democrat. I believe in the private ownership of firearms, but I also believe in the permitting of weapons and background checks, and would support legislation requiring the public registration of all firearm owners. I believe in maintaining a small government, which is why I know there is no logical place for the government to insert itself into private, personal, often heart-wrenching healthcare decisions made by women. I just don't understand how religious zealots (and are not all religionists zealots?) can justify the insertion (this word is used with full knowledge) of government into private decisions when they also claim to value the preservation of freedom. Whose freedom are they protecting? The patriarchy, apparently.
Hearing about the clear violation of the Constitution in the recent Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision makes my blood boil, as it ought to for more than half of the U.S. population. Polarization within the government, there is, but neither of the two recognized major political parties within the U.S. government is "liberal" in the true sense of the word. Democrats have shifted their center towards Conservatism. This is opposed to Conservationism, which is, as a personal and public value, something everyone with a working brain can and should advocate. Democrats are trying to claim religious (specifically, christian) ground in order to claim that they have an acceptable (read: legitimate) source of morals.
If we were not such a country of physically, emotionally, and socially comfortable, selfish people who care more for self-aggrandizement than the health of the general public, we'd enact laws that tax people according to their abuse of public goods. People who insist on increasing the human population beyond the scientifically-defined population stabilization rate ought to pay for that privilege. Yes, it is a privilege, not a right. Your privilege ends where it steps on my rights not to have to support a burgeoning population.
I do not mean this as a classist argument: many people in the upper economic tiers of this country are not genetically superior to the rest of the population. There are so many factors that feed into economic success (or failure) in our society that genetics are, for all intents and purposes, meaningless. Women who live in poverty (or very near poverty) and choose to conceive and bear children (and I understand this may disproportionately affect racial/ethnic minorities) ought to call on their partners (or, if not partners, at least the men who impregnated them) to pay, at least economically, their fair share for the upkeep of their progeny.
At the same time, we ought to raise the status of responsible parenthood, because it is a tough job. Anyone (read: genetically defined woman) can conceive and bear a child. Not everybody can and would be a responsible parent. Parenthood ought to be limited to those who can and want to take on that responsibility. Yes, it's demanding. I know this because, even though I only have the experience of raising a single child, I understand that there are issues raised, with any number of children, which are irrelevant to the childless. Children are a social investment of the most precious kind. We ought to value them as such, and treat them as such, as well. The way children (expressed through the salaries of public schoolteachers) are treated, one would think that they were not an investment, but rather just a drain on social resources. A minority are, and will continue to be, until their dying day (I'll get on that topic in another post), but many, indeed, a majority, grow up to take, if not essential, at least valued jobs and roles in our society.
The Repugnicans keep blaming President Obama for the failures of his immediate predecessor. It is time for them to own up to their own role (for many have been in office long enough to have seen the previous Repugnican-majority legislation) in the ripping of the social fabric and do their best to mend it and move society forward.
No comments:
Post a Comment