Politics Is a Dirty Word
Man is inherently a political animal. In his interactions with others, politics, or the art of persuasion, always comes into play. Politics are as complex as man's thought. Each different person has their own political philosophy. Sometimes that philosophy corresponds with an established political thinking as set down in the constitution of a political party that seeks or has representation in the different forms of government. Sometimes that philosophy is similar, but not completely compatible with an established political party. Other times, it's a political party in itself with its only member the person who has thought and created that particular philosophy.
I have had an established political philosophy since I was a child. I was always interested in the world around me, and I always noticed that life was unfair; some suffered for no reason while others lived a fairy tale life. When I was eleven, I decided I was more of a Democrat than a Republican, according to the principles each party expounded in the 1980 presidential election. Yet I could not have voted for the candidacy of Jimmy Carter because I didn't agree with his platform, and wished I was eighteen so I could vote for the Independent, John Anderson. Reagan's proposal to increase defense spending by billions of dollars seemed to me obscene with so many people in need of help to be able to pay their rent or eat. I considered myself a true, left-of-center Democrat for many years.
When we moved here, I saw that the Socialists were my best bet. Much like the Democrats, they promoted social reforms that would make life a little easier for those less fortunate. For many years I voted Socialist, except in some regional and local elections, where I thought the better platform belonged to the Galician nationalists or other, smaller party. I never held myself faithful to one party, rather I searched for the party that promised to do what I thought would be the best for the society they were looking to represent.
I have never and never will vote for any right-of-center party. To me, they look to retain the status quo that favors those richer and with more economic and political power. Yes, I believe that we should all work for what we have, but sometimes fortune favors those who happen to have more luck or more resources than others. The problem is when you work until extenuation and yet cannot have a decent life because you simply can't catch a break. Those are the people who need help, and who should be helped. Many who support right-of-center parties see the word "welfare" as a swear word. In reality, it's a word that guarantees that everyone has access to the basic necessities of life. That is why I can never support the PP (Partido Popular) or Ciudadanos in Spain, or the Republicans in the United States.
The problem is that the left-of-center parties I have always found to be the best choice have gradually moved so far to the right that they are now neither left-of-center nor centrist, but suddenly they occupy the right-of-center position that the Republicans in the U.S. and the PP in Spain used to occupy. And those two have drifted even farther to the right. The PP is now showing its true colors, revealing the founder's origins in the Franco dictatorship. Ciudadanos, a newer right-of-center party that recently appeared, is much like the PP it criticizes. I find that the parties that now uphold most of the principles I defend are the leftist IU (Izquierda Unida), which is an amalgam of small leftist parties, some more radical than others, including the Spanish Communist Party; and Podemos, also a new party that bases itself on a large militant base in which everyone has a say in determining the political debate with equal power, with no defined hierarchy in theory, though in practice it's there.
These two are decried as "radical" and "extremist." Yet, much of what they espouse was once espoused by the Spanish Socialists. Politics has taken such a sharp turn to the right, that former, normal viewpoints are now "dangerous." Those who aspire to bring about change face being labelled extremists. To many, being a "podemita," a supporter of Podemos, is the same as being a radical Communist who wants to bring about a Bolshevist revolution in Spain. Images and threats from the time of the Cold War are brought up by the PP, in an attempt to make people think the boogeyman is coming if Podemos ever gets into power.
The biggest problem is that the left is not as unified as the right. By nature, the leftist parties encourage different viewpoints, while the right tends to shut out dissent of any kind. A party where all different types of viewpoints are encouraged will never get very far. That is why coalition parties such as IU or some nationalists, like BNG (Bloque Nacionalista Galego), which integrate different smaller parties, often have internal trouble over different points of the party platform. And that is also why it is difficult for two leftist parties to unite against the large PP. Everyone gets a chance to be heard and to disagree, so the agreements are few and not enough to make a united front.
Unfortunately, Spain, and Europe, seem to be drifting rudderless into the sea it once abandoned seventy years ago after one of the cruelest of wars. The traditional right is beginning to merge with the far-right, and the rotten head of fascism is beginning to be seen again. The traditional left is joining hands with the right, and the new left is warning of impending doom, but no one is listening. The new left is not free of problems, but it needs to try to pull the traditional left back to its roots, where it once championed the cause of the regular people whose only recourse is to go to work every day to live a decent life. The extremes are once more calling the shots. But it's the far right that looks like it might turn into totalitarianism once more.
That's the crux of the matter. The problem is not so much which side is in power; it's what they do with power once they're there. In Spain, during the last majority of the PP, laws were passed which helped to cement their power and hurt any opposition. The Gag Law was passed, under which some vociferous people have been prosecuted and received worse jail penalties or fines than some white-collar thieves that dipped their hands into public coffers. The PP also intended, and will still intend, to pass a law changing who is elected. Right now, if the PP wins a solid 35% of the vote, for example, and the rest of the parties 65%, if enough of the opposing parties join together, they will be able to rule in coalition. It's only fair, because while not one was majorly voted for, in conjunction, more people didn't want the PP to rule than did. Well, the PP wants to change that so that the party with the most votes, rules. That benefits only them, because they are the largest party that routinely gets the most votes. The leftist vote is now split among the Socialists, Podemos, and many other smaller parties. The PP, in honor of its Francoist origins, is trying to maintain its power practically in perpetuity. Totalitarianism cloaked in democracy.
Even now, ruling in minority in the nation's Congress, they manage to veto many proposals of law, and bring laws passed by leftist governments of different regions and cities to the courts, accusing them of being unconstitutional. Recently, it did that with a law in Valencia, which prohibits the electricity being turned off if a family can present paperwork saying they can't pay the bills. It intervened in the finances of the city of Madrid, which has, for the first time in many years, a surplus budget, and is spending some of that surplus money on social matters. Those are not the actions of a government conscious that it is in power to represent ALL its citizens. Rather, they are the actions of a government that wants to cement its relationship with its rich and powerful friends, which will then help to keep them in power.
I am becoming more and more angry at the news I can hear every night after a half hour is spent talking on the Catalan problem. My views are turning further left. Communism and anarchy look more tempting, though their inherent problem is that they are only utopias easily implementable only in small communities. In larger communities they can quickly become totalitarian, as they already have. But surely we can try to bring back the Social Democratic states Europe once had, which championed the majority of people, and which gave basic services to everyone, all paid for with our taxes based on our earnings. Surely, we can try to make politicians accountable to those who voted them into power. Surely, we can try to avoid this drifting into that black hole of intolerance on either side, where no one dares challenge the status quo that is only grinding them down. I can dream, right?
I have had an established political philosophy since I was a child. I was always interested in the world around me, and I always noticed that life was unfair; some suffered for no reason while others lived a fairy tale life. When I was eleven, I decided I was more of a Democrat than a Republican, according to the principles each party expounded in the 1980 presidential election. Yet I could not have voted for the candidacy of Jimmy Carter because I didn't agree with his platform, and wished I was eighteen so I could vote for the Independent, John Anderson. Reagan's proposal to increase defense spending by billions of dollars seemed to me obscene with so many people in need of help to be able to pay their rent or eat. I considered myself a true, left-of-center Democrat for many years.
When we moved here, I saw that the Socialists were my best bet. Much like the Democrats, they promoted social reforms that would make life a little easier for those less fortunate. For many years I voted Socialist, except in some regional and local elections, where I thought the better platform belonged to the Galician nationalists or other, smaller party. I never held myself faithful to one party, rather I searched for the party that promised to do what I thought would be the best for the society they were looking to represent.
I have never and never will vote for any right-of-center party. To me, they look to retain the status quo that favors those richer and with more economic and political power. Yes, I believe that we should all work for what we have, but sometimes fortune favors those who happen to have more luck or more resources than others. The problem is when you work until extenuation and yet cannot have a decent life because you simply can't catch a break. Those are the people who need help, and who should be helped. Many who support right-of-center parties see the word "welfare" as a swear word. In reality, it's a word that guarantees that everyone has access to the basic necessities of life. That is why I can never support the PP (Partido Popular) or Ciudadanos in Spain, or the Republicans in the United States.
The problem is that the left-of-center parties I have always found to be the best choice have gradually moved so far to the right that they are now neither left-of-center nor centrist, but suddenly they occupy the right-of-center position that the Republicans in the U.S. and the PP in Spain used to occupy. And those two have drifted even farther to the right. The PP is now showing its true colors, revealing the founder's origins in the Franco dictatorship. Ciudadanos, a newer right-of-center party that recently appeared, is much like the PP it criticizes. I find that the parties that now uphold most of the principles I defend are the leftist IU (Izquierda Unida), which is an amalgam of small leftist parties, some more radical than others, including the Spanish Communist Party; and Podemos, also a new party that bases itself on a large militant base in which everyone has a say in determining the political debate with equal power, with no defined hierarchy in theory, though in practice it's there.
These two are decried as "radical" and "extremist." Yet, much of what they espouse was once espoused by the Spanish Socialists. Politics has taken such a sharp turn to the right, that former, normal viewpoints are now "dangerous." Those who aspire to bring about change face being labelled extremists. To many, being a "podemita," a supporter of Podemos, is the same as being a radical Communist who wants to bring about a Bolshevist revolution in Spain. Images and threats from the time of the Cold War are brought up by the PP, in an attempt to make people think the boogeyman is coming if Podemos ever gets into power.
The biggest problem is that the left is not as unified as the right. By nature, the leftist parties encourage different viewpoints, while the right tends to shut out dissent of any kind. A party where all different types of viewpoints are encouraged will never get very far. That is why coalition parties such as IU or some nationalists, like BNG (Bloque Nacionalista Galego), which integrate different smaller parties, often have internal trouble over different points of the party platform. And that is also why it is difficult for two leftist parties to unite against the large PP. Everyone gets a chance to be heard and to disagree, so the agreements are few and not enough to make a united front.
Unfortunately, Spain, and Europe, seem to be drifting rudderless into the sea it once abandoned seventy years ago after one of the cruelest of wars. The traditional right is beginning to merge with the far-right, and the rotten head of fascism is beginning to be seen again. The traditional left is joining hands with the right, and the new left is warning of impending doom, but no one is listening. The new left is not free of problems, but it needs to try to pull the traditional left back to its roots, where it once championed the cause of the regular people whose only recourse is to go to work every day to live a decent life. The extremes are once more calling the shots. But it's the far right that looks like it might turn into totalitarianism once more.
That's the crux of the matter. The problem is not so much which side is in power; it's what they do with power once they're there. In Spain, during the last majority of the PP, laws were passed which helped to cement their power and hurt any opposition. The Gag Law was passed, under which some vociferous people have been prosecuted and received worse jail penalties or fines than some white-collar thieves that dipped their hands into public coffers. The PP also intended, and will still intend, to pass a law changing who is elected. Right now, if the PP wins a solid 35% of the vote, for example, and the rest of the parties 65%, if enough of the opposing parties join together, they will be able to rule in coalition. It's only fair, because while not one was majorly voted for, in conjunction, more people didn't want the PP to rule than did. Well, the PP wants to change that so that the party with the most votes, rules. That benefits only them, because they are the largest party that routinely gets the most votes. The leftist vote is now split among the Socialists, Podemos, and many other smaller parties. The PP, in honor of its Francoist origins, is trying to maintain its power practically in perpetuity. Totalitarianism cloaked in democracy.
Even now, ruling in minority in the nation's Congress, they manage to veto many proposals of law, and bring laws passed by leftist governments of different regions and cities to the courts, accusing them of being unconstitutional. Recently, it did that with a law in Valencia, which prohibits the electricity being turned off if a family can present paperwork saying they can't pay the bills. It intervened in the finances of the city of Madrid, which has, for the first time in many years, a surplus budget, and is spending some of that surplus money on social matters. Those are not the actions of a government conscious that it is in power to represent ALL its citizens. Rather, they are the actions of a government that wants to cement its relationship with its rich and powerful friends, which will then help to keep them in power.
I am becoming more and more angry at the news I can hear every night after a half hour is spent talking on the Catalan problem. My views are turning further left. Communism and anarchy look more tempting, though their inherent problem is that they are only utopias easily implementable only in small communities. In larger communities they can quickly become totalitarian, as they already have. But surely we can try to bring back the Social Democratic states Europe once had, which championed the majority of people, and which gave basic services to everyone, all paid for with our taxes based on our earnings. Surely, we can try to make politicians accountable to those who voted them into power. Surely, we can try to avoid this drifting into that black hole of intolerance on either side, where no one dares challenge the status quo that is only grinding them down. I can dream, right?
This should be in every newspaper in every country.
ReplyDeleteI confess that I am center-right, Maria. Most of that comes from my rather conservative philosophy that cautions me to be very careful about too much change, too fast. There are always consequences and many are unintended and not for the better. I prefer that we think very hard about what we want and what we aim to achieve before we do something. We can mean well and still have a terrible result. Most of my progressive (leftist) friends in the US and France, for example, think that taxing citizens abroad is the morally right thing to do. I do understand their arguments. I don't agree and I want to see a change in the US system and I support those who don't want the same citizenship-based system for France. Somehow we need to find a platform where we can debate this and look at all of ramifications of citizenship-based taxation. I think we could change minds or at least broaden them if we had that. But so far, no dice. Another issue that I felt was managed well in the US was gay marriage. I've been a supporter since I was in my teens (and yes as a conservative I believed it was the right thing to do.) But how it came about the in the US took time but was the perfect combination of rising public support and a court case. Yes, there are still some folks grousing about it but for most Americans it's a done deal and after a lot of public debate it is now perceived to be right and fair. That is, for me, a good example of conservative change. I'd like to see the same thing for many other issues. To be honest I am really worried about the US tax reform bills. Not enough debate, not enough visibility on the impacts, not enough making a case to the public and so on. Not very conservative in my view and many unintended consequences ahead. :-)
ReplyDeleteI agree that changes have to be thought through. And, yes, the time has to be right for them, as well. But the time is right for so many changes, yet those in power seem to be taking us backward. That is what I am against. Socially, we should move forward, as has been done with gay marriage (which too many right-wingers would still like to abolish, the Church in Spain, too). The new tax law is a step backward, and the CBT is a modern form of slavery. It means that the citizens of a particular country still belong to that country no matter where they are, even when that country no longer provides anything for them. Being conservative in the sense of waiting for the correct time isn't bad - what is bad is when someone in power wants time to stop or roll back, which is what too many in the PP, Ciudadanos, and the Republican parties seem to want. And the original left-of-center parties don't seem to want to help society as they did once upon a time, but rather stay in power to help themselves. Or, at least, that is the feeling I get from listening to many of them.
ReplyDeleteI hear what you're saying - those folks who want to take us back to the "paradise" that existed in times past. I have no patience with that whatsoever. And I have no faith that any government has the power to turn back time.
ReplyDeleteDemocracies are inherently messy. Millions of people and their representatives fighting it out in the national political arena. Add income inequality and a sense of precarity to the mix and the situation is quite volatile. Talking to my friends and family in the US many agree that CBT is not a great idea but they are far more worried about Social Security and healthcare. And they have a sneaking suspicion that the Right in the US supports us for their own purposes which is, they think, to allow rich people to escape any taxation whatsoever.
As for social programs what we are facing in France, of course, is budget deficits. (Is the same true in Spain?) There is a lot that could be done but there's no money for it. Thus the call for a CBT system like the US.