Antidisestablishmentarianism

I can't even remember what that word means, but it is sufficiently long for me to sound really intelligent. For a while it was the longest word in the English language, until it was deposed by some disease which began with "pneumo-something".

It sounds like something to which I could subscribe. I don't like the bunch of yahoos who are currently in power, but I'm not really wild about the idea of "throwing all the bums out" either. I'm concerned, dear Reader, with the current polilitical scene.

My concern is based on the "anti-establishment/anti-incumbent" mood. How do we know when we throw the bums out of Washington that we aren't electing someone even worse? The phrase "throw the baby out with the bath water" comes to mind.

Like Rand Paul, to hone a fine point. (My deepest gratitude to Dr. Paul for providing me a most excellent example of why a "throw the bums out" mentality is problematic, not to say dangerous.)

He thinks that private establishments need not adhere to the Civil Rights Act or the ADA. It's "Big Government" to pass laws which force private enterprise to open their doors to everyone, including those in wheelchairs or those with colorful skin tones. Dr. Paul evidently hasn't envisioned the possible outcome that, if you are African-American and disabled, there might be no restaurant at which to eat. Let 'em eat cake at home!

Dr. Paul also seems to think that our huge deficit can be fixed without raising taxes. I think he may have failed Math class. If you ever encounter a candidate who admits they may need to raise taxes, vote for them. 'Cause you know they are being honest. Pipe dream time.

Here's a novel thought...why don't we all read the position papers of both candidates and decide whether the devil that we know is preferable to the devil we don't? We've gotten so lazy in this country that we allow the Press to determine how we feel about a position.

I'm not defending the current members. I'm no fan of the current bunch of crooks that are presumably in command in Washington. The lobbyists, the campaign shenanigans, the myriad members who can't seem to keep their members in their pants. Some of them indeed need to be shown the door.

But, surely, there are a paltry few who deserve to be re-elected. I'm thinking the candidates who just two years ago were voted in. Surely they haven't yet had the opportunity to sell us down the river. At least, not yet. Or the Senators who have learned a lot during their tenure and sit on powerful committees. There must be a reason why Ted Kennedy continued to return to the Senate. Maybe he was really good at being a Senator...at least that's what the voters thought.

And where is all the campaign money coming from for the Newbies, the Congressional wanna-bes? Gee, probably from the same lobbyists and special interest groups as the incumbents, don't you think?

So no one is entirely pristinely pure here. Maybe we can actually watch the debates and determine, whether Incumbent or Newbie, which of the candidates most closely reflects the way we would stand if we were the candidate.

Another thing which I think is most important in looking at candidates...their labels vs. their behavior. I don't have much truck for the terms "conservative" or "liberal". Recent history has taught us that the most "conservative" of lawmakers are really mostly "socially conservative"...at least when it comes to how they want everyone else to act.

When it comes to being "fiscally conservative", I don't have to point out that under "liberal" Presidencies we had attained fiscal responsibility, while the so-called "conservative Presidents", going back to Reagan and his Voo-Doo economics, have blown the budget big time.

Is it "conservative" to have an affair and proclaim to the world that you have met your soulmate, while your spouse (patently not your soulmate) has to hold her head high, despite the fact that you just bitch-slapped her on national television? I think not, but then that's just me.

Is it "liberal" to give a standing ovation to the leader of another country (meaning, not our country's leader) who lectures us on our immigration policy? Here's an idea...let's adopt Mexico's immigration policies and see if Calderon likes that.

Come on, people, don't let the electoral buzz make up your mind for you. At the risk of sounding like your mother, do your homework.