Cardoza on Cap and Trade (Cap and Tax)

Understanding the Context of this Discussion

A good friend of mine made a good point that complicated and technical phrases in current discourse are being made, but that those things aren’t always being explained. So I decided to write a simple but not simplistic overview of the current “Cap and Trade” discussion going on in American Government.

In the following video, President Barack Obama says that he is in favor of a Cap and Trade system but that such a policy “will necessarily cause energy prices to skyrocket.” Listen to him, then read what “Cap and Trade” is in Plain English.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4&feature=related

The Background

In an earlier blog post (http://freddycardoza.wordpress.com/2010/03/04/cardoza-on-civics-understanding-whats-going-on-in-america-and-why/) I discussed the background to understanding how politics and economics relate—and I’d encourage you to read that post first. With that as an introduction, let me get into how Cap and Trade works.

I’ve described earlier the fact that “Big Government” proponents (i.e., Democrats-Socialists-Liberals) have an agenda to use the government as a means to minimize the freedom and responsibility of individuals and privatized corporations (private industry or “businesses”). That is because the government needs money to pay for entitlement programs to “take care of people” in the Nanny State that it has become. This is no exaggeration, as over ½ of the US budget is now spent on entitlements (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_budget_pie_chart).

As money comes into the US Treasury, it feeds its ever-larger bureaucratic self and it takes care of those who do not want the responsibility of taking care of themselves or who have an entitlement mentality. Such people are willing to trade their own freedoms away in exchange for the government taking their personal responsibility. In this way, the government becomes a safety net and, as I’ve said, a ‘nanny.’

In a “Progressive” government like the one Mr. Obama is attempting to build, the government penalizes companies and the people who built them through years, decades, and generations of hard work by forcing them to support all government programs in ways that are grossly disproportionate than other people who have not earned as much income. For example, in the upcoming budget plan, it is estimated by some that the upper-level earners in the US will pay up to 42 cents of every dollar (42%) of their income to taxes, while some US Citizens who can (but refuse to) work, pay no taxes or even receive refunds from the government, even though they have not paid any taxes.

The strategy of Progressivism being espoused by Barack Obama and many Democrats today is to identify (a) individuals who have or make significantly more than others and (b) the companies they have built by creating laws and regulations (imposed by government agencies like OSHA) that are designed to take the money people have earned (through fines, fees, tariffs, corporate taxes, personal taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, consumption taxes, payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, penalties, and other red tape) in order to forcibly redistribute that wealth to those who did not earn it in ways consistent with Socialism-Marxism described in an earlier post.

What is Cap and Trade (also called “Cap and Tax”)?

Cap and Trade is one type of (many different) government-imposed wealth-transfer plans.

To Understand Cap and Trade, You Must Understand the Basics of Economics and Politics

Cap and Trade (like all other such wealth-transfer plans related to Green Economics-Environmentalism, Government Health Care, etc.) is designed to forcibly redistribute money more evenly throughout society, and especially lower income people, in order to eliminate classism (the economic differences between upper/lower classes) and to usher in an ideal society (i.e., “social utopia”). In such a society, most people would comprise a very large lower-middle class, and virtually all authority would rest within those who run the government, since it would have eliminated the power of all other persons and entities. This, in a nutshell, is the agenda of Socialism (a political philosophy) and it uses Marxism (an economic philosophy) to do it.

Cap and Trade Basics

The basic argument of Cap and Trade goes this way.

The developed world (the U.S. and other countries) is better off than the rest of the world. It has more money and more things and a higher standard of living. Other people in the world have less and a lower standard of living. Much of this is because of our consumption of stuff from money that we have that some countries don’t have.

As a result, extreme liberals and even the US President, believe that two things are wrong with this: (1) We need to redistribute wealth to those without it and (2) the way that should be done is by giving them money from U.S. tax payers and businesses. So, Cap and Trade is actually a wealth transfer (Marxist) idea cloaked in Environmentalism.

Point By Point Through Cap and Trade

The logic is that the things Americans enjoy aren’t enjoyed by many other people in our world and while they do without, we have these things and, in doing so, we pollute the planet more than they do. Examples: Our cars, boats, trains, buses, motorcycles, air conditioning, heat, hot stoves, etc. are things that give us a higher standard of living than everyone else—and this creates us, Americans, as a higher socioeconomic class of people. The argument then goes that we should be ashamed for having a great society and for being blessed by God and through the industry of the American people, since it is those very things that are causing the world to hate Americans in their arrogance.

Blame America First. So the “blame America” group wants to PENALIZE us for what we have and enjoy because, in doing so (they argue), we pollute the planet through our extra energy use—and our greed causes the rest of the world to live in pollution and climate change (global warming). Subsequently, if we were to be more concerned with others who “don’t have what we have,” then we would be more generous to them rather than spending our money on things for ourselves and our own consumption. So America “owes” the world. And we should (as we saw in the recent Copenhagen Summit) give the poor nations of the world our money from the US Government’s taxpayers as a sort of payback for our excesses and to provide their governments money to enact the same Cap and Tax policies so that they can also redistribute the wealth of their countries, leading to a Socialist (utopian) world.

Think I’m Crazy? People who are unfamiliar with the Climate Change discussion and extreme Environmentalism and Cap and Trade probably read what I’m writing and think “He can’t be serious.” But, in fact, this is the main thrust behind much of the Cap and Trade controversy. The government sells the problem as an Environmental one, but it’s actually all about “Green ECONOMICS” and the redistribution of wealth, using environmentalism as the reasoning behind it. Carefully researching these issues will clearly show what I have written to be true. But let’s continue.

More Cap and Trade Basics.

So Americans are obsessed with stuff (materialism increases carbon footprints). Our materialism and consumption cause us to trash the planet, and this hurting of the environment—leads to global warming, etc. They then argue that, if it isn’t stopped something catastrophic will happen—because the future of the planet is stake.

What “Cap” Means.

The government is telling people that we must reduce carbon in the atmosphere in order to avoid climate disaster. That means we should reduce our carbon (like burning or using fossil fuels like gas, petroleum products, coal, and using products that require energy), by more than 80%. THAT IS THE “CAP.” Certain types of ENERGY USAGE IS CAPPED. It begins with setting limits on our use of energy. The recent Copenhagen summit was an attempt to do that—Obama wanted to get the world to agree on the top limits of ‘unclean energy’ they would allow, so we could “CAP” the carbon and energy usage.

What “Trade” Means.

The problem is that everything uses energy to run (cars, businesses, ships, semi-trucks, transport trucks, trains, etc.) and all of these things emit carbon. In addition, nearly everything we do in life is a release of energy this is largely powered by those sources of energy (like to heat homes, cool homes, cook food, eat out, take the car to the mall, using energy for lights, the energy for lighting a movie theater, etc.). So how are we going to reduce carbon? By starting a carbon stock market (“trading”), so companies can “buy and sell” the ability to use energy that pollutes the environment. And as they do this, government can then control and monitor energy consumption by government policies/restrictions and taxes.

The problem? Most countries use it like we do and don’t have money to do research and development to develop other forms of environmentally friendly or “clean” energy.

To keep carbon and emissions to a minimum, the government would begin (over a period of years) to set these goals for reduced emissions of carbon from all these energy sources—and then SELL PERMITS to companies who would pay taxes for the ability to “pollute the atmosphere” (use energy). Each year, less and less energy would be used and ‘unclean energy’ (oil, coal, gas, etc.) would be paying very high taxes and could get fewer and fewer permits to use their energy (“to pollute”).

Enter Clean Energy and Government Contracts. Meanwhile, the government would choose winners and losers again, but paying companies money to do research on ‘clean’ energy and by giving grants and government contracts for more energy-efficient windows, weather stripping, energy sources, wind power, solar power, etc.

Over time, because taxes would crush other energy companies and because they could buy fewer and fewer permits to use their sources of energy, the ‘clean’ energy companies would flourish because they advanced their businesses on the government dime. So traditional businesses (the energy companies mentioned earlier, and companies who didn’t get government money and contracts to produce these ‘green’ technologies would also be taxed because their products ‘hurt the environment.’ In addition, standards would continue to tighten, driving many out of business since they couldn’t compete any longer with government funded businesses.

“Trade” One More Time. So, another way of describing it, is that the “Trade” idea is that those companies who become ‘greener’ would be able to take their pollution permits and ‘trade’ them on the energy stockmarket—to companies who couldn’t become greener—and with each ‘trade’ the government would get a cut of that tax revenue AND the green companies and their employees would get more money (WATCH THIS: creating “new money”) while the “OLD MONEY” groups like Coal Company Owners and Oil Men and Gas Company Executives were taxed and legislated out of business—leading to massive reallocation and redistribution of wealth away from those who traditionally had money—into the hands of new people awarded government contracts, all in the name of the “environment” and to stop “global warming” and “save the planet.”

Summary

So then, anyone that PRODUCES OR USES energy would be taxed and prices would rise—significantly. Consumers of these things would be penalized—by paying higher prices and taxes on energy and things that used energy. Note—everything uses energy!! So every use of energy or emission of energy would cost you (gas for car, carbon emissions of your car, energy for home or business, restaurants who produced your hot food, appliances that you use to cook or cool food), and the government would regulate all of those things through regulation—hence CAP (energy limits) and Tax companies/people using energy.

Cardoza on Civics: Understanding What's Going On In America and Why

Understanding the Relationship Between Politics and Economics

Politics: To have a society, people must live together. When people live together in relative harmony, it is called a “civilization.” For civilization to exist, it must be civil (or you have barbarism). Civility is based on mutual understandings and boundaries of well-being (“civil order”). “Order” (Civil Society) becomes a reality when compulsory expectations are expected OF everyone and enforced ON everyone—and this is what we call “Law.” The need for “Law” is what creates Politics. Politics is designed to establish order and preserve justice and equity. Government is the collective body or bodies that oversee the political system to ensure civilization.

Economics: When people live together in society, they can either live in a meager, primitive, and simple existence (usually agrarian or nomadic societies) OR they can seek to live in a more sophisticated society where the standard of living (options, choices, comforts, entertainment, etc.) is higher and comfort is increased. **Because increased comfort and a higher standard of living creates greater civil stability and well-being, governments seek to enable this higher standard of living in order to avoid chaos and the breakdown of civilization and government (anarchy). A higher standard of living is accomplished to a large degree through economics. Economics, therefore, is the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services that creates the opportunity for a higher standard of living just described. IN THESE WAYS, politics and economics are intertwined. And it is government that regulates economics THROUGH politics to help ensure people’s well-being and a higher standard of living in order to build the best society possible.

Understanding Economic Theory and Political Theory

So for government to exist, politics and economics must exist. But there’s not only “one way” to think about politics and economics. So different “political theories” (often called Political Science) and different “economic theories” exist. And it happens that, usually, certain political theories’ goals are best accomplished by corresponding economic theories because they are built on common ideals or goals.

That’s why—as a rule—that Representative Democracy (a “Republic” like the US) generally uses Free-Market Capitalism as its economic theory (since it values entrepreneurism as the way to help raise people’s standard of living). Capitalism places responsibility on individuals, as does Democracy. That’s because Democratic Government and Capitalism believes the individual should be motivated to take personal responsibility for their own well-being and that of their family and fellow man. And when each person with the ability does the same, that creates a surplus—which meets the needs of those who genuinely cannot help themselves. But those who refuse to work and do not take responsibility—even though they are able—are allowed to do without. Only those who genuinely need the help are able to get it in this type of society.

Socialism, on the other hand, de-emphasizes the responsibility of individuals and places that responsibility for the welfare of the individual on the government to produce that higher standard of living for the people. In this way, the government must provide money for the resources needed by the people. It does so by compelling people to provide the government with the money to do this—and government receives money through taxes. Those taxes are paid to the central government in order to hire people to maintain and oversee programs that provide for people. And in a Socialist government, as Karl Marx said, each person gives “according to his ability” and each person receives “according to his need.” WHAT THAT MEANS is that those “with more” are compelled to give more to people who need more—so that those who do not have all they want or need will have it.

The Point?

In summary, Capitalists and Marxists disagree on HOW to maintain a civilization and provide for its peoples’ standard of living. And Democratic-Republic Governments disagree with Socialists on the way to build that society—through compelling people to give to the government so everyone will have ‘about the same’ OR through expecting people to take responsibility (if they are able) for themselves… or to do without.

That is why Democracy-Capitalism is about personal responsibility, low taxes, and small government. And that’s why Socialism-Marxism is about government responsibility, bigger government, and higher taxes. They are simply two ways of doing things.

The Choice

These completely opposite approaches on the role of government, politics and economics are what is causing the radical disagreements in the United States right now. The question is “Do we create a ‘Nanny State’ where people are taken care of by the government, even though corruption, waste, and excessively spending tax-payers’ money occurs OR do we create a ‘Responsibility State’ where people who are able to do so are required to take care of themselves and the fruit of their labor takes care of those who cannot take care of themselves until they are able or indefinitely?”

The Fundamental Problem

The major problem that exists in our nation’s politics today is that Democrats are being driven by the extreme left wing of their political party—and that party (led by the U.S. President) is driven by hard left ideologues who are more SOCIALIST as I have described above. Prior to this time in history, Democrats and Republicans have disagreed “to a degree” but could compromise BECAUSE THEIR POSITIONS WERE RELATIVELY CLOSE TOGETHER. Now, because “Progressives” in the Democratic Party are more Socialist in their perspective, we have a culture war—and the MEANS and the ENDS are so radically opposite that there is no middle ground.

Summary

That is why this is such a fierce battle. And this entire discussion explains why I feel so deeply about these issues: Because the American way of life is being threatened by changes in these political and economic theories. And if America practices the political and economic theories of Socialism and Marxism, the outcome will be what it has been in EVERY other such civilization: decline and death of those civilizations.

Note: While America has flourished into the greatest civilization the world has ever known in only 200 years under Capitalism and a Republic, since Marxism/Socialism was introduced in the 1800s, no genuinely Marxist economy in history has survived more than 70 years (Soviet Union). But today’s Progressives want to ‘progress’ past Capitalism to a doomed system. There is on earth NO NATION under even a Socialist approach whose society is superior to the United States—and that is why I am so forceful in my opposition to it—because I do not want my children and their children to live in a society in decline or hardship after my sacrifice and the sacrifice of all Americans in the last 200 years.

On Government and Politics, Part 2

Read part 1 of this blog post here.


What is Government Supposed to Do?

It's been generally established that a great majority of the American public who are eligible to vote fail to exercise that right. As such, these represent well over a 100 million Americans who are apparently content being governed by whoever others (voters) choose.

Those who do exercise their right, privilege, and duty to vote go into the booth and make their choice as to who they want to govern them (and everybody else). Now, it seems to me that if we are choosing who will run the government and who will "govern," it would be a good idea to think about what government is and what it is supposed to do. After all, how well can we do a good job choosing GOVERNORS if we don't understand GOVERNMENT? That's sort of like picking the best NFL football team based on how their helmet looks.

Of course, that consideration doesn't seem to enter into some people's thinking. Most Americans know precious little about nearly every aspect of government. Even a simple straw poll of the Man on the Street consistently shows that the average American (though maybe not 'you') doesn't know even the basics about government-- things like, "What are the three branches of government? Who serves as the Secretary of State? Who is the Majority Leader of the Senate? What is a Filibuster?" and so on.

But despite the fact that many do not really understand the role of government, all that is required to choose the most powerful person in the world [POTUS] the President of the United States, is being an American citizen who has done nothing more than simply "been alive" for 18 years-- and noting else.

But, for argument's sake, if a person wanted to learn more about government, what would he or she need to know?


Theories About The Role of Government

The study of the role of government is the business of political science or political philosophy. There are different approaches to governing, but one of the major areas that separates the two major political parties in the United States (Democrat and Republican) is the issue of "Negative" and "Positive" rights. Let me try to explain.


Civil and Social Rights

Civil Rights are sometimes thought of as "negative rights," while Social Rights are sometimes thought of as "positive rights." The two major political parties in the United States largely line up along these two perspectives.

Democrats (Social Rights/Positive Rights)

Generally speaking, people who are ideologically committed Democrats (and not just those who consider themselves Dems because their mother was) favor positive/social rights. Positive Rights means that a person believes they have a "claim" to something-- that the government owes them some material goods and services. In other words, positive rights are "entitlements." People with this view think it is the "government's responsibility" to provide more than just protection and justice. They believe the Fed has the obligation to completely level the playing field between citizens (and sometimes even illegal aliens) by the compulsory enforcement of government-financed entitlement programs which raid money (through taxes, etc.) from one segment of society in order to re-distribute it to others.

So, in short, in this view-- the government has the right to forcibly take resources earned by one person/group and to give them to another person or group-- even if that person/group did not earn it. This inevitably leads to "big government" because the Fed must "manage" this money and distribute it to those agencies and organizations. This may include an expansion of basic public health into things like "government-provided universal health care" or "state-owned banks," etc., etc.

One more thing. In addition to a type of re-distribution of wealth or goods, politicians who believe in the idea of positive rights also works to ensure that the government provides resources to certain projects and organizations of its choosing-- or "earmarks." Here, government leaders work to create larger budgets for the expansion of funding for things related to "special interest" groups such as the National Endowment for the Arts or the Public Broadcasting System (PBS), or Stem-Cell Research, or AIDs Research, or the Anti-Gun Lobby, Planned Parenthood or Abortion on Demand monies, Evolution Research, Needle-Exchange Programs, and so on.

Note: Those who reject the Social Right approach (entitlements/big government/tax and spend/special interests/earmarks) are PRIMARILY CONCERNED that these programs are paid for using taxpayer's money. Whereas it is one thing for programs such as these to exist, it is fundamentally different when government officials subjectively choose specific organizations and issues and programs to fund, while other organizations with other convictions are ignored and excluded from such funding (for example, right to life organizations, and so on).


Republicans (Civil Rights/Negative Rights)

Whereas "True" Democrats hold Social or Positive Rights which express themselves in above the line entitlements, Republicans generally reject that approach. While Republicans agree that these groups have the right to exist, Republican thinkers do not believe they should be forced to pay for them to exist, nor pay for those positions to be financed with private tax resources.

As such, Republicans who truly understand what the overall Republican perspective on government actually is, support "negative" or "civil" rights for all people, but not special rights. So "ideologically committed" Republicans believe that government should provide negative rights, and that it is the responsibility of government to require people to obstain from the harm of others. In other words, rather than government acting in favor of advancing policies for a great host of "causes," the idea of negative rights simply argues that government should be objective about what rights people receive, which means EITHER the rejection of special interest groups OR a leveling of the playing field where a free and fair market can exist.

This can be a bit confusing, so let me try to unpack it better. Republicans get their understanding on rights from a strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Recall that the Declaration said all people have the "unalienable right" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." These have historically been called "negative" or "civil" rights. What that MEANS is that government exists to ensure that individuals or groups of people do not forcibly intrude on one another. Accordingly, when a company tries to unjustly violate a person's rights, government steps in. Or when a person violates another's unalienable rights (such as the Bill of Rights, etc.), and seeks to harm, murder, kidnap, burglarize, cheat, trespass, supress the vote of, or otherwise restrict another person's rights, the government will act to stop them-- even using force, imprisonment, and punishment.

You see here that, in this case, government is not required to give greater ADVANTAGE to people... but merely to stop the disadvantaging of people. And because the U.S. government was historically created this way and the American body politic understood this, government from a Republican perspective was to be "smaller" with fewer agencies and less bureaucracy, and also made to be non-intrusive except when necessary, as well as to be a supporter of free-market, open trade, lower taxes, and fewer entitlement programs. That, of course, doesn't mean that Republicans are not for necessary things like unemployment programs or minimum wage laws-- but true Republicans with an understanding of negative/civil rights would not seek to expand these approaches in some of the ways Democrats would. You would not, for example, find a thoughtful Republican working to provide social security programs to illegal aliens/undocumented residents, nor would you find Republicans working to expand the Death Tax or Capital Gains Tax in order to give that money to able-bodied people who refuse to work to support their family.

There's a lot more to government theory-- and this brief introduction is certainly abbreviated and somewhat simplistic, but it is nonetheless accurate. It is upon these general principles that much of American politics is built. And once you understand these basics, you will also begin to understand some of the "planks" or "key positions" of each major political party, as those 'planks' line up pretty neatly along the principles stated above.


Political Parties By Perspective

Finally, I've provided a grid of how I think of some of the various political persuasions in the U.S., and how they might look on a continuum, in my opinion.

SOCIAL RIGHTS -----CIVIL RIGHTS

Communist >> Socialist >> Democrat >> Republican >> Libertarian >> Anarchist
Green >> Independent




Conclusion

There's enough in this post to make just about everyone mad. My purpose in writing it, however, is that it helps us think about what role Government should play in politics and society. Because I am a Christian, I look to scripture about these matters and generally believe that though the Bible does not identify political parties of choice, it does speak about political issues and, in particular, the role of government. Someone seeking to build a Christian worldview and one wanting to construct a biblical perspective on life would want to look to the Bible to identify how it 'treats' these subjects. In my view, it seems that the New Testament (which more accurately represents our time than the Old Testament's theocracy) tends to favor a less-intrusive approach of government and more of a negative rights approach. Everyone must make these judgments for themselves, but that is what helps dictate my opinions on these matters. Every person has a right and a duty to think about these issues for him/herself.

On Government and Politics

The Direction of Our Country

After a serious conversation with some friends earlier this evening about national and world events, I became even more convinced than ever about the fact that America is in clear and present danger.

Government=the People

Part of the reason our country in in turmoil is because of the condition of our government. But then, the government is essentially nothing more than a microcosm of society at large. Meaning-- one cannot separate a government from its people... In the United States, the government IS the people-- it is "of" the people and "by" the people. (Whether or not it is "for" the people is another question).

Government and Politics Explained

Government is essentially which particular system (controlling political theory and people) rules and exercises control over the people, territories, and structures (businesses, organizations, etc.) in its purview. Politics are the specific political theory a group has ABOUT government-- and the actions those people take to make their views and positions the law of the land or the primary controlling perspective. Different nations have different political systems and, in America, we have a democracy.

People sometimes rail on Democracy, because (in a democracy) one party rules over all others. Of course, the alternative is a Monarchy (where one FAMILY rules over all others), or a Dictatorship (where one PERSON rules over all others), or an Oligarchy (where on GROUP rules over all others, like a tiny communist party or a powerful band of government thugs)-- so, I'll stick with a Democracy, thank you very much.

But every human government is flawed, because every human is flawed. Even so, just because no human government is morally perfect does not mean that one political philosophy is not better than all others. That's why, in spite of its limitations, I prefer and believe that Democracy is the greatest political system on earth. In a pluralistic society, people are allowed the freedom to believe what they want, but government is still designed to protect the rights of the minority population and protect the general public as well. This is done by (a) ensuring that laws are morally and ethically sound, and (b) by government punishing those who break the law and by government also upholding the law.

Understanding How Democracy Works: The Representative Form of Government

In a democracy, since free voting elects representatives, by the very act of choosing elected officials, those who hold office are "representative" of the people who elected them. In other words, the people, character, decisions, and values seen in our communities' and nation's government are nothing more than a representative sample of the voting population. Think about that, if you want to see what America is made of.

So, when America votes a candidate or political party "in" or "out" of office, that represents the collective opinion of the nation's voting public (we, the people) concerning our values, ethics, opinions, perspectives, mores, and convictions about life. As such, the person who is elected assumes that, since he or she has been elected, he may freely vote or promote his views within the area of government to which he is assigned. And we live with the consequences.

Ironically, we often don't like the consequences of the decisions of elected officials who hold office. This leads me to a few observations: (1) The problem could simply be that we didn't vote in the first place and our lack of exercising the right to vote led to the lack of a voice in the selection of who would lead our government, rendering us powerless in the political process (and partially to blame through our apathy about voting in the first place), OR (2) We voted but our candidate lost-- which would reveal the need for greater involvement and effort to get the candidate of our choice elected, OR (3) We elected who we wanted-- and that person had similar values to us-- but the decisions they made (which were the same we would have made) had unexpected and unintended consequences... which may cause us to reconsider our political views and vote differently in the future.

Political Parties and What They Mean

People who vote do so according to "Party Affiliation" (Green, Independent, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, etc.) AND/OR according to personal values or convictions. It's funny that even "Independents" who want to be known for being "independent" are themselves even represented by a party-- the irony.

And what is a Political Party? A "party" is a body politic that represents a core constituency (a group of people) who hold similar views about a number of issues that influence politics. Each party identifies with certain views on issues-- and these party views are called "planks." Each political party (and candidate) has a number of "planks" or positions on specific issues. That said, being a member of a political party does not mean a person agrees with every major position of that party... it just means that, for the most important positions for that person, a specific party seeks to advance their perspective in society.

So, for example, a person who is a pacifist or a pro-choice or for capital punishment would typically vote with the political party that is most likely to push that agenda through the various parts of government, in order to enforce that particular value. So, contrary to popular opinion that holds that 'you can't legislate morality,' the truth is that ALL LEGISLATION is seeking to legislate morality-- that's the WHOLE POINT OF POLITICS--- to advance and codify and to enforce a certain set of values and behaviors... and to make illegal and punishable doing otherwise. Think about it!

But I regress...

The main point I am making is that America's representative government is a mirror of who and what the voting American public is. Those who don't/didn't vote voluntarily choose to have no voice about what their government does and how they will be governed--- they are at the mercy of others' whims.

People Choosing Who Govern Us Are Often Ignorant of What Government and Politics Are (**and what government is supposed to do**)

The frightening thing I realized through some close listening and thinking I've been doing lately, however, is that the direction of our nation is being dictated by people (voters) who may or may not even understand what government and politics are "about" in the first place. Especially critical regarding this situation is that I fear (as a Christian) that many Christians are ignorant of this as well. As a result, Christians may be complicit in allowing our nation to move in the wrong direction (farther from God and away from the best solutions for a better society) because of this ignorance.


One may ask, "Why is having an understanding of Government and Politics important" Well, simply because if one doesn't understand the nature of government/politics, then he will not understand what government is SUPPOSED TO "DO." And getting that wrong can cause us to (unwittingly) allow our nation and communities in exactly the WRONG direction.

So what? Well, when our nation moves in the wrong direction, it negatively affects everything that government touches, which is, well, EVERYTHING and EVERYONE. Does that make sense?

So, government is important because it has a daily impact on us in areas like: schooling, punishment, zoning laws for businesses and establishments, health and fairness regulations, taxes, government policies, entitlement programs, and the list goes on.

That's why we should understand the role of government and politics. To be ignorant or apathetic affects YOU, YOUR FAMILY, YOUR COMMUNITY, YOUR MONEY, YOUR SAFETY, YOUR SECURITY, YOUR WELL-BEING, YOUR HEALTH, AND EVERYTHING ELSE YOU CAN IMAGINE.


The Moral of the Story

I believe that America's primary problem is related to people's relationship to God, collectively. But, because America is a nation and since nations are governed by political processes and political groups, that implies that the nation COULD BE BETTER OFF if we paid more attention to the political process and put our brightest and best people in office. But the central key to this helping us get out of the situation we are in as a nation, is partially related to American's understanding what politics are, how they work, and what should govern how we vote and who we choose for elected office.


I hope to address that point in a future post-- perhaps my next one.