I am not really political, but, as with most everyone, I do have opinions
.
My idea of the most perfect Political Party:
Christian based values
Honesty and Integrity in Campaigns and Service (if elected)
Belief in Financial Responsibility
Belief in a Helping Hand Up for those who honestly need such
Belief in National Security
Belief that Multi Million Dollar Corporations do not deserve more representation than those at or below the Poverty Level
Belief in Secure Borders while still exhibiting Open Arms to those seeking to legally become Citizens of our Nation
Belief in the Constitution as our Nations Legal/Social Foundation
Belief in Equal Opportunity with serious efforts to end prejudice at all levels of our Society/Government
(probably more, if I worked at it)
The reason I am not really political is because there never will be a Political Party that meets these beliefs in my opinion. I do not believe in choosing the "lesser of two evils" simply because there is no other choice. I am not aware of any situation in Scripture where Jesus did such or taught us to do such.
I like a lot of this.
Here are a few concerns I have, though.
But who gets to decide which Christian-based values?
The Catholic Church (which is the largest Christian Church in the world, and in the U.S., with a membership of over 68 million)?
If you think the Catholics are "not Christian," then perhaps the Protestants are more your speed? Mainliners have a US membership of over 35 million -- the next largest group -- with more than half of them Democrats, accepting equal rights for gays, being pro-choice, and opposing school vouchers. The point here isn't that one person is "wrong" and another "right," but that one person's idea of "Christian based values" isn't necessarily what another's person's idea is, and they all use Scripture to arrive at their opinions. Who gets to decide which interpretation of Scripture is correct?
Honesty and Integrity in Campaigns and Service (if elected)
I am 100% with you on this one.
To my knowledge, both parties talk about this, but neither one has actually done anything about it.
Belief in Financial Responsibility
Here's another one that is nebulous. Who gets to decide what is "financially responsible"?
A great example of this is school lunches.
In many school districts, children from low-income families receive free breakfasts and lunches at school. For many years in my city, children who were not from low-income families had to either send one from home with their child, or pay for the school lunch, and either have their child eat breakfast at home or pay for the one provided at school. However, a few years back, a consultant pointed out that the amount of money the school district was spending on accounting for the non-low-income students -- accountants to figure out which students qualified and which didn't, cashiers to count which students were not entitled to free food, systems to notify parents when funds were low, etc. -- the cost of this system was far more than the cost would have been simply to prepare food for all the kids, even the ones who weren't "low income." It was actually cheaper just to feed all the kids, and not worry about which kids "deserved" free meals and which kids should pay for it. So now all kids get free breakfasts and lunches at school, whether they are poor or not. This is "financial responsibility." Sure, some kids still bring a lunch from home, and eat breakfast at home. But the option is there for kids whether they "need" it or not, and the school is saving money because of it. Therefore, taxpayers are saving money!
I could go down the list and show how almost every Republican fiscal policy is actually the most financially IRRESPONSIBLE position. Republicans are notorious for being "penny wise and pound foolish." They don't want to give "free health care" to poor people, so instead poor people can't afford to go to the doctor, and wait until conditions are critical, and end up in the hospital, where they cost taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars a day, when, had they just gone to the doctor, they could easily have been treated for a fraction of that. The liberal concept of socialized medicine isn't (just) about being a bleeding heart and wanting to help poor people; it's actually more fiscally responsible.
Education. The environment. Unemployment. Almost every issue actually
can be made better by throwing money at it. In most cases, the money comes back tenfold or better. This is fiscal responsibility.
Belief in a Helping Hand Up for those who honestly need such
Again, 100%
And how would this be done? Who provides the "helping hand up"? Is this mandated, or will people magically become more charitable, just because you say so? It's a lovely sentiment, but if it were as simple as, "Just help poor people out," don't you think we'd be doing it already?
Belief in National Security
I'm not sure I can get behind this one, not knowing the details.
If "national security" means we arm to the teeth, decrease our acceptance of immigrants and refugees, close embassies around the world, etc., then I'm not with you. These are the sorts of things that are often touted as "tough on security," but they actually make us less secure, not more. Increasing diversity has been shown to increase diplomacy and international relations. That is the right direction for national, and international security.
Also, a lot of people think of "national security" as being "security against external threats." As we learned on January 6 this year, the threat from within our own borders is far worse. Programs to control internal threats, route out domestic terrorism and clamp down on hate groups would go further towards national security than the highest border wall you can build.
Belief that Multi Million Dollar Corporations do not deserve more representation than those at or below the Poverty Level
1,000,000% agree!!!!
Both parties have a bad record on this. The Democrats are slightly better than the Republicans, but only slightly.
Belief in Secure Borders while still exhibiting Open Arms to those seeking to legally become Citizens of our Nation
Ah, you've gone into more detail of the "national security" bit. I appreciate that.
Fact: All Americans are descendants of immigrants; the only question is how far back do you want to go? Even indigenous people immigrated, thousands of years ago. A majority of white Americans are descended from people who came between 1880 and 1920. Some came before.
Fact: Under the current immigration laws (based on the Immigration Act of 1924, and amended only a little since then), MOST of those people would NOT be allowed in.
If your ancestors came to this country before 1924, the chances are VERY high that you would not be ALIVE if the current immigration laws were in place when your ancestors came. Yet, you think it's okay to place those same restrictions on others, denying them the very thing that has given you life?
There is nothing "legal" or "moral" about that.
It's not okay to say "we need to enforce the law" when the law is, at its core, immoral. We must CHANGE the law, and until the law is changed, we must refuse to enforce it.
If there were a law to shoot Christians on sight, you would agree that we should REFUSE TO ENFORCE the law, right?
Belief in the Constitution as our Nations Legal/Social Foundation
Again, I 100% concur. However, this contradicts your first desire for "Christian-based values." The Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion. If you think laws should be based on Christianity, then you don't think that non-Christians should have the same rights. So you're going to need to pick one or the other, because you can't have both.
Personally, I don't think our laws should be based on Christianity. Our laws should be based on what's best for the people. Often, that happens to coincide with Christianity, and when it does, that's awesome. But if it doesn't, then the law of the land needs to concern itself with the people, not with religion.
Belief in Equal Opportunity with serious efforts to end prejudice at all levels of our Society/Government
Another 1000% from me on this. Again, easier said than done, but if we can just get everyone to agree that this is even a problem, that's half the battle. I appreciate that you agree this is still a problem. I think too many people say that there isn't any more racism, or sexism, or whateverism, that white people are the "endangered people" now, and I appreciate seeing you're not one of them.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
