Authored by William Robert Barber
Since the founding of the republic ideological differences related and relevant to governing expectations, application, and process have developed into harshly conflicting perspectives. Since the times of Hamilton and Jefferson, although argued with vitriolic tenacity, these ideological differences are never resolved. The arguments and issues are the same; the only change is the venue, means, technical techniques, and protagonists.
The genesis of the disagreements though multifold could generally be defined in two central causes for dispute: What role does government assume, and is it limited or unlimited as to its power and authority? Are individual liberty and personal freedom prioritized as unassailable or is the citizen required to subordinate upon demand to the marshal authority of government?
The United States have a founding document that establishes the role of government as limited while definitively and explicitly guarantees within the Bill of Rights assures a citizen’s individual liberties and freedoms. Nonetheless, withstanding the written word, constitutional literates that include erudite judges, politicians, attorneys, legal scholars, and the specifically interested are implacably divisible as to the general as well as specific meaningfulness of the constitution. These constitutional literates hold wholly contrarian perspectives and for these literates the differences are immutable. The argumentative divide is an intellectual chasm that will not compromise nor synthesizes into acceptance. One side believes in the literal application of the constitution therefore blessing the founding document of 1789 as (less the constitutional use of amendments) interpretively inalterable. The others believe the constitution is a living breathing document that is alterable; they believe that progressive-biased reinterpretation or present values construe is a rational, sensible, possibly even sagacious reading of the founders’ actual intent.
The point being, these ideological perspectives are here to stay; one will not convert the other. Diametric and substantively congress will always be irreconcilably divided. As a consequence both sides work to persuade the unaligned to gain their vote. This practice of “vote getting” is the nitty-gritty of attaining political power. As a consequence, because the prevailing attitude of political operatives are to win the election at all cost. For the cohorts of vote-getters, unless and until overtly exposed, action deemed reprehensible or illegal is acceptable practice. The unaligned voter is bombarded with embellishments, lies, distortions, the truth, and the somewhat untruthful… for the voter discernment is positioned between difficult to impossible.
Soon, because of the national debt, an interest rate increase, cost of social service entitlements, an aging population, the excessively-outrageous cost of governing, egregious taxation policies, and the absolute need to maintain the most powerful military on earth, a series of definitive decisions will inevitably be forced upon the nation’s people. Those that advocate nanny-state socialism in the interest of survival will succumb to the reality of existential values coupled with a free and open market not just of goods but of ideas and innovational possibilities. But of course I could be wrong…