Why Politics Stop Being Politics and became War (First in an Occaisional Series)

Is that a Democrat or Republican coming closer? 

Are we inching towards a second Civil War?

When did Politics get so serious that the opposition (D or R) looks like an At-At in the distance? (see picture above)

Why do Political disagreements between friends have sharper edges during this Election?

At Rasmussen, Chairman Del Beccaro tries to answer these questions (and puts some future posts [in the queue] in perspective). 

Here is the intro:


"Throughout all of history, the larger the stakes the more divided a people and the larger the government, the larger the stakes. This year, the presidential election is taking America to new partisan heights.

"In general, partisan intensity is directly proportional to the number and size of the political prizes we seek. So in the wake of a revolution with so much at stake between the sovereign states and those who wanted a “more perfect union,” partisanship was so intense that history would remember the protagonists as Federalists and their partisan opposites: Anti-Federalists. It is hard to imagine a more diametric battle. It featured political diatribes that make our modern discourse diplomatic by comparison. Of course, 70 years later, our partisan stakes reached their highest peak in American history with the Civil War - when our ways of life were decided not by the ballot but with guns.


"Those and certain other exceptions aside, our differences over the last two centuries have tended to be minimal compared to today. Government at every level was but a drop in the bucket compared to today’s ocean of spending and regulations. Not long after we settled upon or various limited government constitutions, we fought each other less and were therefore less divided because government did less."

America survived the Civil War (a war between the Agrarian slave-holder economy and the Industrial, factory and individual freedom based Economy), but it was also geographical.  The Frontier, common during the 19th Century is closed. So, if tensions flare higher, there is no where to escape the fighting. 

Governments, throughout History, usually Expand, then fall (look at the expanse of the Roman Republic and then the 3rd/4th Century Roman Empire) because of overreach. 

Chairman Becarro continues:

"The rather early lack of government-centric competition between us left our castles nearly unassailed and fostered the Era of Good Feelings, a period which allowed our fifth President, James Monroe, to run for reelection unopposed. An unopposed school board race is rare today. An unopposed presidential election is unimaginable.

"Not coincidentally, we have allowed our government to grow to such an extent that nearly every aspect of our life is either regulated or taxed or threatened with one or the other. On each side of those equations is a willing adversary seeking benefits or attempting to deprive others of theirs. In the middle are ambitious politicians amplifying if not promoting the competition for their own power or graft.

"So we find city councils everywhere deciding the scope of your property rights including the size of our former castles. At the other end of the spectrum, the federal government restricts and regulates the mattress on which we sleep, the food we eat, the cars we buy, the fuel we use to get to work, the rules that apply at our work, the TV we watch after work and the light we turn off at night - not to mention the manner in which our children are taught. In between are state governments rushing to fill the vacuum of virtually every freedom we leave unattended.

"Each such regulation or tax is to someone’s detriment and another profit. We take that competition to new heights in our tax code, which long ago abandoned its principal purpose, i.e. to raise money, in favor of political favoritism."

Why did Obamacare wake the Tea Party?

Because, if Government can weigh in on your Health, it can weigh in on what you do in your life.  If alcohol becomes the next cigarettes (i.e. Democrats next Hated Lobbyist Group), how soon before clubs and bars (i.e. Local Commerce) has to shut down?   

The Kelo case by SCOTUS is another example of others defining how you (yes, YOU!) live your life.  Whether your city uses Eminent Domain to for a new business (to help the cities tax base) or for altruistic reasons ("You don't need your home, we can put a [BLANK] here instead!"), your livelihood vanishes in place of the State.  

When the Government (Federal, State and Federal) is manageable and not expansive, the fight for control tones down.  Government is not a prize but a way to help the public do things business' and individuals cannot do.  And because it is a prize for Democrats, they are free to attack (with racial and misogynistic terms) those who oppose their candidate, like actress Stacey Dash. 

And the Final part of the must read post:

"Today, our national sport may well be businesses fighting each other for tax breaks or monopolistic protections. Consumers sanctimoniously seek relief from the protection those businesses purchase and then turn around and seek more regulation against their neighbors and the very businesses that they claim charge them too much.

"In simple terms, for everything government does it pits people and/or businesses against each other for ever more benefits or protections, and the more government taxes, regulates, licenses or spends, the more fighting there is. Given that overall state and federal government spending and debt is in the tens of trillions, we should understand the height of our problem and the length to which this partisanship will extend.

"The 2012 election highlights our partisanship. Despite two years of non-stop campaigning, our candidates have fought to a draw. Even our vice presidential candidates garner an equal 44% in a recent Rasmussen poll. Not coincidentally, nearly half of Americans pay no federal income taxes, and most of those who do are crying foul over government spending

"Of course, we are not alone in this tired play of history. From historian Will Durant we read: "Isocrates, old and rich, complained in 353 B.C., 'When I was a boy, wealth was regarded as a thing so secure and admirable that almost everyone affected to own more property than he possessed . . . now a man has to be ready to defend himself against being rich as if it were the worst of crimes.' " You see, what is new is really rather old."

The American system is not, if your neighbor has more then you -- he is taking from you.  It is, each person can rise individually (and bring family along too) if the State does not interfere in every part of our lives.   

Election 2012 is bringing along Raw feelings.  Why?

It is not just Power of the State reflected in few things; Whomever has Power of the State in 2013 will (with Obamacare in play) have control over every facet of our lives.

Conservatives, Republicans and Tea Partiers value the individual while the Democrats want to use the American Government OVER People.  In the original Star Wars, the Empire disbanded the Imperial Senate to allow regional control.  In the movies, we only see the opposition and not how it affected the day-to-day lives within the Empire.  

Democrats once believed Government would lift those out of poverty into the Middle Class; Modern Liberals talk of the "Poor always being with us,"  If you visit parts of (Democratically run) Los Angeles, the poor remain, and business' remain closed. 

Election 2012 is important because it should not be War between the Politicals but there should be some common ground on how far Government interferes with your life.

My question: Does Government need to be in Every facet of Our Lives? Has it worked anywhere/anytime?
 

The Power of the State in One Scene