|
|
Political |
|
|
|
Political Football. Unfortunately, too many
politicians know how to play the game –political football is often a
means to an end, an end that does not necessarily benefit the voters. The Political Football Award, or Poliball Award,
goes to the politician who does his or her best to play the game of
political football. This year’s recipient is a person who has added a
new level to the award—turning against members of his party.
Therefore, the Poliball Award this year is dubbed “The Benedict Arnold
Award.” This year’s award is given to a Tennessee
politician who best demonstrates an abandonment of his duties of office.
This politician undertook a strategy of eliminating members of his
party, in favor of seeking more conservative, and more acceptable,
candidates for office. This strategy favors extremism over the sound
principles of compromise and negotiation, sound principles used by
leaders to achieve the goals of the people. Politics is a tough business—daily, we hear of
the competitive, and negative nature, of politics. Adding to the brutal
nature of politics is a strategy by some to promote extremist
views—extremist views that include a strategy to oust those who
disagree with those views. Extremists usually begin their work on the
local level, building a foundation to promote their agenda, an agenda
that needs a local base to gain strength on a state, or national level. This year, the actions of Tennessee State
Representative Chris Clem demonstrate the negative nature of politics,
particularly when political extremists are elected. Mr. Clem sent an
email suggesting that the Republican Party work to defeat certain
moderate republicans because of their vote to reelect Tennessee House
Speaker Jimmy Nafeih. Mr. Clem suggested the Republican Party look for
more loyal, and obviously conservative, candidates. By taking this
action, Mr. Clem actively promoted the ouster of members of his
party—moderates who do not “stay in step” with the conservative,
and cooperative, ideology of the right wing of his party Mr. Clem’s strategy is dangerous—not for Mr.
Clem, or his conservative, right wing base. This strategy is dangerous
because it promotes an agenda designed to support, and elect,
politicians who blindly march in step with a conservative, right wing
agenda. Under this plan, it is necessary to eliminate those who do not
“keep in step” with the conservative wing of the party. Extremism represents an inability to compromise,
extremists usually hide behind the guise of being mainstream, while they
propose “agendas” to pass extremist policies, and, most important,
to do exactly what Mr. Clem proposed—work to oust the more moderate,
mainstream politicians from office. Such a strategy is a public disservice--history
has demonstrated that extremism undermines the rights of all people. We
have witnessed extremism in leaders around the world. Most recently, we
have waged a war against the extremist Saddam Hussein of Iraq. Hussein
“got his start” by participating in local politics—working his way
through the system. Recently, we remembered the extremism of
McCarthy, who conducted a witch-hunt of Americans under the guise of
searching out, and exposing, communism. Many innocent people suffered
from the McCarthy witch-hunt, with one American so distraught over
appearing before McCarthy, he committed suicide. Ultimately, McCarthyism
failed—it failed in exposing the plot of communism. The right wing of the Republican Party promotes
an extremist agenda, an agenda designed to meet their goals, not the
goals best suited for our society. Oftentimes, conservatives such as Mr.
Clem, make proposals revealing an inflexible approach to politics.
Ousting members of the Republican Party with moderate views is a
disservice to the Republican Party. Mr. Clem’s actions demonstrate his
intolerance for other views. His actions show that his agenda is to
eliminate the more moderate members of his party. The agenda obviously
is designed to seek the more conservative, and in his view, more
cooperative candidates for office. Mr. Clem deserves the “Benedict Arnold”
award. His actions clearly undermine his ability to serve as an
effective member of any legislature. Most important, his actions show
that extremists will undertake any strategy to insure the extremist
agenda succeeds—even if it calls for the removal of “one of their
own.” If the Republican goal is to limit our choices
by adopting an internal plan to oust moderates in the Republican Party,
we all lose. Such a strategy is intolerant of other views; such a
strategy undermines the political, and governmental, process. If we, as voters, remain apathetic, extremists
will capitalize on the apathy, and extremist views will dominate our
political, and governmental, system—do we really want to see that
happen? We should hope that the strategies reflected by
Mr. Clem’s actions do not go unnoticed. We should work to defeat those
who work to “destroy” others for having different views--if we do
not, we may see a return to the McCarthyism of the past. Stuart F. James |
