Political Derping

Part 1: The Deficit



If you watch the news or pay attention to current events, you will hear a lot of talk about the deficit. It's become one of the "hot button" issues over the last couple of years. While both sides agree that it is a problem, neither side seems to want to take action and do something about it.

Now, for those who are shaky on their civics, a deficit is created when the government spends more money than it brings in. Any money spent beyond that revenue limit is qualified as "deficit spending". In small doses, it's nothing to freak out over; however with the rate it's grown in recent years, it has become a lynchpin in the economic woes our country faces.

Pop quiz hotshot: How do you reduce a deficit?

A: Reduce spending

B: Increase revenue

C: Combination of A and B

D: Increase spending

E: Reduce revenue

or F: Combination of D and E?

Ideally, the answer is C, but either A or B on their own can help. It seems simple enough, doesn't it? I mean, you don't need to attend grad school to figure this out. So what's the problem? Well, let's find out.

Where the Right Went Wrong

One of the defining traits of the American right wing is its love of tax cuts. As far as right wingers are concerned, any problem this country faces can, through some roundabout way, be solved by tax cuts.

This is all well and good at face value. I know most working class people wouldn't mind keeping more of their hard earned dollars in their pocket, and the term does have a nice ring to it. The problem lies in the fact that the conservatives forgot that, in order for tax cuts to mean anything, you have to cut the spending to make up for the loss in revenue.

To be fair, it's a tough sell. No matter what program you cut, there are going to be detractors saying that you're depriving some group of people some service and that it's vital that the program be fully funded and then some. It's natural to try and shy away from it, but again, it needs to be done; otherwise you're just making the problem worse.

The Left Isn't Right Either

The "tax and spend" mantra often attributed to liberals may be stereotypical, but it often holds true. Just as the right wing thinks that tax cuts are the solution to every problem, so does the left think that more government spending is the all purpose solution. Now, in some cases, this may prove to be the case; however, when you're trying to fix a deficit, it ends up doing more harm than good.

A lot of people on the left say that tax hikes are necessary if the problem is going to be solved. Going back to my surprise quiz, you would think that this would be OK. The problem is that those on the far left won't put any new income towards the deficit. They would, more than likely, create some new program and put the money towards that. Of course, once the program is launched, you can't cut from it either because it provides a service.

Why Compromising Yourself Doesn't Work

Back around the holiday season, there was much talk about the great compromise bill where Obama agreed to extend both the Bush tax cuts as well as unemployment benefits. In a lot of ways, it was a good plan. Both sides got something that they wanted (and both complained about the other stuff being there) and in terms of getting the economy going, it seemed reasonable enough.

However, in terms of solving the deficit, it did exactly the wrong thing on both fronts. There was no increase in revenue and government expenses went up.

Final Thoughts

It's no surprise that the two major political parties find themselves at odds over certain issues, but even when they agree, they can't seem to do anything about it. Both sides talk about how sacrifices need to be made, but only rarely do they seem to be the ones who want to do it. It's especially bizarre in that both parties disagree and stand on opposite sides of the political fence, yet they're both handling it the wrong way. All in all, the whole thing just amounts to both parties derping.




Part 2: Gay Marriage



The debate regarding gay marriage is, well, rather weird. It's not as heated a debate as some other hot button issues, but it does draw a lot of attention and controversy anytime the issue arises. It's not that complicated an issue, but those in charge like to pretend that it is. Let's see how they derp this time around.

You Keep Using That Word, I Don't Think it Means What You Think it Means

Those on the left end of the political spectrum are quick to call anyone who disagrees with their stance a homophobic bigot. How so? You may ask. Simply saying that marriage is a bond between a man and a woman doesn't necessarily imply ill will towards those of a different sexual orientation, or even discomfort about the idea. It seems more like misplaced idealism than malice.

Those who have watched shows like Married with Children or Everybody Loves Raymond could even make an argument that the gay community has the better end of the deal. As Mayor Randall Winston said, "Even if I did hate gay people, I'd want them to get married, put them through the same hell the rest of us have to go through."

Kidding aside, the focus of the issue seems to be on the various benefits of marriage. Married couples get things like tax write offs, insurance perks, and hospital visitation rights. The left says that under the 14th amendment, homosexual couples should have access to those rights as well.

This would be a valid point, if those on the right did want to deprive same sex couples of those benefits it would be unfair and discriminatory, but most of the more prominent Conservatives agree. They seem more than willing to grant same sex couples those rights, they just don't want to call it "marriage".

Have Your Wedding Cake and Eat it too

When Christians talk about "the sanctity of marriage", I always figure that they're talking about the religious sacrament. The holy bond between man and wife is part of the church ritual. You can keep that intact while still giving same sex couples the right to marry via the state.

The Government can't force a church to change its beliefs or modus operandi. That violates separation of church and state. By granting same sex couples access to a secular marriage, both parties get what they want. The "holy union" remains intact and same sex couples get the benefits. This respects the view points of both sides and gives them both what they want, an ideal solution if I do say so myself.

Now, some Conservatives have tried something similar. They often push what they call "Civil Unions", which, from my understanding, is marriage in everything but name.

This seems fine at face value, but the problem is that this is where both parties get hung up.

Terminology

That's right, the issue has basically boiled down to arguing semantics. Conservatives say, "look, we'll give you the benefits, we just want the word." Liberals don't seem inclined to agree for some reason. Even though they're getting what they want, equal benefits for same sex couples, they're equally hung up on the terminology instead of the actual issue.

You'd think that the Left, which often goes on about how enlightened it is, would acknowledge that they're basically wasting time nitpicking over semantics and cater to the "compromise", if only to "humor" those on the right. They are getting what they want after all, and it would still be a step forward for the GLBT movement.

Sadly, no, both sides are obsessed with having the word to themselves. Even though there's no real debate to be had on the issue itself, both parties decide to concoct whatever reason they can to bicker. Rather than try to take a step forward, they decide to go around in circles. Arguing over an issue you actually agree on because you're clinging to terminology, that is pretty derp.



Part 3: Bush and Obama



When Obama came into office, everyone was excited about the change that they thought was coming. People were eager to see someone take office that would put an end to the old way of politics and usher us into the new generation. Sadly, that didn’t happen. Instead, the only thing that seemed to change was the roles that each party played in the same old arguments people had been having for nearly a decade.

Back when Bush was President, the left was quick to throw all sorts of insults and accusations his way. They’d say that his policies were ruining the country and even went so far as to compare him to Hitler. The right countered this by saying that any disagreement with the Commander in Chief was unpatriotic. Not surprisingly, the left called BS on this sentiment.

Once Obama came into office, the two parties flipped. Now, it’s the right making all the crazy accusations while the left says that any dissent is unpatriotic. Again, comparisons to Hitler are being made, despite the fact that neither one has any basis in reason or common sense.

You’d think that one of the two parties (and I don’t care which one) would look at the other side and say, “you know, if the roles were reversed, I wouldn’t behave like that”. If nothing else, it would allow them to take the high ground and talk about how they were above that sort of thing. Instead, both parties do exactly what they were complaining about the other party doing just a few short years ago.

Both Presidents have also fallen victim to ludicrous conspiracy theories. After 9/11, there was a movement that pushed the idea that Bush was the true mastermind and that it was some sort of inside job.

Obama has had to deal with what’s been dubbed the “birther” movement, a group that questions Obama’s claim that he was born in Hawaii and has often called for the man to release his birth certificate. Once Obama did so, they said that it was fake. Face, meet palm.

Oh, that brings up another point, the opposition calling the validity of the President into question. With Bush, it was the extremely close election of 2000, where he lost the popular vote, but managed to win the electoral college. Obama has had to deal with similar complaints, from his flubbing of the oath on inauguration day to the aforementioned birthplace debate

This weird reflection became most apparent with the whole Libya fiasco. You’d think that the right would be all over this. Toppling a dictator and fighting for freedom is what they’re all about. Yet, when Obama sent troops in, they chided him for not having an exit strategy. The left responded by saying that going against the president on this is un-American.

Didn’t we just do this!? When we were promised change, I don’t think anyone thought that the only thing that would be changing was the positions of the politicians. This isn’t progress, it’s a remix.

It’s like, once Obama took office, someone in Congress stood up and yelled, “change places!” Then, members of both parties ran to the other side of the room and started reading the opposing party’s script.