On Conservative and Progressive Terms

One night as I lay here bored and trying to name my individual phalanges, it suddenly occurred to me the amount of power that is in a name. First, I thought about the names I had given my fingers (didn’t get to the thumbs): Steven, Bruce, Lance, Viggo Mortensen and Chevy. Yet, my thoughts began to slowly transcend those kinds of names, and I moved onto other things like: butterscotch, Trans fat, Buffalo Bills and the Saint Lawrence Seaway. However, as I slipped further into a sleep deprived delirium, I began to reflect on that which one should never dwell upon before he turns in for the evening: Government and Politics.

I considered the names “Republican” and “Democrat” for a while, but because they were just too frightening in their present form, I relinquished to ponder instead, “Progressive” and “Conservative.” Delicious, for it was in this instance the power of names became abundantly clear unto me and understood, that by mere names or titles alone, Progressives win out over the Conservatives. Yes, I know I have had a couple “witty” (according to my mother) entries recently concerning word usage, thus I will not go too far into detail in this installment of my blog, for I am just way too tired and still have a couple thumbs to name before I crash out.

“Progressive” is a very positive term. It connotes an expansion of ideological values and a social evolution towards a great utopia, which seems to be within mankind’s grasp. By promoting this form of social evolution, society can encourage virtue within every man, and bring this utopia eventually into being. If anyone, by sheer accident, detects any sarcastic tone here, let it be known, I am quite serious and no attempt to be rude is being made. This is what a lot of Progressives I have talked to tend to agree upon. There is a conception of a noble world, full of virtue and philanthropy, which can be perfected by determined social conditioning. For these virtuous values need to be encouraged with it’s very foundations, built upon the Jeffersonian inherent goodness of man.

“Conservative” on the other hand is a very negative term. It connotes a suspension of the advancement of social values and seemingly, almost completely, ignores social evolution by basing all its ideology on the past and such a viewpoint can only lead to holding the world back from this utopian society. Thereby, it must be discouraged wholeheartedly in society, and such an ideology should be eradicated. I again don’t say this to be mean, and am not being sarcastic, for I consider myself to be part of the latter group. Yet, Conservatives feel the idea of some huge utopia is unrealistic, and believe people aren’t inherently good or virtuous, but rather will look out for themselves, way before they consider the greater needs of society, which points to Adams’s fallibility of man. Thus, safeguards and absolute values are needed to promote individual prosperity and responsibility, and any true social advancement requires a system of checks and balances to counteract man’s inherent faulty nature.

These are the things that occurred to me by just pondering the words themselves. Words do have power, and I am not suggesting they be changed, but wrote this only to show that when it comes to the words themselves, again, Conservatives are at a disadvantage. I will withhold any defense of my viewpoint or critique of the Progressive viewpoint for another time, but felt the two terms needed to be reflected on somewhat, for some unknown reason. Arbitrary? Yes. Useless? Yes. Probably extremely wrong? Most likely, but sleep deprivation will make you write some odd things, as I believe my latest entry can attest. Now on to my thumbs…

On The Privileged Birth of One Caroline Kennedy

In their desire and efforts to break away from Britain, the founding fathers held several principles dear. One particularly important aspiration was to break away from the old monarchal aristocracy that had ruled over Great Britain for so long. This was to be accomplished by adopting a democratic system of election, in which the public would decide those candidates who were best suited to come into power. Yet, the founders weren’t completely ignorant of the elite’s still potential power over policy either, for President John Adams, whose son John Quincy Adams was ironically elected president in 1825, once said, “Birth and wealth together have prevailed over virtue and talent in all ages.” This certainly seems to be the case and provisions were put in place, within our system of government, to combat the effects the social elite might have, which was believed, by people like John Adams, to be an inevitability of the human condition.

We can clearly see its affects throughout American political history, from the Adams’s themselves, to Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Edward “Ted” Kennedy, George Bush, and George W. Bush. A pretty sound argument can be made that Adams was indeed correct and it is truly an inescapable factor all men need to be wary of and take into account. However, all the people previously mentioned were elected by the public, so in these particular contexts, I myself have no qualms.

The Kennedy’s are the greatest example of this truth, and in the race for the senate seat of New York, we may indeed see it come to pass by the eventual appointment of Caroline Kennedy into the vacant spot left by Hillary Clinton, after Clinton herself was appointed to a prominent position within the Obama cabinet. Caroline Kennedy has no political experience, but is certainly a talented woman, of this I concede, for she did graduate from Columbia Law School and co-author two books on civil liberties, which are no small tasks. Yet, I can’t help but think; would she really be considered for the senate seat if she wasn’t a Kennedy? I don’t see any reason why she would and I feel troubled that due to the stigma her last name has, she is able to waltz into a senate seat without any legitimate election.

That being said, I would have no complaints concerning her winning an election and gaining the seat through, what I would consider, more proper channels. Even she herself has stated her appointment wouldn’t be the “traditional path.” Yet, within our system of government the path is “traditional” because it is how it was designed in the first place and our officials need to adhere to the original archetype. With Clinton being called to service by the President elect, it is true that these are fairly difficult circumstances and I know it is a huge, costly deal to have a special election. However, this doesn’t nullify the fact there are other, extensively qualified people with more political experience that can be of great service to the State of New York.

One of these is Andrew Cuomo, who is currently the Attorney General of the State of New York, but his privileged birth and ties to the Kennedy’s cannot be ignored either. His father was the famous New York governor Mario Cuomo, and the Attorney General, until a couple years ago, was married to Mary Kennedy, a daughter of Robert Kennedy, the famous New York senator. I am seeing a little bit of a trend here, but again all these people were elected into office. However, Andrew Cuomo being given the senate seat might not end the issue either though, for then we would have to debate who got the Attorney General spot, which Caroline Kennedy might be a shoe in for too. It may not be realistic, but I would advocate that nobody be able to leave an elected position for any appointment, because I believe they are elected under the pretense that they stay the duration of their term.

Privileged birth or class status is indeed inevitable. It has happened in the past, is happening today and will continue to be a factor throughout time. It is something we should be on our guard against in the political spectrum; especially when it concerns those people who have not been properly vetted by the voter pool, but rather appointed by someone else in a high status position. In this case with Caroline Kennedy, the final decision will be made by David Paterson, the current Governor over New York, who was sworn in following the resignation of Eliot Spitzer after the New York Times reported Spitzer had solicited the services of a prostitute.

The Kennedy’s are no doubt a force to be reckoned with in the world of politics, for they are a sneaky group with many ties. California has its connections to the Kennedy’s through first lady Maria Shriver, wife of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is the daughter of Eunice Kennedy Shriver, the sister of John F. Kennedy. Is it really any wonder they are referred to as “America’s royal family?” Let us all just hope the Baldwin’s never decide to go into politics.