What's in a Name?

Plenty, unfortunately.

I've been struck by all the labeling and name-calling that's going on. It's really quite appalling, especially when you consider that people from their twenties to their eighties can't just call George Bush, Sarah Palin, Barack Obama or John McCain by their own names.

"Shrub." "Obama-yo-mama." "McSame." "Caribou Barbie." And on, and on. Are these adults, or kids on the playground?

Sadly enough, they vote, whatever they are.

I frequent a message board for fans of NCAA Division II football programs, of which my beloved alma mater - the Pittsburg State University Gorillas - are a member. There's a dearth of D2 information out there, so this site is a God-send for us DII fans (it's www.d2football.com - a shameless plug for the site owner, who's a good friend of mine).

There's an off-topic section of the board, and during the off-season we D2 fans talk about anything and everything. This summer, for some odd reason, the topics tended to lean toward politics.

At some point, I made a post indicating that I'm a follower of Christ - you know, that guy who lived 2,000 years ago who cared about social justice, the poor, the children, the lost? That liberal-sounding dude?

And some guy who's never even met me, who has no idea what I believe in, immediately started calling me "neo-con."

First, there's nothing "neo" about me. My political leanings were formed more than 20 years ago - when this guy was still probably wearing pull-ups. Second, I'm not really all that "con," but more on that later.

He said I don't care about those less fortunate than me. Let's see - I probably give more to charity than he pays in taxes. I have spent a week of each of my last two summers doing hurricane relief work in the Gulf, driving my own car at my own expense to rebuild poor people's homes. I can't pass a homeless guy on the street without giving him money - whether he asks or not. I played a concert with my praise band this summer at the state prison, and we're going back in October.

But I'm a neo-con, who doesn't care about those less fortunate than me, because I'm a bible-thumper who looks down his nose at the little guy.

What a disconnect. How ignorant. How sad.

A reader of this blog recently encouraged me to "have an open mind." Attached to the message was a New York Times article blasting Sarah Palin, presumably intended to help "open my mind," since I had said I liked her. Now, the Times isn't exactly geared toward the open-minded, any more than Fox News is.

But, here's the deal: I already read the New York Times online every morning. And the Financial Times. And the UK Telegraph. And the Wall Street Journal. And Bloomberg. And the London Times. And Reuters, and an Asian newspaper or two, and an Aussie paper, and der Spiegel. Even a Russian paper once in a while. I watch Fox News, but I also watch CNN, MSNBC, C-SPAN, and the networks.

I read and listen to those sources, taking everything with a healthy dose of salt, weigh all sides of the issue against the backdrop of my own world view, and form an opinion. Is that not open-minded?

But I get labeled "closed-minded" (and I'm not indicating this reader labeled me as such, but others have) by people who only read left-leaning papers and liberal blogs, and proudly state that they refuse to watch Fox News.

Why? What are they afraid of? To be open-minded, mustn't one hear both sides of every story?

Apparently, some people don't think there is more than one side to the story. The funny thing is, I'm not one of them. But those that are in that camp, accuse me of being in it. Again, so much for logic.

So, I decided to do a little informal research, and then to lay out my own beliefs. You decide for yourself whether I'm "open-minded."

I did an informal poll of my D2 football buddies, and this is what I found.

I asked the following questions:

1. What is your current voter registration?
2. What was your mother's? Your father's? (Note: this question in part was prompted by a comment from an elderly relative, who stated, "I was born a Democrat.")
3. If you're a registered Independent, how did you vote in the last three presidential elections?
4. If you're a registered Democrat or Republican, have you ever voted for someone from outside your own party? From the opposition party?
5. For whom do you plan to vote in the coming election?

Here's what I found.

Among the Independents, who made up the majority of respondents, most of their parents were either Democrats or Republicans, with a handful of them coming from Independent households (about 30%). About a third are undecided, and more than half plan to vote Democrat in the coming election, with just 10% or so planning to vote Republican. In the past three elections (not all of them are old enough to have voted in all three), they've voted one-sixth for third-party candidates, with the remainder almost evenly split between Dems and the GOP.

Among the Republicans, which made up the second-largest cohort, almost half of them had parents who were Democrats. A fourth had voted for someone outside their own party, and half of those had voted for the opposition. A fourth of them are also undecided as to who they'll vote for in the next election, with almost all the rest planning to vote the party line, with one dissenter.

Now, to the Democrats, who were in the minority. About half of them had parents who were Republicans, the other half, Democrats. A third had voted outside their own party, and the same number for the opposition. All of them plan to toe the party line come November.

What does this tell us? Well, it tells me that the Republican voters are more likely to cross party lines than the Democrats. Sounds pretty open-minded to me. One Democrat even said "I would never commit the crime of voting Republican." That doesn't sound quite so open-minded, does it?

Now, on to my own experience.

I grew up in a household where, I guess my parents would say that they were born Democrats. I thought I was, too. We were blue collar all the way. Dad was a union member, and we lived near the poverty line.

I worked my tail off for two years after high school, sold my car, and borrowed money to go to college. For one of my summer jobs in college, I literally walked three miles to work each way. It wasn't uphill or in the snow, but it was hot as the dickens. I got my degree, then stuck around to get my MBA, working two to three jobs at a time, and borrowing still more money, which I repaid in full - even without a bailout.

On to my voting record and political leanings. I missed voting in the 1976 election by less than a week, due to my November 8 birthday. Had I been able to, I'd have voted for Carter. In 1980, I did vote for Carter.

Then, while I was a senior in college, a guy I worked for explained to me that the basic foundation of the Republican party was smaller government, and rewarding the little guy for pulling himself up by his own bootstraps, and keeping what he earned - or as much of it as possible - as opposed to being forced to share it all with a bunch of bureaucrats, who would ostensibly direct it to those less fortunate, but more likely would just line their own pockets with it.

That guy he described was my Dad, the Democrat. And my Granddad. And my great-Granddad. And Barack Obama, for that matter. So the story resonated with me. And I changed my registration to Republican, not because I believe in oppressing the downtrodden or because I grew up with a silver spoon in my mouth. Quite the opposite.

In 1984, I voted for Reagan. In 1988, I swallowed hard. I was a Kemp guy. I didn't like Bush I. He smacked of big government, to me. But Dukakis was even bigger government, in my opinion, so I held my nose and voted for Bush.

In 1992, I voted for Perot. I'd have voted for Clinton if Perot hadn't run. After Perot went conspiracy theorist and I'd witnessed four years of Clinton, I voted for Dole in '96.

In 2000, thinking that Gore would be a disaster, I voted for yet another Bush I wasn't a fan of. In 2004, I did the same thing, not wanting to see Kerry at the helm. But I was pining for a good third-party candidate, believe me.

This year, I'm undecided. I'm leaning toward writing in Ron Paul, especially now that the rest of Washington has gone socialist, which seems to appeal to so many Americans, who are sadly so ignorant of economics that they don't have the first clue what's going on.

But I may not even vote, as I may have defected by then. Besides, as I learned voting for Perot, a vote for Paul would be a wasted vote. I might as well vote for Obama, who wants to expand the great wealth transfer of 2008. Though if he promised to replace Bernanke with Volcker, he might sway me (but I'd want that in writing).

So I've voted Democrat, Republican, and third party. And I don't ever just plan to toe the party line. Every election, I weigh the candidates and their positions on the issues, taking information from every possible source, pro and con. Sometimes it comes down to a lesser-of-two-evils thing. Sometimes I have to hold my nose when I vote.

Now, as for my ideology. I remain a registered Republican, only as a position statement. Because I still believe the words of Gerald Ford: "If the government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is big enough to take away everything you have." And I don't want a big, socialist government. Which is why I'm so pissed off right now.

But for the record, I do believe that most of the Republicans in the White House, the House and the Senate have abandoned the core belief in less government. I just happen to be an idealist who hangs on to the ideal, even if everyone else has abandoned it. Regardless of my registration, I'm more likely to vote like an Independent. I'd re-register that way, but I want to make the statement that I believe in less government intervention. Until the Republican party officially and publicly abandons that plank of the platform, I'll stay put.

I also believe in a flat tax, and/or a consumption tax, which would impose fiscal responsibility, but nobody wants that anymore. Handouts and bailouts are the watch-word of the day.

I believe we were right to go into Iraq, given that we had bad intel that told us Hussein had WMDs (which he may well have, but moved into Syria, and in any event, no one would have been surprised had he had them, despot that he was, so it seemed plausible). Hey, I'm a CEO, and I've made bad business decisions on the basis of bad intel from senior managers to whom I delegated according to their purported expertise, who then proceeded to sell me a bill of goods.

Those senior managers are no longer in my employ. And that, above all else, was W's downfall regarding going into Iraq. He should have fired Rumsfeld and Cheney right away, but he's too loyal, like his Dad.

I'm glad we took out Hussein. But the management of the war effort was flawed. However, the surge worked, as Obama noted, "beyond our wildest dreams." Will we ever bring peace to Iraq? Heck, no. They've been killing each other over there since Abraham kicked Ishmael out of the tent. We're not going to change that. But let's make an orderly withdrawal, and not just be stupid about it for the sake of political expediency. Two wrongs don't make a right.

I believe in equal opportunity for all, but I don't believe in affirmative action or quotas.

I believe in some form of gun control. I'm not sure just what, because it's not an issue that's near and dear to my heart. But I believe it's too easy to get a gun these days.

I believe in a woman's right to choose what procedures are done on her body. Unfortunately, an abortion is not performed on a woman's body, but on an unborn infant's. It takes place IN a woman's body, but it murders the unborn infant. Murder is against the law in every state. Let's just enforce those laws, and leave the federal government out of it.

I understand the strong feelings that some people - especially victims and their families - have about the death penalty. But I'm increasingly convinced that it's not man's place to play God in that regard. In the apparently dichotomous position that exists with pro-lifers who also support the death penalty, I understand their distinction about innocent vs. not-so-innocent life. (This distinction - so often pointed out by their detractors - is no different from those on the other side who believe it's wrong to kill a convicted murderer because that's "playing God," yet fine to kill the unborn.) I understand both views, I just happen to have mine.

I don't believe in government-provided welfare. I'd rather get a nice tax break for contributing to charity, as I do, so that I can direct my own money to do the greatest good possible, for the people that need it most. I'm a heck of a lot smarter than most of our elected officials, apparently, and I'm certainly a better steward of money than they are. I trust myself to make those decisions far more than I trust them. If Washington must get involved, set a minimum charitable contribution level, and if I don't meet it, tax the bejeebers out of me. (Hint: I give a significant multiple of what Joe Biden does, and he's worth considerably more than me.)

I also give freely of my time, efforts and talents, like playing prison concerts and doing hurricane relief work. Do my "open-your-mind" detractors do those things? When I ask that question, they accuse me of only doing those things to be able to brag about it. Really? What do I supposedly get out of such boasting? If they'd do those things themselves once in a while, they'd understand what one truly does get from such experiences: greater blessings than those whom you're there to bless.

And, that accusation also assumes I'm clairvoyant, and can predict that well after I've made my contributions and given of my time, I will be accused of not caring about others, and will then have my charitable efforts conveniently in my hip pocket, ready to whip them out in my defense. Once again, so much for logic.

So, where do I fit on the political spectrum? Well, it would appear I'm clearly a fiscal conservative, though in "tests" I've taken I fall just barely to the right of center in that respect. On social issues, I come in centrist - left on social justice, right on some moral issues. In fact, on the Moral Matrix test, I identified with "Liberalism" and "Capital Democratism," and the party assigned me was the Democratic party. Those respondents more conservative than me numbered more than four times those more liberal.

In practice - where it matters most - I'm sure I'm more liberal than those who cry "care for the less fortunate" but spend all their time talking about how much money they have/make, and spend all their energy hanging onto as much of it as they can for themselves, while calling on "soak-the-rich" taxes to pay for the handouts they support. Seems rather hypocritical to me, but what do I know, desperately clinging to logic as I do?

The bottom line is this: we do way too much labeling and name-calling, and not enough frank and honest self-evaluation. And that is the root of our great divide. And, it comes every bit as much from the left as from the right. So to say that George Bush, or Karl Rove, or some other right-wing target has divided us, is an absolution of personal responsibility.

But that's what too many of us want.

When it comes to our division, as Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and he is us." So I'll close by quoting a Vietnam War-era folk-song lyric - as liberal a source as one could ask for:

"When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?"