Caveat voter

This summer, I met a politician who, when asked why he was a Republican, replied, "I just am." I pressed him to give a better answer, but he refused to say anything about fiscal spending, taxation, foreign policy, personal freedom or even something as simplistic as "Democrats suck." \nInstead, he seemed to believe that Republicanism is a state of being rather than a voluntary party affiliation. Given the partisan and ideological absolutism many Americans display in modern political discourse, maybe he's right. \nHaving listened to countless informal political discussions, I am sure that a vast number of people haven't the slightest idea how to articulate what they believe or perhaps why they believe it. \nFor example, in a political science class last week, prompted by the professor to describe the difference between liberals and conservatives, one student said that liberals were "progressive." \n"Progressive" is a relative term that can be interpreted any number of ways. Although "progress" is often construed to mean positive movement toward a beneficial goal, one can just as easily make "progress" toward an undesirable one. Not everyone agrees on what is good, so any inference of constructive advancement rests purely on assumption. For instance, state support of the poor often hamstrings families into government dependence, but the "War on Poverty" that spawned such programs was labeled "progressive." \nIf that is progress, count me out. \nJust as guilty of dubious definitions of self are so-called "conservatives," who claim to believe in an unobtrusive government that leaves the people to govern themselves - but only when it applies to them. Recent issues such as gay marriage amendments and increased government regulation of mass media content contradict the laissez-faire approach that conservatives are alleged to espouse. Yet, such actions on the part of the government are supposed to be in-line with conservative ideals. \nSorry, but censorship is no ideal of this conservative.\nPersonally, I support or oppose legislation and candidates based on what I actively read about them, how they relate to my sense of right and wrong and my concept of the role of government. Waiting for news blurbs is a passive and ineffective way to inform oneself about anything, let alone the complex world of politics.\nWhile having pre-conceived notions is unavoidable, far too often people become overly enamored with a particular way of seeing the world and equally vicious in their views of people that differ in their opinions. This tends to result in the acceptance of absurd labels and stereotypes that then become widely held views within a particular community -- for example, a college town.\nThere are some who believe that one party is full of "elitist, racist, war-mongering, neo-fascists" or likewise the opposite party is rife with "tree-hugging, politically correct, pinko-commie-leftists," depending on one's point of view. Such polarizing language stands in the way of constructive dialogue and workable solutions of compromise.\nIn a democratic republic such as ours, an informed and engaged electorate is essential for its success. Unfortunately, many Americans get their information from sources that lack in-depth analysis, or worse, from vacuous political lackeys and celebrity propagandists. \nIf people like Ann Coulter or Michael Moore heavily influence your political opinions, please seek help immediately. \nSo, instead of meaningful debate in the many forums available within our free society, the political arguments I hear in real life are usually repetitions of senseless rhetoric absolutely devoid of critical thought originating from some famous nitwit. Such fruitless bickering allows for sub-standard candidates and bad government for which we ultimately have ourselves to blame.\nIf we continue to accept the nonsensical divisiveness around us, government will undoubtedly take advantage of us -- regardless of which party or candidates win in November.