The death of the American democratic system, or at least the failure of that system to continue affecting positive change in the nation, will happen for two reasons: overwhelming turnouts of uninformed and deliberately misinformed voters, and the nature of the two party system. In a way, the two causes are related, with the later being a contributor to the former. However, the end of democratic process has obviously not arrived, in spite of those clamoring that the current administration has killed our democracy with totalitarianism.

To begin, anyone who earnestly believes that the President’s administration is in any way more totalitarian—or ought even be classified as such—represents the kind of uninformed and deliberately misinformed public that can bring down a democracy. Were Americans really oppressed by a totalitarian regime, we would not have seen public opinion polls affect congressional action to block the sale of various domestic seaports to D.P.W. Similarly, it would be impossible for lunatics like Charlie Sheen or Michael Moore to spread absurd conspiracy theories and affect public opinion to any degree. Clearly, the deliberate misinformation of folks like Charlie Sheen has some significant effect on public opinion, as was recently indicated in a CNN.com poll regarding Sheen’s 9/11 comments.

Indeed, how could one ignore well reasoned statements like: “"There was a feeling, it just didn't look any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life and then when the buildings came down later on that day I said to my brother 'call me insane, but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition'?" . . . Show us this incredible maneuvering, just show it to us. Just show us how this particular plane pulled off these maneuvers. 270 degree turn at 500 miles and hour descending 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes, skimming across treetops the last 500 meters.”

Somehow, the 9/11 commission seemed satisfied that a trained pilot—which the hijacker was—could execute such maneuvers, and recognized that an object moving at 500 m/h would be impossible to photograph with cameras taking video at barely more than a frame/second. It’s a simple problem Occam’s Razor effectively addresses: which is more likely, that a terrorist organization hell-bent on the murder of thousands of American and the disruption of our way of life executed a horrific plan destroying the World Trade Center, or did the U.S. Government execute some incredibly elaborate conspiracy that required:

- A missile that looked enough like a plane be fired at the Pentagon without anyone noticing.

- The disappearance of hundreds of persons scheduled to fly on those planes.

- The faking of cell phone conversations of the people on those planes.

- The crash of a flight in Pennsylvania that otherwise would have targeted another significant building.

- The corroboration of Al-Qaeda, who accepted responsibility for the attack, when they would benefit even more greatly from telling Americans that their own government executed the attack?

Under a totalitarian regime, how would one managed to convince a projected majority of people, or at the very least, 45,000 persons that such a conspiracy was feasible? That sounds like the real conspiracy to me. As a sidenote, I find an incredible irony in the juxtaposition of statements claiming that President Bush is a blithering, incompetent, dullard, and yet has set in motion the most elaborate conspiracy since the JFK conspiracy theories began circulating.

In just over 7 months today, when I believe the Republican Party will lose its majority in both the House and Senate in crushing defeats around the country including predominately Republican states, we shall see just how un-totalitarian our current government is. All the political maneuvering in the world will not save the Republicans from the unpopularity of the President, lack of tangible results on important issues like social security and border security, and the growth in spending that otherwise would have indicated a Democrat controlled congress.

Yet this presents a problem to many registered Republicans today, much the way it could potentially fluster registered Democrats were the roles reversed. The two party system requires two relatively centrist parties to exchange ideas and garner voter support through results. Our two party system has become one where one centrist party squabbles ineffectually with a left-wing obstructionist party and achieves none of the goals important to its constituents. Yet, those constituents find themselves stuck between choosing someone who identifies with the liberal obstructionist party—a platform hard for anyone to agree with—and the ineffectual weak-willed leaders who upset them in the first place. I think voters are angry enough to vote across their ideologies for Democrat candidates, and will sweep in a new congress in Nov. 2006. However, this is the real shame of a two party system. Were there a viable third and fourth party, voters upset with the incumbents could vote for a different candidate without having to support a candidate whose ideology differs from their own. Voters would ideally be less likely to identify themselves as lifelong Republicans or Democrats and simply vote along the party lines without engaging in any sort of critical thought or information seeking to shape an intelligent opinion and vote in a responsible manner.

The error of indoctrination and rhetoric

I haven’t touched the sale of various port terminals to Dubai Ports World for a few reasons. Frankly, I’m tried of the coverage. Most of the people discussing this matter involve no discussion, but rather, a shrill unilateral condemnation of the notion of selling port operations to an Arab state. Forget analyzing the facts that security will still be in the hands of the Coast Guard and Port Security Inc.—a Chinese influenced firm—or that having ports controlled by the UAE pales on comparison the danger of our wide open borders. Furthermore, let’s also forget that no American firms have expressed interest in the deal because they refuse to transact business with the Union, who demand salaries upwards of $150,000 for a longshoreman and that electronic transmissions of incoming freight be re-keyed into their system as a concession to maintaining a certain workforce. Let’s just ignore this deal as endemic of major problems battling this country. Remember, the talking points have been for the past 6 years: Bush and his cronies are evil. Equivocal discourse doesn’t fit that agenda.

Right wing talk shows have moved on after providing their own waffling defenses of the ports deal. They’ve moved on to something that I consider equally troubling. Michael Savage and his co-hosts have been ranting about the state of public schools. Laura Ingraham ran with a tape recording of an Aurora, Colorado teacher—Jay Bennish—vehemently regurgitating Michael Moore’s anti-capitalism rants, anti-war rants, and comparing President Bush to Hitler in place of a geography lecture. I don’t know what has happened to this teacher (I must have missed that segment), but the lecture is quite sickening. To hear this undereducated, over-influenced by a single point of view spewing this vile anti-American filth in a publicly funded school with no oversight and no retribution does disturb me. It disturbs me when teachers ignore the lesson plan, and substitute their own political agendas for the lesson plan. The other chief complaints about public schools regard a refusal to post a famous painting of George Washington praying after Valley Forge as a violation of separation of church and state, and a refusal to teach the Declaration of Independence because the documents reference God—or how the fundamentals and foundations of Islam take up a chapter in some history textbooks, while Christianity receives a 5-page section. Of course, that latter point ignores the fact that most of this history taught from the period 0 CE to 1700 and even beyond hinges on Christianity and references it, even if indirectly. But when do they take out religious history entirely, I wonder? However, I think that the point contending that there is a conflict for the students and a distraction for them when placing a sexually-reassigned teacher back in their original school to teach primary and middle-school students.



Though I agree that public schools teachers that try and indoctrinate students into any political philosophy should be vilified and fired, the answer is not ranting about the loss of our nation and its future. Rather, the answer hinges on the foremost conservative principle—that of individual responsibility. Those who want the bible taught in schools, which I think would be infinitely valuable, have that option. They can send their children to private schools, Sunday studies, or educate their children themselves. It breaks down to two options. Until a move is made to implement a school voucher system universally, a system that has been shown to advance all schools and students where implemented, parents have two primary options. Take an extra job—or reduce consumption of other goods—in order to cover the cost of a private Christian-centric or other faith based education, or take the time to educate children on the topics not covered in school. This requires taking the time to determine what lessons aren’t being taught by meeting with teachers, then teaching those topics oneself. Yes, a difficult task for working parents, but if one values education, obviously worth the effort.

Conservatives ought have learned by now not to read from the shrill liberal playbook that rants and fumes at something it disagrees with, cajoling perpetrators and marginalizing themselves as reactionaries. Instead, conservatives need to rely on conservative principles to confront issues like this.

I honestly believe that there is no internal problem facing this nation than accepting one’s personal responsibility. The real challenge rests in the fact of making people realize the gravity of that charge, and finding ways to make oneself accountable.

Below are links to the Bennish story.
>CBS Story
Audio