Red vs Blue is not the answer

  The ideals that are laid out in both the Democratic and Republican 2012 platforms are laudable and in general I find them agreeable to my personal values.  The philosophies laid out by each are things that would be hard to disagree with by any patriotic American:

"We see an America that outeducates, out-builds, and out-innovates the rest of the world"

"...in America, hard work should pay off, responsibility should be rewarded, and each one
of us should be able to go as far as our talent and drive take us."

"This is a land of opportunity. The American Dream is a dream of equal opportunity for all."

"This platform affirms that America has always been a place of grand dreams and even grander realities; and so it will be again, if we return government to its proper role...If we lift up the middle class"

"Reclaiming the economic security of the middle class is the challenge we must overcome today."

It would seem that both parties aspire to high ideals and have the best of intentions.  But these statements are hard to quantify.  What matters much more than intentions is results.  If a strategy aims to make a better America but ends up diminishing productivity, freedom, and safety then it deserves to be abandoned, no matter how much we wanted it to succeed.  The problem is that many people do not look at results but focus almost exclusively on intentions.  We believe what politicians say they are going to do but turn a blind eye to what they actually do.
  Unfortunately too many fallen into the trap of thinking that our political and economic issues can be solved by a contest of Red vs Blue.  They fight and struggle within an artificial constraint, wholly believing that all philosophies, ethos, strategies, and plans fall neatly into either the bin marked Republican or the one marked Democratic.  This is a war that cannot be won because the premise is wrong.  Both sides are fighting straw men, or in other words, caricatures that they have created to represent what they believe their opponents espouse.  Each side claims that their party represents the highest ideals of charity, kindness, and morality while the other side revels in selfishness, elitism, and reckless decisions.
   The solution to this problem is for individuals to build a personal political philosophy that is based on enduring principles of good government rather than one derived from or defined entirely by one of the two political parties. 

While there are many fundamental issues to grapple with, one of the most basic issues is the degree to which government should be empowered to move society.  When we debate what government should or shouldn't do and the degree of regulation and federal governance that is appropriate, the question is really whether people will they do something on their on volition (within a presumed framework of basic laws and order) or whether they need to be explicitly forced to do it.  It is a fundamental question of what we believe the nature of mankind to be.  Does mankind deserve freedom or will they squander and abuse it?  The uniqueness of government as a vehicle for social movement is that it is force. 

“Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant -- and a fearful master.”
—George Washington, 1797

  Let us not naively believe that government is free from corruption and abuse anymore than any other agency.  Human beings run corporations and they also run the government.
  It is up to each person to answer the question of how much government mankind needs. Your opinion will be shaped by your religious and philosophical beliefs and can hardly be influenced by what I write but I can offer my opinion, which is that basic freedom is essential to happiness.  In other words, the least amount of federal government possible is the best for society.  The unfortunate trap that too many have fallen into is the notion that the federal government is best vehicle for affecting change. I believe that the proper role of the federal government is to protect life, liberty and property and to secure our nation.  Frederic Bastiat purported that “Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”  Local governments are much better equipped to dictate policy, laws, and regulations and when they do the result is almost without exception better for society. No doubt our country faces some very challenging problems.  Don't look to the federal government to solve all of them.  I believe that there still exists a majority of people who have an innate desire to help the needy, to act with a sense of personal responsibility, to cooperate with others, and to solve problems, that we can solve many of our problems without the force of federal government.  If I am wrong, and people must be forced to do good then we are surely doomed.  If mankind "cannot be trusted with the government of himself.  Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others?  Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.” -Thomas Jefferson