Political definitions

I know that my blog is supposed to be about writing and this one isn’t.  But it is about words.  And I did say in my first one that I might just want to rant.  So I am ranting. 

            One of the main principles of communication as I remember it is that in order to have a complete communication there must be a sender, a person speaking, and a receiver, a person listening.  Over this past week I have watched Republicans speak out and Democrats speak out but it is not clear to me if either of these communications had a receiver.  So, per the principle stated above, there has been no communication.   

            If President Obama were to give his most eloquent speech yet to a group of French citizens who do not speak English would the speech be a complete communication?  No it would not.  How then is it possible for him to speak to a group of Republicans who do not want to hear him?  On the other side of that coin if the Republican minority in the house and senate have a valid point to be presented to the congress and the Democratic majority do not want to hear them what is the chance that they will be heard.

            When people speak the same language the communication may be incomplete for a number of reasons.  For instance, A Catholic speaking to a Muslim, A man speaking to a woman, a republican speaking to a democrat. 

            Even when we speak to each other we do not communicate our point if the person who we are speaking to does not hear or want to hear what we have to say.  And to make things even more complicated what if we do have something to say but we use the wrong words.   Let us start with the definition of what a Democrat and a Republican is.  Webster says that a Democrat is a supporter of democracy:  somebody who believes in or supports democracy or the democratic system of government.  Does this definition fit a person of the Democratic Party?  No it does not.  The United States, often referred to as a democracy, is actually a representative republic.  So what are Democrats doing in congress?  Republicans on the other hand are by definition supporters of a republic as government:  somebody who believes that the best government is one in which supreme power is vested in an electorate. So shouldn’t we all be Republicans?  I know they are just the names that are given to the two major parties but isn’t it confusing when we think about it that way?  And what would we stand for if we still called them Whigs? 

            So on to the next confusing category, conservatives and liberals.  A conservative is a person reluctant to accept change: in favor of preserving the status quo and traditional values and customs, and against abrupt change.  Now if we follow this definition, and per our language we must because that is what it means, then when Clinton left office and Bush came into office were the conservatives not the Democrats?  And when our country is in dire straits as it is now isn’t conservatism a self destructive position to take? 

            The definition of a liberal is; broad-minded: tolerant of different views and standards of behavior in others.  Well now as a righteous Republican I can see why my party is so upset with President Obama.  Wait, isn’t that a good thing?  Oh there is a second part to that as it relates to politics and it says; progressive politically or socially: favoring gradual reform, especially political reforms that extend democracy, distribute wealth more evenly, and protect the personal freedom of the individual.  Oh boy now I am rally confused because I don’t think that part fits either one of them.  It does however seem to fit President Obama.  Wasn’t he accused of wanting to spread the wealth?  Well as a Democrat that is exactly what he is supposed to do. 

            OK so now I have decided that the thing to do to solve these political squabbles is to simply throw out the whole mess of them and get a new batch.  Well that has been tried before and only works on a limited basis so here is my plan.  We should pay them each one million dollars a year.  They will not need to pay their own staff.  The staff will be paid as permanent government employees.  Sort of like the post office.  That way they won’t be able to hire their unqualified brother in law and pay them a huge salary.  Now the cost is really not too significant if you think about it.  Four hundred thirty five congressmen and one hundred senators, total annual cost $535,000,000.  They spent that yesterday.  So how will that help you say?  Well at a million a year there are many midlevel managers in the private sector who are actually qualified to conduct the business of running the country who would now run for office.  So, by my estimate, in the next two elections cycles we would have replaced all of our petty, bickering, whiney representatives with qualified people who will behave themselves lest they lose their million dollars a year job.  Oh and they cannot earn any outside income from any source.  That should shut off the lobbyists influence on them.