L&T Publisher Earl Watt
Pick your poison on what caused it — the growth of the internet and social media, the lack of statesmen and stateswomen in public office, the biased education system — but the polarization of America is alive and well.
Any issue that seems to come up splits us straight down party lines.
For example, one political party embraced masks while the other rejected them during the pandemic.
One political party has embraced abortion on demand while the other has sought to eliminate the practice altogether.
One party demands voter identification while the other claims asking voters to identify themselves is voter suppression.
One party believes the border should be totally secured while the other believes it should be totally open.
Pick the issue, and the parties become the poster child for Newton’s third law of Motion — “Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.”
People don’t follow this political reality. While the parties oppose each other at every turn, we tend to land somewhere in between for the most part.
Republicans have moderated on abortion, for example, believing absolute bans to be politically impossible. Democrats have modified on the border, believing that some minimal security is needed believing a wide open border to be politically impossible.
But those positions do not reflect the reality of what those in control of the parties want.
When added up, there is a clear difference between their positions, and the next election will tell what type of nation America will be for the next generation.
Taking in sum, there is a clearcut difference between the positions of the parties and it comes down to the concept of the individual and the concept of the collective.
The positions of the two major candidates is a stark contrast that highlights whether or not our nation will be controlled by civilians in government or whether government will be in control of the civilians.
Kamala Harris earned the rating of being the most liberal senator during her time in Washington, D.C. She was also rated the least likely to support bipartisan legislation.
Her position on most issues has been to provide more power to the government.
For example, she said in a 2019 interview she would ban fracking. Any type of ban is clearly transferring power to the government.
In June of 2019 Harris said she wanted to eliminate private health insurance and force everyone on to the government controlled Medicare system.
Harris stated that she would give a tax credit to those who want to have a child so they could afford a car seat, meaning the government would decide which people to return their cash to create the society she wants.
She also proposed to empower the government to set prices on groceries claiming that price gouging is taking place with absolutely no evidence.
Every answer to every challenge from Harris emboldens government and neuters the civilians to become subservient to government control.
Trump’s positions have been quite the opposite.
Trump has advocated for rolling back the control of government by pushing back against government regulations. He has stated that he would not only support fracking but unleash America’s energy sector to produce more energy resulting in lower costs to the consumer.
Trump supports private insurance so that the American people can choose their own plan.
While Harris seeks to target her tax relief to those who comply with her view of the world, Trump seeks to reduce taxes for everyone so they can make their own choices on how best to spend and invest their money.
Harris wants to tax unrealized gains, like when a house is appraised at a higher value. Trump believes that the people should not have to pay taxes on something they never received in cash.
Harris has been a part of a regime that has used the government to persecute political rivals, from Trump to even other Democrats including Robert Kennedy Jr., and Tulsi Gabbard. When Trump was elected president after 2016, he refused to use the power of the government to go after Hillary Clinton.
Down the line, this election shows the stark differences between the two approaches to the future. One empowers people and the other empowers government.
Which will the people choose? Right now it is up in the air whether or not people still believe they are best at making the decisions that affect their lives better than the government can. There are those who believe their only path forward is with government aid and by punishing others who have been successful.
Will jealousy and socialism win or will freedom and liberty win? We will find out in 58 days.
