1 July 2009

Though basically a fiscal conservative (that is, I believe it is necessary to be able to earn what is spent) I am reconciled to a more progressive approach to society than has been true in the past.  Modernity and the vast movement of people from the farms to the cities makes it necessary.   That, however, does not mean that money not available can be spent blindly.   The struggle is not new; it pits those who believe in the rights of the individual against what's best for society.  We all struggle with that.

While in a more compromising mood today, however, another thought hit me as a result of reading about the conclusion of the senatorial election in Minnesota.  On the one side I accept the need for compromise on basic issues; on the other there must be effort to do it within recognized rule of law, and that is what bothers me at the moment.  Politics changed dramatically during and after the late 1800s due to a rapid influx of immigrants who needed to be guided in the rules of the game.  That role was quickly filled by machines in cities such as New York, Chicago, Jersey City and in Starr County, Texas.  It was ugly, but it was brought under control eventually - sort of.  The model did not go away, however.

The senatorial election in Minnesota reflects just how much that model still prevails, albeit behind the scenes - practiced by the machines, that still exist.  Taken to extreme those machines provide the basis for fascism; we are nowhere near the extreme today, but the potential always exists and so must constitute a concern: compromise and ballot stuffing are not compatible.

So how can I defend Middle Ground when the players are more and more inclined to reject it in favor of their own power ambitions supported by blantantly illegal voting procedures?  That is a valid question.