Can I take 3 minutes to convert your political beliefs?

The Indiana Republican Party is holding their convention this weekend. There is a debate about whether to remove marriage being defined as a man-and-a-woman in their official platform. Last night, the report came that Speaker of the House Brian Bosma is against it. Governor Holcomb dodged it and refused to form an opinion. It’s up to the delegates, and I have no idea how they’ll vote.

But as they’re voting, literally a half mile up the street Indiana’s largest gay Pride parade and festival will be marching along.

I’ve written about Pride before. To recap: I don’t quite understand it, and I’m still not convinced it helps win over the hearts and minds of the people that have hearts and minds that need reaching. But people have fun, it does no harm to me, and best I can tell it doesn’t cost a bunch of money from public funds (parking revenue losses may be a wash with other parking revenue elsewhere, and police presence may be a regular shift of officers. I don’t know.)

I know a lot of gay people. I know a lot of Republicans. And I know a lot of Democrats. I know two gay Republicans. I know that Republicans get booed, with few small exceptions (like former Mayor Greg Ballard), and most of the people there are firmly in support of the Democrats. It’s not hard to imagine why.

But this does not align with reality. We know that about half of the population has to be conservatively-minded and half are progressive and liberal. It’s been this way forever. So how can you have that many thousands of diverse individuals at Pride and not have more than half a dozen people in favor of a narrowly defined government, cost savings, and personal freedoms?

You can’t. At least a third of the people there have some conservative ideals.

Over the years I have shifted between political parties, often voting fiercely independent in each election. But this does no one any favors because it still rewards bad behavior. There’s one party that is so hung up by civil liberties and personal freedoms they can’t help be renege on their own platform and deny them to people. This is idiotic and hypocritical.

But for the millions of gay men and women looking for a party, the Democrats are “the least bad choice” in most but not all circumstances around their personal freedoms. But what if you think charter schools might be worth looking at? What if you don’t think a government program is a solution to a problem? This is no way to live. This is no way to run a country or a state. Because then you’re tied to the baggage of the rest of the platform.

If you’re reading this and nodding slightly in agreement — regardless of our sexual orientation — consider if the Libertarian Party isn’t exactly who you are. Consider that maybe people should be free to do with their bodies as they wish, love who they choose, take part in safe, lawful events as they choose, and also we can do things in this country without it being a government program. That maybe there are some cost savings yet to be found in a few places. That maybe some government programs do more harm than good. Perhaps the solution to not every problem is an increase in taxes, but a re-alignment of taxes. That the best way to honor our veterans is to avoid sending them to more wars. And that maybe, just maybe, adults are free agents capable of deciding what’s best for them in every circumstance of their own lives. Perhaps a policy of “do no harm” is ideal.

A lot of this used to be the Republican Party, which does not seem to exist anymore. Someone once told me the reason they don’t vote Libertarian is because “Libertarians don’t win”. Well, you know what changes that, right?

There is no party for the modern Millennial

The Washington Post has this story about shifting political attitudes in parties, especially under 30’s. Like I wrote earlier, this sort of stuff happens as the country changes and the parties are slow to adapt. Often the other is the beneficiary, but sometimes, like now, neither party wins all the spoils.

If I had to plot my political attitudes on a graph I’m not sure I could do it. If I did, it’d come out as what we’d currently describe as an “Independent”, and I have a voting record that would back that up. I’ve voted for Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarian candidates in a lot of races.

The thing that bothers me about the whole experience is I want to feel comfortable in a party. I’ve bounced between a few party meetups and meetings, and I never understand it. Like I’ve told some close friends, “Belonging to a party today seems like a mental illness.” It’s about the feelings and not about the policy or ideas. We’re short on ideas that extend beyond “The government can do that” and “The market can do that.”

I’m heavily conflicted in a variety of ways. I’m a supporter of property rights (this goes for your body), the enforcement of those rights, and the ability for people to do with their bodies and property as they wish. But then my neighbor doesn’t clean up his lawn and it drives me nuts. Or someone smokes in front of me on the sidewalk and it blows in my face. That pisses me off.

I’m a supporter of people’s ability to further themselves and do at least 90% of the work to improve their lot in life themselves. I don’t think it’s entirely 100% within a person’s control. The government can help, it can get in the way, and does so frequently. Licensing is a good example – I see no reason why hairdressers need a license. That’s protectionism of a favored industry. But I can’t shake the fact that some people are just not wired to be able to help themselves – able-bodied or not – and something has to be done for them.

I have spent years watching Democrats run towards identity politics and be hypocritical of the most bizarre things (“Listen to scientists on global warming! Don’t listen to scientists on GMOs!”). I’ve spent years watching Republicans become the party of anti-conservatism, big-budget-busting wars and spending, and a bizarre religious infatuation that defies human decency and logic. The Libertarians are just jumping up and down trying to get noticed and still spend all their time complaining the system is rigged and how everything would be better if we just did nothing. When I ask for policy ideas, everyone comes up dry on everything. Fair or not, real or not, I’m not interested in any of that and can’t possibly put my name on such an entity.

There is no party for the modern Millennial. Urban or rural, it doesn’t matter, because the parties have distorted themselves in positions they refuse to back down from. They’re in positions of defending things no one cares about, harms others maliciously, or benefits a select special interest. A fear of being wrong, a fear of conserving but still intelligently using natural resources, a fear of bizarre social issues, an inability to do no harm and not push religious and character views, a fear of research and science, a lack of curiosity, it’s all boneheaded.

I can’t call myself a Democrat, a Republican, Socialist, or a Libertarian. I know many more people alongside me that can’t either. This inability to join up fractures the purpose of parties, which is to some extent coalesce around the least-worst candidate and keep moving forward. Republicans are still very good at this, but the country is literally on fire as they do half the time.

At the state level, I can’t shake the fact that we can’t all be in a race to the bottom. We used to accomplish so much and literally move the earth to benefit us in the present and the future. Today we can’t scrounge for change in the couch Governor’s couch cushions without a fierce call for a tax credit or spending it on some short-sighted stuff. What’s the goal? 0 taxes? No reasonable person thinks that’ll work.

There is no Independent Party (there’s one of a similar name, but it’s a bonafide hate group). Ultimately, do you want low voter turnout? Because this is how you get low voter turnout – and Trump.

Stop using the phrase “GOP”

I never use the phrase “GOP” (except now, apparently). I don’t like it because it’s not true.

The “Grand Old Party” is supposed to be the party of Lincoln and Roosevelt. But as I’ve voraciously been consuming the definitive autobiographies and books on these and other Presidents, I can’t draw a line from Lincoln to Republicans today. I could maybe have an easier time with Democrats, but it would take a wild line through and around issues of slavery.

The best theory to explain this that I can come up with is partially due to Grover Norquist, who mused in Leave Us Alone that a lot of voters vote for one party or another because their father did and their grandfather and great-grandfather before that. In other words, a lot of people vote party-line like the way children often assume the religious beliefs of their parents.

This happens everywhere but has been particularly sticky in the south. This still explains Kentucky today. When you wonder how Kentucky votes for a Democratic governor in what should be a reliably red state up and down the board, it’s because people are still voting at least partially on their family’s civil-war era tradition when Democrats were the more like the “Republicans” (by a modern definition).

My theory is the country changes, the electorate changes, but the south is always the laggard by a wide margin. And there are enough of them, plus Texas and Oklahoma, maybe Indiana, that it puts a dent in the course of the country’s leadership.

Most people have a casual understanding of the “flip” in the parties’ beliefs and core voters, mostly around the Civil War and later Nixon’s election. But for years before Nixon, to put it bluntly, many southern voters were somewhat unaware that the Democrats weren’t really the bearer of their character and beliefs anymore. Eventually, they caught up. I suspect we may be another 75 or 100 years away from another flip like that. This is a generations-long process that is altered only by death and slow, steady, change.

So when I hear the phrase “GOP”, I hear the Republicans of today taking credit for things their forefathers did under the same label but with entirely different context and pretenses. That’s offensive to early Republicans. It’s like if the producers of the Jason Bourne films said they were proud of the work they did in early James Bond films. You don’t get to take credit for that. You weren’t even there, so sit down and shut up.

As one example, Theodore Roosevelt wouldn’t recognize either party today. He could arguably be considered an independent today, and some may consider him one of his time (George Washington was our only true independent President, as he never declared a party and has been the only unanimous vote-getter in the electoral college). Roosevelt wanted big government projects in Panama and around the US. He wanted to bust up large trusts and monopolies like railroads and banks. He also wanted a big, strong, and world-dominating military. Roosevelt wasn’t keen on racial discrimination either and was the first President to welcome a black man to the White House.

Roosevelt was most proud of his achievements in civil service reform, which stopped the practice of appointing people to lush government jobs without real qualifications. He weakened the parties by stomping on their machinery in races small and large.

Trump has Roosevelt’s portrait hanging in the Oval Office and he says he admires him and Andrew Theodore most. Theordore Roosevelt was a conservative, not a Republican. He conserved nature and limited resources, was a populist and true champion of miners, coal workers, and factory workers. He had no use for big corporations running afoul of laws both real and moral. If he were alive today he’d punch Trump in the face and call him a sissy for not being able to kill a moose with his bare hands.

There’s no comparing the Republicans of today to 1950, 1910, or 1864 or the Democrats of today to 1963 and 1944. Heck, Andrew Jackson was a “Democrat”.

The Justin Harter Voter Guide to 2016

In case you were wondering who I’m voting for this year, I share my ballot choices here and the reasoning behind them. It forces me to think about my own choices by writing them down. I’ll try to do this in as short and succinct way as I can. Obviously, your ballot choices outside of eastern Marion County will differ.

Public Questions

Amending Indiana’s Constitution to grant the right to hunt, fish, and farm

I voted no. I don’t favor meddling with constitutions and we’ve nearly had 3 measures in recent memory. First among them was the property tax caps, second was barely but not quite a measure to define marriage, and now this. Like I wrote on Facebook, this is a solution in search of a problem for average Hoosiers. Hoosiers haven’t been denied the ability to hunt or fish or farm and likely won’t ever be. What this does do, however, is make it easy for this legislation’s sponsors to run with constitutional authority to build large industrial farming operations. It’s unlikely to impact me in Indianapolis, but if I lived elsewhere and some large CAFO popped up and cratered my property values, I’d be pissed. I’m voting for homeowners, home rule, and local control on this one.

The Marion County Transit Plan – a .25 increase in the income tax

I voted yes. I’m not for or against taxes on principle. I want my taxes to go to things I can at least see and use. In the funding funnel of expensive federal taxes, cheaper state taxes, and even cheaper local taxes, I wish this were inverted. There’s so much confusion about this question in particular and there’s a lot to digest with this.

For one, IndyGo’s banking on this in order to fund the operation of the Red Line rapid transit system. The construction is paid for and likely a done deal. But working within the confines of Washington’s ridiculous funding games, IndyGo has to build the system and worry about funding it later. If this fails, who knows where the money comes from in 2018. But more importantly, I see transportation funding a general win for everyone. If you don’t take the bus, fine. You get to enjoy fewer cars on the road. Neat! If you do, you can get places quicker. Our current system is a tax on people either way. Currently we tax time. We tax people’s time to drive, sit in rush hour traffic, and get to work. I’ll never vote against a measure that helps people get to work – rich or poor.

Elected Offices

President

I’ve written about this before, but I felt pretty okay with my vote for Gary Johnson. Hillary will make for a solid President. Whether she’ll be great, who knows. But in my worldview, the federal government is becoming larger than it can reasonably good at. I’m in favor of local taxation and local control. And, as a matter of health for the country, having more than “two” political parties is a good thing. My two biggest issues with Hillary: I don’t like the idea of the White House passing through families. My first memory of the presidency is of Bill Clinton. Then George W. Bush. I voted against Clinton and for Obama for this reason in 2008 and I still feel the same way.

US Representative, Indiana’s 7th District

Andre Carson vs. perennial runner-up Cat Ping and Libertarian Drew Thompson. I voted for Drew Thompson. I’ve met Drew and he struck me as well-informed, like-minded, and thoughtful. He actually introduced himself to me at an artist’s open house and we chatted for a good 20 minutes. Andre Carson will win because of his family’s name and while I don’t have a problem with him, I believe all elected office holders should have term limits. Carson is past his.

US Senate

It’s Bayh v. Young v. Brenton. This is hard. Really hard. It’s likely a two-way race between Evan Bayh and Todd Young. I voted for Evan Bayh. Which was really hard to do. But I’m not convinced Todd Young knows a dumpster fire when he sees one. He’s moved closer to Trump despite…everything. And I’m unconvinced he’s secular enough or an advocate for personal liberty for gays and lesbians. Therefore, this was my true “lesser of two evils” vote. Bayh violates my term limit rule, but I know what I’m getting with him and if I squint he’s at least been out of the Senate for a couple terms. I expect this race to be very close and thus, I voted for Bayh to ensure a vote against Young where it would presumably count the most.

Governor of Indiana

Anything tied to Mike Pence is to be shunned. Eric Holcomb is too close to Pence. He’s too religious and unlikely to move the ball forward in a progressive Republican way (like Mitch Daniels). Therefore, I’m picking John Gregg.

Ind. Supt. Of Public Instruction

Seeing as how Mike Pence dismantled much of Glenda Ritz’ authority to do anything, it’s hard to say what kind of person she really is. But I’m generally in favor of more school choices, more charters, and more competition. Therefore, I voted for Jennifer McCormick.

Ind. State Senator, Dist. 32

Aaron Freeman strikes me as a loathsome, super-conservative, religious, Pencey toad. I voted for Sara Wiley as a vote against Freeman that would presumably count a little more. Freeman is currently an Indianapolis City Councilor. The kind of dummy who asks questions he knows the answers to just to be spiteful and dickish. He sneaked in on slating for this Senate seat by one last-second vote. The seat is being vacated by 412-term Senator Pat Miller.

State Rep., Dist. 89

A vote for Cindy Kirchoffer is a vote you can feel good about. I’ve met Cindy on a few occasions and have helped knock on some doors for her. If you like sanity in your representatives, you should vote for Cindy. Here’s a fiscally smart woman who bucks her Republican party, presumably despite her own faith, in matters of women’s rights, abortion access, marriage rights, local control, and local planning.

Attorney General

Honestly, this race was so low-key I barely knew it was happening. Attorney General is important because they’re the ones that decides what to waste taxpayer money on “defending”. Judge Arredondo is running from Lake County against Curtis Hill. I don’t know much about either and encourage you to do your own research. But I do know of Judge Arredondo from years ago and found him to be a good fit for Lake County. I voted for Hill.

Judicial Retention

Speaking of judges, two Court of Appeals Judges are up for retention. I voted in favor of retention for Judges Riley and Kirsch.

Why do Republicans worry about immigrants so much?

I’ve been doing some homework lately on political history and beliefs. Things like, “Why do Republicans worry about immigrants so much?” As in, why are Republicans more concerned with immigrants learning to speak English and “act American” than most Democrats?

To the best of my ability from scouring books and threads and editorials and other sources, I’ve formed a reason that makes some sense: immigrants may dilute understanding of the country’s founding and endanger the nation. This is viewed as immigrants not being patriotic enough, loyal enough, or dedicated enough to a unified America.

This notion seems to come from early days of the republic and came to a head around the time of mass Irish immigration. The belief being, “The country is very new, we here are all of the belief we’re better off without a King. What happens if too many people come here and don’t hold that belief?”

It’s not unreasonable that a fledgling American democratic experiment even as late as the 1860’s might sincerely concern itself with the notion of “dilution”. “We all literally came here to get away from that form of government. We’d appreciate it if you didn’t try to change that.” This is how America’s melting pot theory actually came along as a compromise: you can maintain your customs (we might even come to really like some of them), but this is how our government works. So you can have your cultural-pluralism, but assimilate on a few things, too.

Today this has mutated into more xenophobic arguments. There’s no amount of immigration from, say, Syria, that’s ever going to overtake our democracy with Sharia law. And concerns over draining social services is likely a red herring due to a glut in the market that gets filled. Of course there’s a startling rise in foreign applicants for public benefits once you open it up to them.

If you feed yourself a heavy diet of news on mass immigration, that problem seems much larger to you. However, I’m not convinced the people most vocal about prohibiting immigration are also the same people who understand the historical context. One can also argue that given this crux of the issue, that the American experiment is fragile, it would seem almost insecure to think we’re still insecure today after generations of case law, rulings, policies, and establishment.

I have more faith in the republic today. I have more faith that it will continue to withstand challenges to its principles of democratic rule, for example, than early pioneers and civil-war era citizens likely did.