Social Agenda, Helping or Hurting America?

Follow @aaronrtbass on Twitter


Who to vote for?  What is this politician's platform, and what is that politicians platform?  In a world where money essentially buys an election there are few real choices to be the voice of reason.  What we lack in our political process is the common sense reasoning to what government should really be about. The best interests of the people, and how does the nation sustain itself in the world theater.
Instead of debating policy issues over how to efficiently run the economy the United States is fighting social issues that take up precious time in heated debates.
I conducted a poll from April 5th to April 7th regarding economic issues versus social issues with some interesting results.  It is no secret that the U.S. economy is gaining some steam albeit at a slower pace than anyone would like.  I believe social issues are diverting the ability of the nation, and politicians to legislate effectively in the best interest of the economy.  A strong, self sustaining economy is the best way for a country to exhibit it's influence on the world stage thus allowing individuals of that country to prosper beyond their current economic status.
Granted, if everyone in the U.S. were millionaires inflation would run rampant.  I don't believe that everyone needs to be a millionaire rather they need the ability to rise above their current situation into a better one.  A strong economy provides that ability, and allows for the creation of small business along with a chance for people to become independent.
Social issues however keep sidetracking what should be our main issue, the economy.  There are no secrets here, my political tendencies lean to the left especially on social issues.  However, I find myself agreeing with the right on retrospects to the right.  The main problem I have with the right is the firm, extreme stance on social issues.  I cannot bring myself to support a platform that does not believe in equal rights for all.  The right bestows upon themselves to be the defenders of the constitution but the complete context of the constitution was to initiate the platform by which our government was created.  The constitution was not created to widen gaps between society.  The first amendment to the constitution is generally called "Free Speech Amendment."  The founding fathers could not have imagined the cases being taken up today in regard to freedom of speech.  The first amendment also constitutes religion.  In particular the interpretation that government shall not promote a preference to one religion over another.  If we take the interpretation of the religious clause to it's literal sense then the question becomes why are we debating laws and social issues in the name of God?  Most all religions claim a higher being with the general name for that higher being "God."  If you are Muslim the name is Allah, and if you are Mormon the name is Elohim.  Returning to the main point, if the first amendment dictates zero preference over a single religion and "congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion" then social issues related to religion should not be debated on the floor of congress in the first place.
However, voters are pushing for social issues more and more every year.  For example the push to ban, or allow gay marriage is always brought up in legislation discussion.  To set the record straight I do support the equality of all including the right to marry no matter the sex.  That right should be with the people though and not with the government.  The same can be said for the reverse, the right to choose if a church or establishment decides to wed a gay couple should be up to that establishment without recourse from government interference.  Simply put, if you want to marry someone of the same sex then that is your decision, if you are an establishment that chooses not to accept couples of the same sex there will be plenty of other places that will.  The gay community needs to understand that there will be places who do not wish to honor their business.  Forcing legal action against those establishments does nothing but harm both sides.  Ultra conservative groups create hate campaigns towards the LGBT community, and liberal groups keep creating campaigns to promote the other side as bigots.  However, speaking in economic terms the best thing the gay community can do to push for all establishments to accept them is bring their business to places that will conduct business with them.  Soon enough those places that once denied services such as weddings will be forced to accept it or economically find other ways to keep an edge over the competition.  Nothing creates acceptance faster than economic results.
Where all of this becomes a problem in the best interest of the country is outlined in the poll results.
In a question asking about the importance of social issues to a respondents vote, 1 being the least important, and 10 being the most important, the mean response was 7 with 9 being the most commonly used response.  In a question that asked about the importance of economic issues to a respondents vote the mean response was 8 with 8 as the most commonly used response.  In a question that asked if a candidate supported a respondents social agenda but not their economic agenda, would the respondent still vote for that politician, 54% said they would vote for that candidate, while 46% said they would not.  When the question was reversed and asked if the candidate supported their economic agenda but not the respondents social agenda, only 31% said they would vote for that candidate while 69% said they would not.
What the data tells us is that the public has a fixation on social issues over economic agenda.  Politicians are sent to Washington to do a job and they keep their jobs only by winning elections.  Accordingly, if the public is more worried about social issues rather than economic issues then politicians are going to fight over social issues to keep winning elections.
If the United States is to keep prospering, and maintain its viability on the world stage the first thing that needs to happen is the mindset.  Citizens really need to start getting over themselves and realize that your beliefs are not everyone else's beliefs.  Attempting to legislate your belief diverts attention from real economic issues.  Congratulations to you for believing marriage is between a man and a women.  Happy?  Now, did that solve the issues with your company expanding so that you could gain a promotion, and move into either A) a better neighborhood, or B) a better financial position?  No, marriage between a gay couple or straight couple probably did not solve those economic problems for you now did it.
Allow our government to debate the real issues that affect American lives.  Leave out the social issues for your own home preference and choose to associate with individuals that reflect your beliefs whatever they may be.  The economy should be our main American focus.

Russian Ultimatum to Ukraine Military Personnel In Crimea

Russia is playing the international stage by stating it only has it's citizens interests in mind while at the same time invading a sovereign nation with military force.  When the Syrian crisis was about to spiral out of control Russia stepped in and called for cooler heads to prevail.  Urging the United States to work with the international community to come to peaceful terms with Assad.  
Fast forward to Ukraine and now Russia has taken the opposite stance on the situation, and to larger extents than the U.S. was willing to do in Syria.  By invading the Crimean Peninsula Russia has set the precedent that it is in their best interest to protect Russian citizens there.  It is no secret that the Ukraine was experiencing political upheaval over the corruption from within the government.  The bulk of the corruption was fueled by Russian interests in the first place.  The ousted president fled to Moscow and is now under Russian protection.  How is that any different than a gang member running back to the other side of town only to return with 50 of his hardest hitting friends?  I applauded Putin during the Syrian crisis as I believed that the international community was overreacting and could have found diplomatic solutions.  Now, Putin has gone off the reservation and begun preparations for another full scale invasion, a-la Georgia 2008.
A sovereign nation such as Ukraine is allowed to experience political upheaval.  When the people believe their government is not working for them they should, and by all rights, be able to rise against such government.  Clearly there was enough support to oppose Viktor Yanukovich or it would never have happened.  This is called democracy.  The same democracy that Putin called for in Syria is now one that he is tossing aside and intervening militarily in the Ukraine.
If Putin really had the best interest of Russian citizens in the Ukraine in mind he would allow the U.N. to intervene instead of taking action on his own.  This is a political move to annex a portion of a country that houses his Black Sea Fleet and forgo future payments to lease the ports.  Issuing an ultimatum of "Leave by 5am or face a storm" is not looking out for the best interest of your people in a region, especially when you are telling this to unarmed guards.
Putin is making a clear play to annex the Crimean Peninsula and for all purposes he does hold the upper hand here.  He has been playing chess with the world while everyone has been focused on the middle east.  He saw his opportunity in the Ukraine, and grabbed it.
Twenty three years after the cold war ended, it took less than a week to spark international tensions again, and could spiral out of control.  I for one hope cooler heads do prevail, and it starts with Putin.