POLITICAL GENETICS?

The turmoil over the Wall Street bailout goes on with some surprising lines drawn in the sand, but I’m going to let that one lie next to a few other sleeping dogs this morning. Instead, I’d like to call your attention to an interesting observation gleaned from a sort of sidebar article in this morning’s paper.

Reading the article on the civil war, WAR DIVIDED STATE, Springfield News-Leader, Tuesday, September 30, 2008, I remarked to my wife that the more things changed the more they remained the same.

Asked what prompted that remark, I told her that this article pointed out that during the Civil War Missouri was so divided that it sent representatives to both the Union and the Confederate legislatures and that the division was rural/urban with the country folk – including Springfield – in favor of secession and the city folk – Kansas City and St. Louis supporting abolition and the Union.

If you drew a map of Missouri in 1864 and colored the Secessionist sections red and the Union sections blue, how different would a map of Missouri in 2008 look if you colored the Republican sections red and the Democrat sections blue? The answer, of course, is that you couldn’t tell the difference.

So the question arises. Is politics genetic? Is voting behavior inherited or learned? It’s the basic question the study of psychology has long sought to answer, of course, the great question of nature versus nurture.

With regard to politics, it was answered long ago by our two political parties. They have long campaigned on the principle that it is not their party loyalists who decide the contest. It is the INDEPENDENTS.

It is those few folks who actually weigh the issues; who are capable of listening to more than sound bites; who ask themselves questions as the campaigns grind on and answer them before they enter the voting booth who ultimately decide the election. (Provided, of course, that the election isn’t rigged!)

The others, largely because of the family into which they were born, will always vote with the party of that family’s tradition. Those who switch do so because at some point they encountered someone or the writings of someone whose train of thought more closely matched theirs even though their political instincts did not -- a point that slants me toward nurture as the determinant of political leanings and apathy as the crucial issue in whether or not one’s initial leanings are ever questioned.

So, friends, the moral of the story is that if you want to influence someone’s vote, first determine whether they are asking questions or they are influenced by the sound bites. If the latter, save yourself some time, effort, and frustration by walking away and find someone who is honestly seeking information. And as to ourselves – if we can’t imagine that the other side has anything of value to contribute – maybe we just aren’t listening.

“Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” – Patrick Henry


Be the change you wish to see in the world. -- M. K. Gandhi

The reason for going was to keep the crude flowing and raise a false flag abroad. – from a poem by Jack Evans titled 3500 Souls - http://www.myspace.com/paralegal_eagle

Individually we have little voice. Collectively we cannot be ignored.
But in silence we surrender our power. Yours in Peace -- BR