Quite literally, the word “politics” means “the science of government.” It comes from an expression of Aristotle’s, “ta politika "or “affairs of state.” Another definition is “the practice or study of the art and science of forming, directing, and administrating states and other political units; the art and science of government.” To me, those definitions make sense. After all, we do call the study of government “political science," right? Recently, though, politics and government in general have come to mean something entirely different.
But, I think the following definition relates more to our current political situation. Politics is “the art of making it look like you are actually helping those that you represent in a government organization while actually creating more problems and blaming them on other politicians so you can get re-elected.”
The political parties and presidential candidates in our country (and around the world) serve a function, and I think we’re misinterpreting that function. My political opinions and views are not some type of weapon that I should be using to strike down anyone who disagrees. My political opinions should be well-educated and logical opinions I have about the way our country should be run, and the ways to solve the problems we’re facing.
This is where we miss the mark: Too often, we blame other people for the problems we have, and politics is no exception. How often do Republicans blame Obama for the financial crisis our country is facing? And, equivalently, how often do Democrats blame George W. Bush for the same thing? Any moderately-informed person knows what the issues are, we’re just unsure of how to solve them. So, instead, we point fingers and blame whoever we decide we don’t agree with. Why are we shooting people down, when it would make so much more sense to use our time and energy lifting up who we support?
Let’s talk about the Supreme Court situation for a minute. As our president, Barack Obama has the duty of appointing a new Supreme Court Justice. One that he believes will be qualified for the role and will fit the current needs of the Supreme Court. But, before he was even given a chance to nominate a new Justice, many people have been questioning how fair Obama, a liberal Democrat, will be when replacing a Conservative Justice. We haven’t given him a chance to try and restore balance to the Supreme Court, and we’re already saying he’s incapable. Regardless of your personal opinion of Obama’s presidency, I think we can all agree that he is an intelligent man, and if he were truly looking out for the best interests of our country, he would appoint a Justice against his own political affiliation, a Justice that would fill the shoes left empty by Antonin Scalia. Shouldn’t we, as the citizens of the nation where Obama is President, at least give him a chance to do just that?
Our political system has become about finger-pointing and name-calling more than it has about looking at actual issues. Democrats are all millennial, feminist hippies. Republicans are all old, rich white men. Neither of those stereotypes are true, so why are stuck in a cycle of perpetuating them? We should be looking at the benefits and drawbacks of a party’s political views, not the individual characteristics of the members of that party. Instead of labeling all Republicans as old, rich white men, we should be questioning Republican views on healthcare and taxation and immigration. Instead of labeling Democrats as millennial, feminist hippies, we should be questioning Democratic views on Socialism, Wall Street and college tuition.
