Supposed political commentators liken liberalism to voting with one's heart and conservatism to voting with one's brain. Dictionary definitions word being liberal as "open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values"; conservatism is described as "holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation." The weight of the words used to set a motive for one's political allegiances is important in determining the pace of how fast change should come, if any. Haste to be progressive may unbalance certain facets of society's structure, while sitting still and weighing out all possible outcomes may let the chance to be progressive slip by.

Attacks coming from both sides onto the other is now all too common a tactic in American politics. Opportunities to speak on courses of action devolve into possibilities to discredit opponents, even those who fly the same political party flag. What people say and what people perceive to be true always craft the sharpest of double-edged swords. The sharpest point is always the one lunging forward in an argument, the side one of a certain mindset will only look at. When analyzing a candidate and the promises they make with their words, forget the beating heart or the pulsating brain: use logic to connect the dots, matching up whether their character and beliefs match up with the context of what they say. Without logic, the other point to the sword grows dull from lack of use, ignored to fulfill the requirements necessary for a double standard.

Hypocrisy deadens the other side of the blade, forming false assumptions that only one side is held to be truth.

Socialism: It's a lot closer than you think

Microeconomics phrases the political-economic theory to be based on "the individuals' goodwill towards others and not on their own self-interest." Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has garnered attention from voters and media alike for labeling himself a socialist Democrat, a claim supported by his onslaught of altruistic projected policies focused on equality for all. Sanders seeks to model the United States after the social programs established in some Scandinavian countries, specifically the debatable Denmark; while perks stemming from high tax rates include free health care and college tuition, a comparison to a nation of 5.6 million homogenous (racially similar) citizens is not an entirely suitable example.

This is where the confusion starts to set in: Sanders is not going to make America socialist all of a sudden. It already is! Of course, America's economy is capitalistically driven. Economic success and capitalism go hand in hand as easily as democracy and socialism, concepts aiming to give everyone a voice. Socialism's list of All-American honors include: tax funded organizations (parks, schools, fire and police departments), Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, Eisenhower's G.I. Bill, and Franklin D. Roosevelt's job creating New Deal. The list goes on. Even the roads we drive on are of socialist origins, with the tolls stationed at every highway exit the fees everyone has to pay into. Unless someone is living off the grid, they are contributing towards a socialist- to some degree- society.

Capitalism, what is it good for?

Before you tune me out entirely, be aware that I only refer to capitalism’s factors of corruption, reeking of corporate greed oozing out as a product. The bad side of capitalism. The side favored for creating jobs. The very same side to an impossibly one sided coin demonized for filling up politicians pockets, whispering ventriloquist acts into their ears.

The top One Percent of Americans own so much more than the rest. A huge fraction- one fourth- of the nation's income comes from this select few. And it stays there. True capitalists re-invest their money to manipulate prices and drive stocks up. Trickle-down-economics, going by the Reaganomics moniker, supposes the excess wealth in society's upper-echelon to "trickle down" to the middle and lower classes, benefitting society as a whole. It does not trickle down. It never does. It stays there.

Capitalism only works when it gives back to society. Captains of industry, or men known to bring great economic stimulation with their expansive business expertise, can just as easily turn into robber barons, business types who abuse the economic system in place to reap monetary rewards for themselves. Carnegie, Morgan, Rockefeller, or Vanderbilt fall into both categories depending on the circumstances. Living suits the likes of Wall Street's Gordon Gekko exaggerate the corporate mythology. Donald Trump adds to the problem, but he merely makes his living off of stapling his name to enterprises and outsourcing production.

The real evil is committed by those who subtract from what can be done for society: Charles and David Koch, for example. The Koch Brothers, oil industrialists with strong connections to the Tea Party movement, were noted to have given generous donations to the newly appointed Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, while he was a Wisconsin Representative. As Mitt Romney's presidential running mate, Ryan proposed a new budget, cutting Medicaid, food stamps, and many other social programs to make room for Ryan's tax breaks supporting the rich. And these so called capitalists bet their money on him to win.

Reagan Myth Debunked

The second stop in the 2016 Republican Candidate Debates tour was held in the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, California. The debate was nothing short of a rhetorical dedication to the Republican Saint by the majority of candidates still in the race. Speaking time was spent paying homage to President Reagan and how the speakers will unoriginally base their policies off of his. Out of the 63 total name drops, Trump and Carly Fiorina did not once mention the late Commander in Chief.

Reagan is too often given credit for leading America on a path of economic salvation while in office. Previously mentioned, Reagan's implemented trickle-down system, or anyone else's' institution founded off the principle that the wealth should be distributed evenly, did not work. Some argue the free market with loosened government regulation encouraged spending to revitalize the distressed socio economic climate, a quick solution especially when coming out of the 1970's recession. Many debate that just this kind of spending amassed great debt, the same accumulated debt that set in motion the circumstances for the 2008 market crash.

Holding one man responsible for preserving the sanctity of the dollar is incredulous. It is far more simple, and plausible, that the economy is no longer something we can predict nor control. The stocks go up, the stocks go down. The only things we can study is the past, not the future. The economy follows a cycle every 20 or so years, jumping and falling, Depressions and recessions are expected to be followed by periods of industrial innovation. To say we have the economic beasts, who follow their own natural patterns, tamed would be a lie.

Imperfect Foreign Policy

During the first Republican debate, Kentucky Senator Dr. Rand Paul called himself a "Reagan conservative", admiring the fact that his hero even had peace talks with the Soviets. That was after Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker presented a dearth of knowledge regarding the relationship between Iran and ISIS, who are in fact at war with each other.

Republicans seemingly choose to overlook the Iran-Contra Affair or forget Reagan had any part in it. Now, America negotiates a deal with Iran permitting them the use of nuclear energy. Then, Reagan talked with Iran, where he sold weapons- missiles- to Iran for the release of American hostages in Lebanon and the money involved in the transaction would be transferred to fund the Contras in the Nicaraguan Revolution. Reagan conservatives cannot selectively pick apart the Gipper’s actions to fit the argument.

“We do not negotiate with terrorists,” was made famous by Reagan, although probably not verbatim. It is also the foreign policy the United States wants to appear to stand by. Reagan did talk with Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. The CIA, at the same time, funded Afghanistan’s cause in the Soviet-Afghan War, funneling hundreds of millions- at most billions- into the training of the freedom fighters. Among these men were future Taliban and al Qaeda officers, most infamously Osama bin Laden. Both sides of the game were being played, negotiated. The outcomes were sadly still unforecastable.

Enough about Reagan. Even under the Obama administration, known to settle scores through its affinity for drone strikes, American weapons have fallen into the hands of enemy combatants. The United States has installed world leaders seen fit to be of some advantage. Most succumb to avid dictatorship, creating internal unrest within their countries, as is the case of America putting the Shah in power in the 1953 Iranian Revolution.

Blue-tied Democrat or American flag pin Republican, America has a history of supporting regimes which turn on us. Foreign policy is never a clean affair. Misconstrued facts fly from the wreckages. Intelligence and weapons are recycled for spilt blood, on both sides. America has had its part to play in world events for decades. And sometimes, they were not the finest in human history.

Religious Two-Step

Panic struck when speculation as to where young President John F. Kennedy’s loyalties as a Catholic American would lie: to the pope or his country. Despite a religious upbringing from his Irish clan of American royalty, the United States’ first Roman Catholic president advocated a strict separation of church and state in his speeches.

Contemporary political landscapes make it impossible for religion not to rise for discussion. Rumors, or conspiracy theories, of current President Barack Obama being a secret Muslim are still circulating, something to be accepted if it were true. Islamophobia is reaching new heights in this country. Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson even expressed a Muslim should not be president, an astounding feat as there are only two Muslim elected officials in Congress.

America is definitely not ready for a Muslim president. We have only been exposed to one face of the Islamic culture. Misunderstandings occur constantly. Too frequently. Carson denounced any possibility of mutual ground with a Muslim candidate for their acceptance of Shariah Law. The media shows Shariah Law to be a form of martial law government in Islam-oriented countries. Incorrect in its presentation, as Shariah is the relationship between God and the practitioner through Islam’s principles. Too many radical groups enforce the purity of it, unethically legislating the word of God into the law of the land. Islamic traditions are distorted in media portrayals, thought to adhere to the stereotypes interpreted by what is broadcasted.

American’s Freedom of Religion is grasped to be a sacred right, but only if it is of the WASP variety: White Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Few exceptions for outliers are scarcely tolerated. Then, inconsistencies should not be overlooked with such reasoning if prejudice is the topic.

2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney is Mormon, hailing from the Church of Latter Day Saints. Even more obscure, Carson is a Seventh Day Adventist, a sect in the Protestant denomination. Both religions are historically recent: Joseph Smith founded Mormonism in the 1820’s when he transcribed the Book of Mormon from a set of golden tablets; farmer William Miller began Adventism in the 1840’s when he falsely assumed Jesus to return on 2 specific dates, the church later re-organized and was officially founded by Ellen G. White in 1863.

With North America membership at about 1.2 million, and nearly 19 million globally, Carson’s religious affiliations are far from mainstream. Religion was never an issue for Romney especially when poll research revealed almost 20% of Americans went on the assumption Obama was still a closet Muslim. That was during the 2012 Presidential Race. Without condoning bigotry onto their prospective faiths, why do voters validate the untruth when the double standard they created is right in front of their eyes?

Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders is of Jewish descent. Will bringing up his religion unrelatedly justify any of his reforms? Or is his heritage a sign of undying devotion to Israel, similar to Kennedy’s supposed obedience to the pope? In terms of fairness, hopefully his campaign will not go under scrutiny for possessing qualities far different than the Founding Fathers’.

Religion should not be an issue. It is always made an issue. And always for the wrong reasons. As long as its placemat is neatly arranged at the table, religion will always be a jumping off point for impromptu and unnecessary tangents in politics. Even when the table is too crowded and there’s too few food to go around. Plainly, it is not dinner table talk.

“Truth seekers”, left or right leaning, cannot discriminate who to focus frustrations on, no matter what side they are on. Target Bernie Sanders for being a “dangerous” socialist, while many American programs are socialist in origins. Praise Reagan, as the economy is just as serendipitously bipolar as the tastes that drive consumerism, and ignore any misgivings into his foreign policy. Blabber on about personal decisions- religion- which, culturally, we know little about and continue to make biased exceptions.

Go back to using that logic. Hear with both ears. Read with both eyes. Listen to both sides of an argument. If something does not add up, look into it. Assumptions only go so far until they are stumped by a hard wall of truth.