McCain's Political Left and Obama's Voting Right: Two Boots Marching to the Same Drummer

So often these days we will only listen to reports given by those whom we feel we can trust. The internet has become a source of political discourse trusted more than the politically driven 24-hour news stations and their nightly one hour network counterparts. I don't know about you, but I never saw that one coming. So, as all political opinions, mine is deeply rooted in personal convictions drawn from a collection of experiences. I would give the all too typical "don't take my word for it" internet philosophy, but I feel the entitlement as a citizen of this planet to be able to shoulder the burden of trust with my readership. If I, for whatever reason were to deceive you, I wish to be unable to hide behind the words "don't take my word for it." These words carry with them a lack of responsibility that I want no part of. After all, we're all in this together.

I just wanted to write that and clear the air before tackling this next issue as I feel trust has become a matter of concern (at least for me) when I read articles based from a Time Warner or Fox affiliate. I don't know if it was always this way, but "the good old days" are behind us, having already been enjoyed and we must now strive to create "the good new days." Now to the task at hand.

Attempting to dodge accusations of having a liberal voting record, John McCain is now under fire by many alienated conservatives. Meanwhile both Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, who are currently having an "anything goes mud-wrestling match" over the primaries, are being targeted for their own party identity crisis. Why does the grass seem greener on the other side of the fence for these presidential hopefuls? Or maybe it's not that at all. Maybe it's a new and effective form of character assassination that now has all presidential hopefuls in their iron grip. After all, we as a culture now possess a neurotic lust for fear. What could be more frightening than a trusted political candidate whom, when elected, not only turn their backs on the voting populace, but the very party that raised them up to be considered in the first place? If not stabbed in the back, then where?

Or maybe there is a third possibility. Maybe these same two political parties are becoming outdated in a world changing too quickly for them to keep up. Who will be in office the day I have second thoughts about discussing private matters because of concerns that it may be intercepted by a well-meaning government agency set up to benevolently violate my human rights? The disturbing realization is that it doesn't matter. Both parties have clearly supported the expansion of properties in the US Patriot act, the constitutionality of which is only debated when you can find someone who has both read and approves of its methods.

Rather than leaving it to the self-proclaimed experts who tell us to take their word for it that John McCain either is or isn't "too liberal," his record speaks for itself. If you're interested in just taking my word for it, I'll resume the editorial process in the following paragraph. In the mean time here are the facts. In spite of claims that he supports reform of immigration, on May 18, 2006 McCain voted against S 2611, which would have stopped illegal immigrants from receiving Social Security credits for work performed throughout their lives prior to receiving a valid SSN. The bill was killed with a vote of 50-49. On May 25, 2006, McCain supported a bill that would have allowed citizenship for most illegal immigrants in the country, and more lax standards on application for US citizenship. McCain voted to make it more difficult in the senate to cut taxes by requiring a three-fifths majority vote (S Con Res 83). The list of party infractions continues including S 2766, which McCain voted against, allowing countries who wished to support Iran's nuclear program in excess of $20 million to proceed without trade sanctions from the US. HR 5441, which would have built fences along a considerable portion of the southern border, failed due to lack of support by senators such as McCain. And finally, McCain stated he supported stem cell research, voting yes on House Resolution 810, allowing federal funds to assist in what many would consider a very non-conservative process.

It doesn't matter if you support these decisions or not. In relation to this article, the details of immigration or stem cell research are non-sequitur. However, they do establish the all too often ignored fact that the parties are organic entities that must progress and evolve in a world that has never remained static for long, if ever. How can a party, established long before the automobile was even commonly seen, guide us through a century where we will soon be passing legislation on artificial intelligence, cloning, and nano-technology?

Despite the fact that I don't think it will be a very popular thing to say, it is my belief that the republican and democratic parties are fusing all but the most cosmetic of emotional and inflammatory issues. Essentially they are becoming one, only separated by a few highly publicized differences. It is our duty to ensure the issues that are not always controversial and in the forefront of the minds of the American populace don't slip under the radar while we bicker about immigration and stem cell research. Despite what we hear from popular rhetoric, I believe there are other issues that demand our attention. For example, in early June of last year I wrote an article regarding the missile defense shield being built in Eastern Europe. There was little to no coverage in the US via any major networks, and the BBC only spoke of it in passing. It has been this very issue, however, that has decided a great deal of foreign policy, and has raised tensions with both Russia and China. While we stare hard nosed at our sworn enemies, be they Liberal or Conservative, Republican or Democrat, we must be mindful of those shaking hands with one another in the periphery of our vision.