by Annette Henke
Idaho Argonaut (U. Idaho)
U-Wire
After reading one of my recent articles, someone I knew in high school with whom I hadn't chatted in a while asked me when I'd become a raging, raving liberal.
Well, the "raving" part is easy enough to figure out: I get paid to rant and rave about the issues that matter to me, and hopefully, to the majority of my readership.
The liberal part also is easy to figure out, as I was raised in a liberal household. My parents taught my siblings and me that people were inherently equal and inherently deserving of the lifestyle they desire. It's not terribly shocking that all of us lean heavily towards the Democratic Party, as much as a stigma as that seems to be in this state.
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
But what about the "raging" part? When did I go so far left as to become a raging liberal? Lately, when I read about laws being passed that seriously undermine the fundamental principles of the Bill of Rights, a feeling of weariness rises in me that genuinely makes me contemplate moving to Canada.
The answer is quite simple. I knew after a few moments, though, the answer to my old pal's question. It happened in November of 2000, when the Electoral College put George W. Bush into power.
Don't drop your paper in disgust if you voted for Bush. I don't care if you voted for Mr. Potato Head (who is usually a strong candidate on the Idaho ballot) as long as you chose the candidate you wanted to see in power.
My point is that I didn't move so far left until someone whose ideas are so inherently far right came into power.
It seems almost childish that I, and so many other people who are truly just moderate Democrats, have shifted so far left, just to spite the Republican control of the White House. Indeed, I did not shift left out of spite, but out of desire to make sure that the entire nation didn't shift violently right.
It's a vicious cycle, too. As the left shifts further left, the right shifts further right, and the whole process repeats itself once again. When there are two extremes in politics, and little middle ground, nothing gets done and the political process grinds to a halt under the weight of petty bickering.
What's the solution to this? I couldn't tell you. I'm no political scientist or analyst. Part of the problem lies in the fact that the two political extremes have shifted further apart at a barely noticeable creep. Perhaps then, all that's needed is the realization of what's happening, so that we might ensure that all choices are made out of a desire to do what's best for the whole nation, not just to spite the other end of the political spectrum.
