This column/blog "Education and Politics" usually concerns itself with our public schools and the detrimental effects that politicians and legislation bestow upon our schools. This particular post continues in that vein:
First of all, I've learned over the past couple of years that:
1) Republican and Democrat are not political philosophies, but political parties, something most people already knew.
2) Conservatism, Liberalism, Corporatism (yes, corporatism is a distinct political philosophy), and
Progressivism are not political parties (again, something most people already knew), but political
philosophies.
The following definitions and explanation of how political philosophies affect our public schools are mine only, with which many readers may not agree:
Conservatism is a political and social philosophy that promotes retaining traditional social institutions... such as our public schools.
Liberalism is a belief in the value of social and political change in order to achieve progress... such as the corporate public charter school movement.
Progressivism is a philosophy based on the Idea of Progress, which asserts that advancements in ... economic development and social organization are vital to the improvement of the human condition. Examples would be advancing from public education to private education or traditional public schools to virtual and charter public schools.
Corporatism is economic bipartism involving negotiations between business and state interest groups (politicians) to establish economic policy. Benito Mussolini first coined the term corporatism in 1941 when he said fascism would be better served being called corporatism, as it is the merger of corporations and state.
Both republicans and democrats can be conservative, liberal, corporate, and progressive although most republicans view themselves as conservative and most democrats view themselves as liberal or progressive. Neither republicans nor democrats want to be seen as corporatists, because corporatism is most often associated with fascism.
In applying the above definitions and explanations to our beleaguered state politicians (unable to balance the state budget without raising taxes), what does former Senator Kyle Loveless, former Representative Dan Kirby, former Senator Ralph Shortey, and former Senator Rick Brinkley all have in common? Democrats might say that they're all republicans who are guilty of breaking the law and unethical behavior (although republicans certainly don't have the market cornered when crime and immoral behavior is considered). The Oklahoman Editorial Board says that they're all republicans who've "cast a shadow" on the GOP, because of their ethical misconduct and moral turptitude. Over the last 2 years, Senator Kyle Loveless (R) has resigned over allegations of campaign finance irregularities, Representative Dan Kirby (R) resigned over allegations of sexual harassment, Senator Ralph Shortey (R) resigned after he was accused in a child prostitution case, and Senator Rick Brinkley (R) resigned after being convicted of embezzlement. Democrats have been reveling in the fact that the self-proclaimed "ethical" party (GOP) is not really ethical at all.
A deeper understanding of the true motives of those involved is required before we label all republicans as immoral. In the interest of full disclosure, I am presently a registered republican, but soon to be independent. I registered republican in 1980 because I thought it was the "conservative" party. I switched to democrat in 1996 because there were no republicans to vote for in a local sheriffs race. I switched back to republican in 2015 because I discovered the ranking democrats (Barack Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan) were corporatists. Now, I'm disgusted with both parties for good reason.
The "Felonious Four", not otherwise known as the "Fantastic Four", are republicans, but there are also some very good conservative republicans in the House and Senate, albeit a few. Senator Ron Sharp (R) District 17 and Representative Dennis Casey (R) District 10 quickly come to mind as two of the best conservative lawmakers at the capitol. The Felonious Four, while being guilty of unethical behavior and possibly felonious actions, also subscribe to corporatism as their political philosophy of choice. In my opinion, the link between immoral or unethical behavior among lawmakers and their political philosophy is money. While Kirby and Shortey were accused of "sex crimes", Brinkley and Loveless have been accused of crimes and unethical conduct involving campaign expenditures and money. In my opinion, while the charges against Kirby and Shortey are much more serious, they still have the commonality of unethical campaign donations and unethical donation reporting - with Loveless and Brinkley. I believe it would be worthwhile to examine "campaign reporting records" of the corporatist multitudes now at the capitol, in order to drain the swamp. Oklahoma voters in all Senate and House Districts must vote these lawmakers out to effectively "drain the swamp". It is very unlikely this will happen in the near future, though, as all corporatists spent several hundred thousand dollars in both legal dark money and unethical campaign funds in order to get elected.
The public school commonality to the Felonious Four as well as the many other corporatists still representing Oklahomans at the capitol - is the "dark money" groups and out-of-state corporations which have supported them. We cannot identify them by party (D) or (R), but must identify them as (C), corporatist. This common theme among the Felonious Four and many other corporatists - "dark money" school voucher group support and out-of-state school corporate support, can be examined and used to identify "unethical" lawmakers - in order to drain the swamp...
No comments:
Post a Comment