My parents grew up as Republicans in and around Kansas City, Mo.
But I doubt that political convictions are necessarily handed down by one's parents.
At the time I grew up (my formative years being the mid sixties to the mid seventies),
one was always more likely to counter the views of one's parents rather than parrot them.
That was in the days when the cry "REVOLUTION NOW!" was a pop icon.
Anything we could do to piss off our parents was the order of the day.

Curiously though, my politics haven't changed much over the years.
What is even more curious is that those same people who used to say
that I was maybe a step or two to the right of Attila the Hun, now say
that I may well be somewhere to the left of Mao Tse Tung.  This, however,
is neither a good or a bad thing on anybody's part.  I've heard it said that
"the only thing sadder than a young Republican is an old Democrat."

My family's Republican tradition started when the party was young.
I would harken younger readers to look to their textbooks for the days
when the Republican party espoused social consciousness and environmental
protection.  The Democratic party was once the party of wealthy southern
landowners, who espoused the virtues of local government that protected
their legal ability to hold slaves.

Things change.  As an industrial revolution taught Republicans how the federal
government can support business concerns with financial incentives and using
American clout to open trade abroad, the Democratic party became more
populist in nature, attempting to protect laborers from exploitation and garnering
the near exclusive support of the African American community in the process.

I offer the historical perspective, not to justify the existence of one party over
the other  but rather, to illustrate the futility of claiming lifelong or generational
allegiance to either.  Those who argue that either party is too liberal or too
conservative, or not liberal or conservative enough, should wait an hour before
going on to join some upstart independent.  Like in a game of tether ball, the
public will robustly bat both parties back to the middle as they swing from right
to left and back again on their tethered lines.  While they may journey to extremes,
they both must necessarily cross the center.  That said, on November 7, 2000,
I will vote a straight Democratic ticket, and against every Republican and
Independent in sight.

Why do I dismiss the independents?  The answer is simple, really.
While independent candidates often espouse positions for which I feel great passion
(issues avoided or opposed by the two major parties), the independent parties seek
merely to gain power and attention by claiming responsibility for the defeat of the
party that I would likely choose by the process of elimination.  Ralf Nader stands
no chance of winning this election, and he never did.  All that he is likely to do is
gain the ear of the Democratic party faithful with the claim that if they had garnered
his support rather than his opposition, the Democrats would have won.  This is a
shaky claim at best.  If the Democrats had adopted his positions, that likely would
have forced the more right leaning party members to the Republican side.
Ultimately the cost would have been greater than the gain.

As a people we fail, time and again, to realize that a republic requires coalition support.
We are, and we must be, a people of compromise.  We must give a little on the positions
close to our heart to keep those issues upon the table of discussion.  We do not have
to abandon our beliefs, we only have to table them from time to time as we flow with
the issues of greater concern by the majority.  The wait may sometimes be by generation,
but as a nation that withstands the tests of hundreds of years, we should begin to view time
in generations and not in years.  Our founding fathers were well aware of this, but in this age
of "instant gratification," we tend to forget their lessons.  Indeed, the failings of independent
parties is an issue that I would prefer to discuss in detail at some later time.

What is the purpose of building the wealthiest and most powerful nation in the history
of our world?  Is it to protect personal wealth?  Is personal wealth the measure of freedom?
Are those who fail to contribute to wealth and the production of wealth dead weight in our
society, who should be left to starve in the wilderness under the laws of social Darwinism?
I think not.  I hope not.  If the answers to my questions are in the affirmative, I think that
our nation should last only so long as this delicate democracy serves the purpose of
financial gain.  If the answers are in the affirmative, then money is power indeed.

But if money is power, then this country would have never survived our own revolution.
Certainly the Royal Crown had more finance to bring to bare against us than we had to
defend ourselves.  If money is power, why did such an impoverished nation as Viet Nam
defeat us in battle.  If money is power, why does Fidel Castro still stand strong against
forty years of financial onslaught.  Again, our founding fathers taught us the lesson of real
power.  Adams, Jefferson, Franklin and the like insured the longevity of our nation by
assigning the right to that power to the hands of her people.  The mighty cannon I speak
of is known as the First Amendment, and its ammunition is ideas.

Ideas that stand the test of time and the engagement of truth are more powerful than all
that money can purchase.  Money cannot purchase a single idea, nor prevent a single thought.
That which lives in the heart and in the mind can destroy a planet or create a paradise.
And it is here where I part company with what is currently refereed to as the Republican
Party, and those who dwell on its present ideals.  Money is a tool, it is not the end result.
The question is not of how we can make more, or in whose pocket it should reside,
the question is what can we do with this tremendous tool in support of our ideas.

Under current Republican leadership the question always seems to end at money itself.
Never is it asked, "what is our duty as the wealthiest nation on Earth?"  In fact, when
I think of the current Republican party, I think back to my boyhood dog, Lucky.
Lucky was a Boarder Collie, and a herder by instinct.  My sister, less enamored to
dogs, kept a rabbit and a chicken as pets in the same backyard.  Lucky, following is
natural tendencies, would chase the rabbit and the chicken around the yard until
cornering them between the fences.  But what then?  Not needing or desiring them
as food, Lucky would release them and begin all over again.  I didn't realize it at the
time (I was only eight), but Lucky was a staunch Republican.

Money is for spending, not for hoarding.  All the money in the world does us no good
trapped between the fences.  It can be a wonderful tool when it is used to advance
our ideas.  In all my life, the best ideas I have heard are ending poverty, ending disease,
expanding minds through education, and giving quality medical care to all who need it.
Impossible?  When have we tried?

In this current election cycle there has been no dispute in that this is the most prosperous
moment in our history.  If there is a legacy to be left by William Jefferson Clinton, it is that
he has shown that we can have the best of all worlds.  If we can recognize that money is
a tool to cure those things that plague mankind, we can take care to perpetuate its manufacture.
With that perpetual tool, we can see wrong and try to right it, see suffering and try to heal it,
see war and try to stop it (I apologize for paraphrasing Ted Kennedy's beautiful eulogy
of his brother Robert).

If Mr. Clinton has captured the hearts of Americans (and his popularity suggests that he has)
it is because he has at once calmed our fears against the Pandora's box of instability while
reminding us that we are a people who must know purpose.  I have watched as the current
Republican leadership has tried to quiet our sense of purpose by reigniting the fear of instability.
During my life I have watched Republican administrations subvert the Constitutional will of
the people (Nixon--Watergate, Reagan/Bush--Iran/Contra), and I have watched as every
Republican candidate has offered to buy ideas and votes with the promise of tax cuts and
more personal wealth.

Is money what we are made of, or are we made of a finer stuff?
Do we want to make ourselves richer, or do we want to make ourselves better?
For me, on November 7, 2000, I will take note that we have a strong, financially
sound nation, that has blessed the world with some of the greatest ideas ever
devised by man.  I will vote for the party who promises to put it to the best use.