Startin Shit...
http://www.thompsonatlarge.com/work22.htm
An interesting article. I'll comment in a bit.
An interesting article. I'll comment in a bit.
posted by Sammy Lynn Payne at Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Wednesday, May 25, 2005
Links
Previous Posts
- Graduation Picture Time!
- I, Samantha Lynn Payne, woke up at 5:30!
- Tune in for ANOTHER pointless update from Sammy
- I'm Happy Grumpy in Denial
- Blarney Puff-Balls: I Live to Eat Them.
- Tri-Party Celebration Payne Style: May 8th!
- Beware of the "Finals" Monster!!!!
- Tribute to the Fish Formerly Known as Nameless
- I Like a Good STARE Every Once in a While
- At it again....Help Sammy's Apartment!
6 Comments:
First of all, WOW! Thank you both for commenting, even with the threat of getting engulfed into a weeklong debate by the family of mine. I absolutely love reading what you both have to say because you keep me on my toes and I am continually amazed at how acute you both are in your use of expressive language.
Colleen, I have to agree with Matt, about your response. If we refuse to disagree because we are afraid we don’t know enough, than we are admitting defeat, we are giving the sole power to rule to those who ‘have seen the light,’ and thus we are giving them the power to define right and wrong. I say it’s not only your right but also your duty to question those who think they know more than you and I’m proud of you for speaking up.
As to both your comments, I think we all (the 3 of us) are uncertain which political “group” we belong to all the time, and I feel healthier for it. Both sides have unwholesome slants at either extreme, and I believe he is talking about the extreme left, a group I could NEVER see myself a part of, but the group I saw so many at IU grasping to because of the nostalgia of the 60s and the left’s label as progressive. I am not ashamed to say that I am NOT a liberal or a conservative, because I feel and have seen from first-hand experience, that the game of politics often strays far from its civic duty, that in order to ‘get things done’ it involves maneuvering around so many interests, and that as a result this country sways to the right and then back to the left, because we Americans like the middle road, and we realize, through our force of voting, that indeed the extremes are dangerous.
If I seem a little right-of-center than that is okay for me, as my political identity is more based on what I see as the more practical method for securing our nation’s constitution and individual rights, but I do NOT ignore my social responsibility to question the methods our leaders employ to secure those things, and I leave room to agree with whatever method seems tangible (be it left or right).
Thank you both for commenting! I just got up and it’s nearly one o’clock!!!! I have an excuse; I had to get up early to take mi mama to the aeropuerto and couldn’t fall back asleep! I miss you both!!!!
The solution to the problem of not "knowing enough" about politics, & issues is obvious --- the Founding Fathers hoped the electorate would be self-informed sufficient to the effective perpetuation of SELF-government but,,,,in their infinite wisdom, they knew this wasn't likely so they created a republic (as opposed to a democracy) with limited powers. I think one need to first define WHICH definition of "liberal" applies. In the original Jeffersonian sense I believe at least 3 of the 4 who've written here are liberals, including yours truly. In modern usage the term has come to apply to the political philosophy of Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, and others who propose federal power as the solution to ALL problems, including "Robinhood" taxation, the creation of a welfare state, isolationism & elimination of our military in favor of international appeasement, relinquishing our sovereignty to a grotesquely corrupt UN, etc.. Another open question is: what is the scope of the Declaration and of JFK's Inaugural? Do these ideas ONLY apply within our borders or are they universal? What is OUR role in the world? Bill Bennett defined modern-day liberals as "passionate and misinformed". In my "travels" I've found this to be accurate because if you probe beneath the "bumper-stickers" of most self-proclaimed "liberals" nothing of substance is found ("misinformed" AND UNinformed),,,,,you most often receive VERY emotional responses, unsupported by fact, history, or reasonable argument. Most often they will only express their views in the company of fellow "misinformed" or "conditionally", as long as they are sheltered from analysis (the solution to THIS vulnerability is also "obvious"). I find disdain for BOTH extremes: those who oppose the Patriot Act because some "liberal celebrity" has "proclaimed" it bad BUT,,,,they themselves have never read it & have NO idea what it actually says/does! AND those who drop the names a various "mythologicals" in defense(?) of their unsupportable (by reason & rational argument) positions. The Founding Fathers believed it important that the electorate inform itself to protect our Republic from politicians who, by their ambitions natures, ALWAYS pose a threat to our liberties. Like Matt I will defend ALL voices, no matter how misguided, mis/uninformed, or liberal elitist,,,,Amendment I has NO (ZERO) qualifiers or conditions. I think it's MOST informative to read Thompson's article through the eyes of a great 20th Century President who actively campaigned for FDR but later departed the Democratic Party when it took a hard left turn (and left him). Seems to me the even larger point, being COMPLETELY missed by the "loyal opposition" is the voice of the electorate beginning in 1994. Prior to 1994 the Demo's controlled, almost uninterruptedly, Congress, the governorships, & the presidency for ~6 decades. Since 1994 they have lost ALL majorities, including MORE Congressional seats last November! If the once-great Democratic Party EVER hopes to represent US again they need to discover why, after >a half-century of power, they are out of power,,,,this answer to OBVIOUS, at least to me. I think Sam is 100% correct,,,,we zig-zag our Mini Coopers down the CENTER of the road,,,,avoiding BOTH ditches of liberal socialism and conservative radicalism. Our current condition seems dominated by polar extremes: the gross distortions of Al Franken on one side, Rush Limbaugh on the other. The "passionate" left driven to "feel good" about itself through misguided benevolent-seeming power grabs and the far right that drops the name of various deities to "justify" their power ambitions --- BOTH VERY DANGEROUS! Comments are welcomed --- UNCONDITIONALLY, Dad
In his exceptional book; "The Future of Freedom", Fareed Zakaria makes a vital point that "democracy" is only one step in a process leading to the IDEAL of "liberal constitutional democracy". For more on this you'll have to read his very enlightening book. He defines "liberal" to include the following footnote: "I use the term "liberal" in the 19th-century sense, meaning concern with individual economic, political, and religious liberty, which is sometimes called "classic liberalism," NOT in the modern, American sense, which associates it with the welfare state, affirmative action, and other policies." [END OF FOOTNOTE] I think most of us are "classic liberals", and I think at least the INFORMED among us are NOT liberals in the "modern, American sense". I also think that where "conservatism" is defined as the desire to "conserve" the status quo in economic, political, & other libertarian ways-n-means, few of us are conservatives. The term "neo-conservative", widely denigrated by American liberals & their leftist media, is probably (surprisingly) more apt. Comments, rebuttals, arguments, & dissent are welcome,,,,UNCONDITIONALLY.
Ideas, beliefs, and LIVES need NOT be constrained by either arbitrary bicameral ideology. "Partisanism" is, in my humble view, simply ANOTHER irrationality, a very dangerous one because once you assume either "label" you're obliged to lend your support to ALL their idealogy,,,,no matter how irrational or dangerous. These self-inflicted restraints are all in our heads (hearts?) because, unlike computers (that ONLY operate on either "1" and "0"), we have the capacity to perceive beyond the binary. In my humble view Christian fundamentalists have been mislead by the distortions of St. Paul, modern liberals by the distortions of politicians who spin to their emotions & "herd instincts", anesthetizing their rational minds. Indeed,,,,,Republican is a proper noun so, like Democrat, should be capitalized (English 101). These kinds of snide spins without content are one primary source of my disdain for modern liberals (& fundamentalist, but for a different reason),,,,,let's talk ISSUES and dispense with the brain-dead Bush/Clinton bashing,,,,because it turns us into what we deny we want to be! I cast MYSELF as neither a hippie nor a fundamentalist,,,,but as someone in search of some truth who is willing to do the work. We exist as individual minds TOO,,,,,"belonging" to a group does NOT demand we relinquish our reason,,,although I know the vast majority do. Christian fundamentalist are Republicans for the same reason the uninformed are Democrats,,,,,ABORTION. Yet Roe v. Wade decriminalized abortion with a majority of 5 Justices who were appointed by Republican Presidents! Like those who lambaste the Patriot Act out of ignorance (having never read it), those who align themselves with EITHER Party on the abortion issue have obviously NOT read Supreme Court decisions either because it represents NEITHER extreme view! Per the Court; 1st trimester abortions shall not be obstructed BUT,,,,,,abortions rights are NOT absolute! Yet,,,the multitude on BOTH sides cast their votes on this sole issue. What animates my text is the FACT that this issue, that polarizes the public, ISN'T EVEN AN ELECTION ISSUE! When we "associate" ourselves with EITHER pole we relinquish our good sense and empower many peripheral results (unintended consequences) we do not support. The solution to this dilemma, we face every November of even-numbered years, is to strive to understand the issues and the facts but that requires peering beyond the media-painted images and "bumper-stickers". My dissent is also founded on the mindless accusations like "bullheadedness". Care to defend this accusation? I'm HAPPY to engage. Are the ideas of JFK's Inaugural worthy of sacrifice or were they just political rhetoric? As to "isolationism", this is a modern liberal position,,,,Gezzzz. Something that has always baffled me is the pride-of-ignorance --- be it the mindless "bumper-stickers" regurgitated by the liberal "faithful" or the Christian distortions sung by the fundamentalists (Christ, Save me from your followers). Patriotism has more to do with the ideas of the Declaration (& JFK's Inaugural), etc. than with popular "associations",,,,,do we believe in the ideas that have made US unique in the history of humanity,,,OR NOT? Voting records like John Kerry's indicate,,,,MAYBE,,,,a "definite maybe"?!?!
PATRIOTISM: "love for or devotion to one's country" (Webster). Colleen's definition addendum ("a group of informed people, acting on intelligence, etc..") defines rational self-government, NOT patriotism. I dare say everyone who's written here loves their Country and is therefore a patriot. Matt's comments re "bearer's intentions and mental state" are MOST apt. Any "associations" Colleen "resents" are HER problem (I recommend Xanax and bed rest). NEITHER Party has a monopoly on patriotism. Even the uninformed are patriotic. My disdain for the "uniformed" begins with blanket accusations by the likes of Ted Kennedy but are amplified by those who swallow his abridged adjectives without skepticism. The "liberals' main argument about the Patriot Act that is censors civil liberties?" Is this TRUE? Does the Patriot Act censor civil liberties? I've heard this proclamation by the left but my study of the Act does NOT support this. Can anyone actually site an example of censored civil liberties under the Act? My disdain for those who parrot these accusations is that they never defend them with fact because will not take the time/trouble to discover them. I agree that reading HR's are a fine cure for insomnia BUT when we hear leftist grave accusations about our liberty shouldn't we take some effort to discover the FACTS? Congressmen who vote for acts they don't understand fall into the category of "bastards needing kicked OUT". I acknowledge that in the post-9/11 (passionate) political environment many Congressional illiterates DID vote "Yea". Thankfully someone had the good sense to "sunset" the bill for later review by cooler heads,,,this review occurred recently & is satisfactory to me. My obviously poorly scripted comment about "uniformed Democrats" was meant as an example within the context of the abortion debate. Both uncompromising "sides" (Pro-Life/Choice) are misguided in my, and the Supreme Court's, view. The two uncompromising extremes (liberal Democrats & religious-right Republicans) use the abortion issue EXCLUSIVELY to guide their votes when in fact it is not even an election issue! Seems to me the discussion has strayed from the original posting of Thomason article. The point being, I believe, that "classical liberalism" and modern liberalism are grossly different but, most present-day liberals still carry the banner (i.e. uniformed AND misinformed). The reason Regan, who campaigned for FDR, departed the Democratic Party was because they "left" him. Colleen's comments seem to communicate that she is not a modern liberal and as I understand Matt's I glean the same. I think we are ALL "classic liberals". The "closet issue" is that many just simply hate George W. Bush. There are MANY things about Bushism I abhor ("faith based", for example) but there are MANY more elements in modern liberalism I FEAR. What yelling? I'm concerned by the current environment of "political correctness", naive acceptance of political rhetoric, and debate phobia,,,,,,,these are toxic to our libertarianism. Re "bullheadness", Eleanor Roosevelt was quite bullheaded about civil liberties, as was JFK about the nuclear missiles in Cuba, FDR about defeating Fascism, Regan about eliminating Communism, etc.,,,I call this VISION & RESOLVE. John Kerry's Senate voting record is a near perfect example of the opposite. Kerry's votes are understandable in the context of Colleen's analogy,,,,he wants to "blend" in. Kerry's voting record is, like Clinton's Presidential one, a "trail of polls" and this is NEITHER visionary nor leadership. "Thanks" Matt for the Memorial Day acknowledgement from a proud Veteran.
Colleen - Your position validates Bill Bennett's definition of modern liberals so I've added it to my collection of anecdotal evidence --- "more ruled by passion than reason". The irony in your "faithful" (FAITH being a function of passion instead of reason) declaration is that it's a path analogous to the one followed by those of the "2000 year old book" -- "we believe what we believe" (feel?). A belief system based on "instinct" instead of history & facts, passion instead of reason, & "bumper-stickers" (or ancient texts by unknown authors), etc. Where you've touched on some of the ISSUES, I agree with you in part. Gay marriage will ultimately be sanctioned in some form by the only credible authority in this realm, a very UNdemocratic institution interestingly,,,,the Supreme Court. Like abortion, this is NOT even an election issue! "Faith based" ANYTHING by government will end the same way because it's simply an unconstitutional intrusion & abuse of power. These abuses will not be terminated by election (unless we amend the Constitution,,,VERY unlikely) because the "opposition" has a electoral death-wish & they are neither legislative nor executive issues anyway,,,they are Constitutional (judicial) ones. As to funding of international abortions ("Asian nations") this is a different matter. What right do we have to intrude in this way? What right did we have (under Clinton) to fund abortions in the first place,,,to impose OUR morality on others with capital force (fine fodder for fundamental terrorists)? Since 70%+ of the taxpayers call themselves "Christians" I hardly think it appropriate to spend THEIR money in this (either) way, that does little to effectively reduce birthrates or poverty in those countries --- free trade, & the resultant prosperity, is THE most effective means of birth control, raising the educational level, and poverty elimination. Free trade and RESOLUTE ACTION (not just words) in pursuit of the ideals of JFK's Inaugural. I invite everyone to re-read this brief but exceptional statement of Americanism: http://www.historychannel.com/speeches/archive/speech_158.html . The most powerful government in the history of humanity has no business either funding or criminalizing abortion, for US or anyone. This pursuit doesn't require full-time study, it simply entails healthy skepticism of the dangerous "bumper-stickers" doled out by the left (& right). As to educating women about options,,,,under Bush's leadership 18,000,000 women were given the vote for the 1st time in their long history (longer than ours!), allowed an education previously denied, civil rights where only grotesque civil abuse existed previously, and given options where historically they had NONE,,,,,AMAZING. I don't personally "like" Bush either (McCain or Lieberman would have been my choice) for many of the reasons sited but responsible self-government isn't a beauty contest OR a choice of personalities & bull-shit rhetoric that falls eagerly on the ears of the gullible. When we lend our support to modern liberals by our disdain for the likes of Bush we ENCOURAGE & EMPOWER "modern" at the expense of "classic" liberalism. What the ONCE GREAT Democratic Party needs to do is to recapture control of itself from modern liberals like the Kerry/Hillary Clinton MINORITY who have hijacked it. And whether we like it or not, electable candidates will be those who can LEAD the religious right into the 21st century because their numbers give them a powerful democratic voice. When given a real choice Americans have always tended to elect moderates. Until Demo's restore moderate control to their Party they empower the religious right by default! If you do not believe this examine election results of the past decade. The irony is that supporting candidates like Kerry & Hillary Clinton, in Bush protest, empowers the religious right that has consistently captured majorities since 1994. And "bumper-sticker" artists like Michael Moore did more IN SUPPORT of the Bush reelection than even Kerry's multiple self-inflicted wounds. While you said initially that you agreed with Thompson's epiphany, from what you've expressed here "I'm from MO". I appreciate the contributions of ALL here who have shown the courage to express their views and most of all to the best "Sam" I know for initiating and hosting this educational (for ME) exchange. I also think "brother Matt" has a promising political future if that ever becomes his choice--- I'll be watching with eager anticipation.
Post a Comment
<< Home