What has become of the Conservatives of my youth? The Eisenhowers? The Nelson Rockefellers? The Bill Buckleys? Eisenhower cautioned about the danger of the military-industrial complex. Bill Buckley waxed eloquent on almost any subject; today’s Conservatives idea of eloquent is “Drill, baby, drill.”
Today's dull-witted replacements apparently have never read the Preamble to the US Constitution or The Wealth of Nations. The Preamble lays out the purpose of this experiment in self-government – to provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare. I italicized that last because Conservatives are unaware that welfare is a Constitutional imperative.
Adam Smith flatly stated that the purpose of capitalism was not to promote the interests and the obscene enrichment of the Have-Mores, but to promote the Commonweal. The Commonweal was the common good; or again as our Constitution has it, the general welfare.
These days, there’s nothing conservative about Conservatives – that's why I call them Consumatives. The only thing they want to conserve is the advantages that guarantee the playing field has a distinct tilt in their direction. Oh – and all their income while enjoying all the benefits of living in a civilized society that makes the accumulation of great (obscene) wealth possible.
No, today’s Conservatives are too thick-headed, too indoctrinated or too willfully blind to see what is all too blatantly, painfully obvious: Voodoo Economics was an abject and tragic failure. Yet – with rare exceptions – they continue to drink the Freemarketeer Kool-Aid.
Cutting taxes increases revenues? Don’t make me Laffer.
Deregulation creates jobs? No, and even if it did, what good are jobs that don’t pay a living wage?
Mega-mergers benefit consumers? Outfits like Exxon/Mobil, Enron, Hospital Corporation of America are proof merger mania benefited only a few multi-national corporations now too big to control and a handful of banks now too big to fail.
Government isn’t the solution; it’s the problem? No Conservative in their right mind would hire a CEO who professed not to believe in the purpose of the company he or she aspired to run. That leads to the inescapable conclusion Conservatives aren’t in their right mind when it comes to government. Furthermore, they assume bigger is always better (see merger-mania) when it comes to private companies, but not when it comes to government.
Globalization is the rising tide that lifts all boats? Ralph Nader quipped that it was the rising tide that lifts all yachts. I say it’s much worse than that – it’s the tsunami that sinks all life rafts. That a relative handful of people absorb most of the profits from increased productivity and cheap (slave) labor is why I call it gobblization.
The Information Age? The Neo-Econs told us we no longer needed a manufacturing base, told us we'd be paper-handlers to the world. Instead, outfits like Goldmine Sux turned us into the paper-hangers of the world.
Cutting taxes on the rich stimulates growth? To believe that you have to believe Mitt Romney is a job-creator. Like other Neo-Econs, Mitt thinks it’s perfectly okay to rape and pillage companies and destroy communities so he and his friends the Have-Mores can become even more obscenely wealthy.
Criticism of capitalism is Unamerican? It boggles the mind that anyone would conflate the rapacious form of capitalism practiced by Neo-Econs with freedom. Well, if that’s the American Way, I’m Unamerican.
The past should be left in the past? People who have been consistently, persistently, tragically wrong, and what’s worse refuse to admit it and learn from their mistakes, somehow expect us to respect their opinion. Well, first they should get on the right side of history, rather than trying to convince us the Founders ended slavery or that Ronald Reagan belongs on Mount Rushmore.
• • •
These people have conveniently forgotten they twice voted for Bush the Lesser, the worst President in US history. And why, oh why, is that name never even spoken by Conservatives? That's a rhetorical question.
Their collective amnesia is stupefying. What explains that collective amnesia? Well, there’s plenty of blame to go around, but a good place to start might be with John “Duke” Wayne, who once infamously advised “Never apologize; it's a sign of weakness."
Apologize or not, today’s Conservatives are on the whole a sorry lot. Those who can’t admit error are incapable of learning, and those incapable of learning will inevitably repeat their mistakes.
As for me, I’ll take my advice from Albert Einstein:
“Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is insanity.”
©2012 Tom Cordle
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Stacey Youdin
Steven J. Gulitti
Ben Sen
Bjorn Philip Beer
Saturn Smith
jmac1949
Salon.com
Comments
this might be the clue to the whole mess:
"The past should be left in the past..
People who have been consistently, persistently, tragically wrong, and what’s worse refuse to admit it
globalization economically, no matter how corrupt
and absurd, brings us into the presence of the
feared Other, if nothing else.......................
and learn from their mistakes," they
are the enemies of Progress.
the world is so new and almost incomprehensible that
the old ways will never do.
tom,
this might be the clue to the whole mess:
"The past should be left in the past..
People who have been consistently, persistently, tragically wrong, and what’s worse refuse to admit it
tom,
this might be the clue to the whole mess:
"The past should be left in the past..
People who have been consistently, persistently, tragically wrong, and what’s worse refuse to admit it
and learn from their mistakes," they
are the enemies of Progress.
globalization economically, no matter how corrupt
and absurd, brings us into the presence of the
feared Other, if nothing else.......................
well articulated as always but I wonder who is listening
besides US?
Government isn’t the solution; it’s the problem? No Conservative in their right mind would hire a CEO who professed not to believe in the purpose of the company he or she aspired to run.
I'm still very perplexed when I see people railing against "The Government." Yet, they are still very interested in being part of it.
These Cons-serves-ass-tives are scaring me, they talk out one side of their mouths and then try to say the same thing out the other side, but it comes out all screwy. Same with the Demo-Craps.
Politicks is bad, very bad, suck blood out of you then kick you in the privates and say "That's love!"
PFFFT!!!
Rated!
(Newt Gingrich being roped in by the RNC(who else would make him stop speaking of bad things against Mr. Mitt!!?? :D) not to speak of Romney's little corporate pirating and harvesting kind of made me laugh!!!!)
The conservatives you mention would be considered raving liberals by their modern brethren. Obama himself is a conservative by deed if not by name. It's sweeping us all up on the whole, not just the GOP.
I agree that it's good to become acquainted with the other. But it's not so good if someone takes advantage of that acquaintance to rape you both.
I share your concern, but all I can control is what I do. After that I must content myself with the fact that I can know what I do, but I can't know what I do does.
-R-
thanks from an old rocker
Kanuk
Perplexing, indeed. How easily we forget that even in a Republic, we are the govt, at least to the extent we elect those who govern (electoral college and the SC aside).
That's why it's so sad and unnerving to see those whining about the deficit fail to connect (deliberately I suspect) the dots that THEY were the very ones who voted into office people who pushed deregulation, merger mania and financialization, and who cut taxes and started two suspect wars.
We can chalk it up to great minds, same channel. Well, maybe grate minds, some channel
Tinkertink
Romney should be made to wear an eyepatch and sport a parrot on his shoulder. Aaaaaaaaaaargh, matey!
Suspect? You mean the wars that dragged this ragged POS country so far down that we might NEVER get back up? Great idea GWB who's name is never mentioned as you point out. Start morally despicable and, illegal, wars.. then CUT taxes for your buds and let the rest of us rot trying to pay for it all.
You may be right, and I may be lacking perspective. But I lived thru the Sixties, and bad as it was then, this is in some ways worse because their is no longer a loyal opposition.
You are quite right that Eisenhower and Rockefeller would be deemed liberals by today's standards, and I think that goes to my point. I had a discussion with my son the other night in which I pointed out that three of the President's on Mt Rushmore couldn't get elected today.
Jefferson was a Deist who excised all the miracles from his Bible -- no hope there, Lincoln would come off looking and sounding monstrous on TV -- imagine Ed Muskie at his worst, and Teddy Roosevelt advocated trust-busting and national healthcare -- I don't think he could get nominated as a Democrat. Hell, Washington was a devout compromiser, so he wouldn't stand a chance with today's Republicans.
You are too kind, but I'll take it
DiBi
Thanks, stuff and nonsense -- as long as people have stuff -- bread and circus -- they'll put up with a helluva lot of nonsense
I think I've made my position on that subject perfectly clear, as Tricky Dick used to say. What did Bush and Cheney know about Mesopotamia that no one else had figured out in 4,000 years? Nothing.
But as an objective journalist, I try to be even-handed about these things. By that I mean, I slap W just as hard with either hand, but I didn't want to make this post about him.
doesn't matter what party you're in, what faith you believe because if you're in politics, you're going to get rich - HAVE to get rich - because you better be capitalist and a BELIEVER.
you can go into it with the best of intentions but like they say about the road to hell....
Econometrics, which is the quantification of economic theory works with Calculus, which is a study of ranges where a multi-variable equation remains correct.
So, in countries like Greece currently, or in the African countries still being choked off by IMF loans, this statement is actually quite true. In America...not so much.
Deregulation does also create jobs. It just kills off way more than it creates.
and so on and so on and so on.
You're right, just be cautious when making the arguments that you are because some asshole like me will come in and tear your shit up if you're not more measured in the words you choose.
The problem is with those basis so firmly rooted, reality is not going to change them.
Notice, I leave out their best interests, since the vast majority have nothing to gain from the current stands of the ideologues currently leading or fighting to lead the party. The wonder would be if Ron Paul runs on a some kind of third party ticket, but I doubt it since the reprecussions within the party would be so great. They want to win.
MalcomXY, the new guy touting Ron Paul all over OS thinks he can out discuss, out think, out explain, out ....
you get it.
But, Tom is exactly right in all of his assertions and conclusions. The only thing I warned of was to more carefully choose his words because, like all lies, the lies of the Neo-Cons have a bit of truth to them.
This is an issue for you? If so, whatever.
Ask Tom to go over his assertions that he makes in this blog and score President Obama on his opinion, actions and policies on each. If you agree with Tom now, you necessarily have to agree with his assessment of Obama.
If he's honest, I don't think you'll like the results. Also, I am not FOR Ron Paul. I am AGAINST everyone else, including a president I voted for SEVEN TIMES (how much more committed can i get than committing a crime for the man...and, one I didn't even need to commit as there was no way in hell that he was gonna lose my state?)
I disagree with most of his platform, but I've seen what an Obama presidency means and I disagree with ALL of his platform, and if you want to call me a racist, please do, because I have studied more about the black experience from the Civil War through today that most people who have PhD in this area and I will also make you look silly as I have you advocating against the things you've said you support simply because Paul also supports them, and I'll show you how it makes you someone who may or may not be racist, but is certainly advocating for positions which worsen the black condition in this country.
If you'd enjoy a debate, though, choose the topic and which side, pro or con, you will be promoting, and I will take the opposite position, whatever that may be.
Capitalism is NOT our political system -- it's not even our economic system. Many uninformed people believe it is our political system, and that is what most CALL our economic system; but when the control of banks, energy, communications and even entertainment is concentrated in a handful of corporations, an economic system resembles Fascism far more than Capitalism.
I have said many times that our economic system might be called Neo-Feudalism, save for the fact that peasants no longer have the possibility of scratching-out a subsistence existence from the ground. Thus, I believe we are rapidly approaching a new kind of economic system I call Futilism, that is, a system in which it is futile to strive for economic independence.
Like Fascism, Futilism operates through concentrating wealth and power in the hands of a few. But rather than enforcing control with hobnail boots and guns, under Futulism, the powers that be enforce their will with propaganda and usury.
For example, a recent college graduate burdened with $80,000 in student loans, who can't find gainful employ will soon realize striving to reduce that debt is futile. This is doubly troubling for those that graduate with debts of $60,000 or more from cosmetology school or tech schools like ITT or Full Sail, since their credits are most likely not worth the paper they're written on because they're not transferable anywhere else.
We can blame a person barely out of adolescence for choosing to major in art or music or history or some other major they feel passionate about, but shouldn't we also blame the institution that encourages them on that career path? And are we foolish enough to imagine that everyone who enters college has the capacity to become a petroleum engineer or some such "real" occupation? And how about the banker who makes a loan that can't be repaid, but doesn't care because it's guaranteed by the govt -- isn't he or she guilty as well?
The simple truth is in almost every aspect of our existence -- our healthcare system being another grievous example -- we are operating with a model based on a world that hasn't existed for half-a-century or more. It should be obvious that it is futile to continue down that path, but religious bigotry, racism, ignorance and greed guarantee that we will -- and Futilists are counting on it.
I'm not exactly sure what your point is about the EPA, but coming from the Rust Belt, I can assure you it isn't too little environmental protection we're suffering from. Google Hooker Chemical and Ott Chemical for a glimpse of what lax regulation did to my hometown. I could also tell you some stories about the Martin Marietta plant in Orlando. What we are suffering from is regulators that failed to regulate for much of the previous three decades. Don't take my word for it -- ask the families who lost husbands, fathers and brothers in the Massey Coal Mine disaster.
God knows I don't need another argument, and I appreciate the advice and the conciliatory tone. I confess to sometimes being given to hyperbole, but I trust that a person of above average intelligence ought to be able to discern what is stated as fact and what is fired for effect.
The kind of argument I don't want is this: "Deregulation does also create jobs. It just kills off way more than it creates." When x-y= a negative number, I don't call that job creation. That sort of math is the province of persons who are a Bain in the ass -- present company excepted, of course.
Several studies have demonstrated that Conservatives do gravitate toward authoritarian modes. Of course, those studies will be dismissed as the work-product of a bunch of namby-pamby, pointy-head Liberal intellectuals.
"Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises, Frankfurters and Cardozos."
Obviously, Hruska was Exhibit A for representing mediocrity in Nebraska, a slot currently assumed by Ben Nelson. As for Bush the Lesser, apparently he wasn't ignorant or incompetent enough to represent the Republican base, thus the candidacies of Palin, Bachmann, Cain and Bachmann.
You're absolutely right -- which shows just how far we've fallen.
Since you responded, I take it you don't consider me an ardent socialist. You're correct, but your flirtation with the sophomoric philosophy of a third-rate romance novelist leads me to suspect you are a Libertarian.
As for checkbook arithmetic, surely by that you mean the kind practiced by Him Whose Name Cannot Be Spoken. You know, the Decider who started two suspect wars AND cut taxes.
Yes, why is a business too big to fail but government too big to succeed? It's so frustrating that there are no answers forthcoming on these incredibly simple questions.
Fever Blister has been avoiding me like the plague he is.
Alsoknownas
Well, he'll have to go some to out Johnny Fever
No harm, no foul. I rarely delete comments, since I find they speak volumes about the commenter. I really have no interest in a formal debate.
For the record, I have roundly criticized Obama, mostly for his incomprehensible negotiating tactics, but also for his failure to prosecute torture and for his failure to make demands of banksters -- as he did with automakers -- before issuing bailouts. In fact, I was against bailouts from the beginning, but once they became inevitable, the least that should have been done is to demand reforms, such as the reinstitution of Glass-Stegall and no opposition to the CPA.
As for Ron Paul, I certainly don't hate him; in fact, I agree with many of his assessments of the problems we face, but I don't agree with some of his solutions. I think his son Rand is an ass, typical of the breed (Phil Gramm and Dick Armey come immediately to mind -- why is it always Texas) that make a career from govt jobs or programs (Medicare in Rand's case), all the while trashing govt. The ultimate hypocrisy is to thirst after a seat (as a source of power and profit) in a govt they claim to despise.
By the way, my son is smarter than Rand. After watching Rand spout nonsense on TV, TJ said "Libertarianism is the Scientology of politics. I couldn't agree more.
Low-hanging fruit can be delicious
Despite what we are constantly told, govt does some things exceedingly well -- especially when Congress sees fit to adequately finance programs (a rarity) -- the Sixties space program and the Hubble telescope are a couple of shining examples.
Conversely, private enterprise does some things poorly -- Enron, Worldcom, HCA, etc, etc, etc, and even when it succeeds it often does so at grossly inflated prices for products and services that are unnecessarily proprietary -- see cell phones for one glaring example.
Laffer was on PBS the other night, still pitching his proven failure "point" on his curve. He also reached into the slogan box to sing that old saw: you get less of anything you tax! A couple of real tax experts had the pleasure of ridiculing him. Lucky ducks. The only thing missing was the laugh track.
Conservatism is the problem, not the solution.
I don't LIKE Paul, I simply find him to be the best of a bunch of very bad choices laid before me. I also knew, with some decent level of confidence , that if you advocated for the positions above that you did, and meant it, you necessarily would have had to be critical of Obama at some point, at least on him economic policies (or the complete lack thereof), but probably also on his choice to continue the practices of the Bush Doctrine of Foreign Policy abd Affairs.
That is because you seem to be in the business of truth, regardless of what the truth is. I am as well...I know of one or two others, but everyone else in here seems to have reached a conclusion and is desperately attempting to make the facts work toward their conclusions.
I hate that.
Anyway, I didn't want to make those arguments against you, I was simply pointing out that they could be made. When I see truth on a page, my instinct is to think how a propagandist can fight to distort it, and then defend against that.
Being in the truth business is hard these days. No one likes it, if it's not the truth they were expecting, anyway.
I don't like either of the Paul's redneck, racist tendencies, but you can't say that they aren't both somewhat ideologically pure, if also completely misguided on some core economic issues and ideas about how to correct them (I actually see both dreaming about invisible hands that will come fix everything once they kill all regulation.)
Sorry I missed that, tho several months ago I was treated to the aptly-named Laffer still trying to defend his Curveball idiocy. Best I can recall, he was on with the ever-cheerful and gullible Larry Kudlow. Larry, have you at long last no shame? That's another rhetorical question.
As for UC, he can also be counted on to drag one kicking and screaming into the light -- the headlight of an oncoming train.
While I'm not fool enough to think I'm always right, I am fool enough to think I have a right to my opinion, informed or otherwise. I do try to keep myself informed, but I know full well information is routinely spun and manufactured. Thus, as much as possible, I stay away from things like statistics, considering them the last refuge of scoundrels and snake-oil salesmen.
The evidence of my eyes is another matter, and the evidence of my eyes is rather conclusive that most Americans have suffered greatly as a result of Voodoo Economics. The devolution of the GOP into the AIP (American Independent Party) as a result of the Southern Strategy and copulating with the Kristian Wrong has had a devastating effect on this country, and I'm no longer certain we can recover from that short of a bloody revolution.
I certainly don't hold Democrats blameless, but while they may have aided and abetted, the plot was clearly hatched and fomented by the Reactionary Right. The sooner we rid politics of religion, the better. In that I stand with nearly all the Founders.
While nonsense like "Take my hand, share the land that they'll be giving away when we all live together" was laughable to me even back then, the comparison of the Rabid Right with the Left doesn't hold much water for me. Sixties radicals managed to change our society for the better, though not always with the best methods. Teapartians and the like would surely make things worse if they get their way.
The Left may have been Utopian, but the Right is clearly Dystopian, that is a place where people lead dehumanized and often fearful lives. While Utopia is impossible, I'd say we're getting exceedingly close to Dystopia, thanks to fear-mongering by rightwing politicians and Kindergarten Kristians anxious to bring on Armageddon.
I do fault the Left for getting sidetracked with sex, drugs and rock'n'roll, and thereby leaving the door open for the return of the forces of darkness as embodied by Nixon, Mitchell, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al.
As to the matter of slavery, Washington and Franklin were abolitionists of a sort -- what they desired was repatriation of Negroes to Africa. That was mostly an intellectual exercise, however, since there was no practical way to accomplish that.
Jefferson was more than a little hypocritical on the matter, scourging the King of England over slavery in his original version of the Declaration (cooler heads prevailed in the final version), calling it "execrable commerce", but keeping a couple hundred slaves even tho he clearly thot slavery was immoral.
The plain truth is the Founders, for all their high-blown rhetoric, were practical men. They knew full well there would be no union if the subject of slavery was broached. So they punted, hoping the nation would simply outgrow that evil institution. The horrific 3/5ths rule is an indicator of just how much they were willing to compromise their principles. In the end, it was a deal with the Devil.
The bitter irony is that by purchasing the Louisiana Territory, in large part to acquire a place to displace Indian tribes in the East, Jefferson guaranteed the Civil War. Compromises over slavery in the new states west of the Mississippi only postponed the inevitable.
It's also little-known that in order to preserve the Union, Lincoln was willing to have the Constitution amended (the original version of the 13th Amend which he signed) to legitimize slavery.
As to the apparently retarded voters on the Rabid Right, let me paraphrase U S Grant: Never have so many sacrificed so much for so unworthy a cause.
He tried to put a statement in the constitution that condemned slavery, but he was kinda bullied out of it (he's a pudgy little bitch, what are ya gonna do?). He pretty much dedicated himself (between his "between the sheets" time) to being an abolitionist from that point forward...or, it was one of his many pursuits, anyway, but one on which he wrote a great deal and much of those writings are available at the Library of Congress (fitting, for Franklin that these items would be at the library of doin' it).
Jefferson tried to get some stuff passed to gradually abolish slavery when he was president. As you say, there were a lot of concerns, and that didn't go through (plus, TJ had a little sweet tooth, and liked to satisfy it with the brown sugar, if ya know what I'm sayin').
Lincoln seemed to come around after his meetings and talks with Frederick Douglas, but Lincoln, slavery, the civil war and the implications and feelings of all involved always made my head want to explode, so I'm just gonna trust you on that one, Tom.
I feel a post on slavery coming on. Let me say for now, that as you've indicated, the lame excuse so often heard that somehow "people didn't know better back then" would be laughable if it weren't so vile.
I despair, too. I lived thru the McCarthy era and the Sixties, and as I see it, divisions in this country are worse now than in either of those eras. In my view, divisions have not been this sharp or heated since the Civil War.
Some of that is due to the lethal mix of politics and religion, which every thinker from Jesus to Jefferson warned us about. It is all but impossible to get True Believers, as Eric Hofer rightly described them, to compromise on anything.
That does not bode well for the re-election of a centrist compromiser like Obama. As you point out, he has turned out not to be the Moses he was perceived to be -- and sold to be -- but that should come as no surprise to anyone who read The Audacity of Hope. He who tries to please everyone pleases no one -- ask Henry Clay.
Nor does the future bode well for ordinary Americans, since the likely election of Willard Romney will see a return to every thing that was awful about the Reagan rain (not missp) -- and worse.
So where is the hope? Perhaps the wretched excesses sure to follow from a return to Voodoo Economics and the rise of Bain Capitalism may be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back and provide the impetus for a real revolution in America. We can hope it will be bloodless, but Second Amendment fanaticism doesn't make that very likely either.
Have I cheered you up yet?
If I had any solutions I would offer them. But unlike a liar like Mitt Romney and a fool like Ron Paul, I don't pretend to have any. I realize that is no consolation.
It is a Law of Nature that all things atrophy and die eventually, and human societies appear to me to be in a state of rapid decay. In my view, the Original Sin, if you will, was the trading of moral or natural law for legalism -- a process that has been ongoing at least since the Ten Commandments. The insidious notion that something can be immoral and yet be legal -- the rape and pillage by Bain Capital being one egregious example -- is utterly illogical in "primitive" tribal societies, but such a self-contradictory notion is "perfectly" logical in an "advanced" culture, and the more advanced, the more acceptable.
Another problem is that in much of the world, humans made a too-rapid, and I would say inhumane, switch from a ten-thousand year old agrarian based culture to an industrial based culture in a few centuries. That has led to the destruction of the family unit, since industrialization led to largely absentee fathers (see John Bly for more on this) -- and now that destruction has been exacerbated by absentee mothers .
While that societal change has been relatively rapid, our societal mythology has hardly changed at all. Thus, we witness a kind of collective schizophrenia which idolizes the Warrior, while at the same time punishing he who fails to conform to Machine Age norms.
We have experienced a geometric increase in the rate of technological change with no corresponding increase in critical thinking skills. In fact, I would say such skills are on the decline, as is literacy.
The depletion of natural resources and the destruction of the environment will exacerbate our problems, as will the acceptance of the attitude that products AND people are disposables.
All this rapid change has been fueled -- literally -- by cheap and abundant energy, and now we are about to run out of it with catastrophic results.
The best we can hope for is to reduce the rate of decay. But a change in leadership and a return to the kind of thinking that caused our present dire straits will only increase the rate of decay in this country.
In my view, hope rests on two things: (1) the finding of common ground by political extremes and an attendant willingness to compromise -- a faint hope as I said before, but still a hope, and (2) the discovery of some new form of an abundant and cheap, environmentally neutral form of energy, say cold fusion. Without that the former hope is non-existent, as humans will revert to another Law of Nature, the Law of Tooth and Claw.
It is, of course. a fantasy. But t least a pleasant one.
♥║╔═╗║║║║║║╔══╣╔══╣╔╗╔╗║♥
♥║╚══╣║║║║║╚══╣╚══╬╝║║╚╝♥
♥╚══╗║╚╝╚╝║╔══╣╔══╝─║║
♥║╚═╝╠╗╔╗╔╣╚══╣╚══╗─║║
♥╚═══╝╚╝╚╝╚═══╩═══╝─╚╝For keeping up the vision of why , what and who we should respect and vote for.
I am pessimist enough to believe human nature doesn't change, but I'm optimist enough to believe cultures can and do change. What is required is a change in the American culture. We must put away the barbaric notion of the Warrior/Savior Culture and adopt what for want of a better word I'd call a Neo-Tribal Culture.
By that I don't mean reverting to Us vs Them tribalism of the past -- and is still practiced in much of the world -- including here with our WASP "exceptionalism", but to tribalism of the sort I believe Jesus was advocating. That is the idea, expressed as well by the Lakota, that we are all related, or, as expressed by Chief Seattle, that we are all part of the same web, and that what disturbs one part of the web disturbs the rest.
I realize that's a mighty tall order for a people as acquisitive and avaricious as Americans, just as I realize many if not most of today's Christians don't have a clue about that aspect of Jesus teachings. I do think the Hippie generation, for all its other faults, did begin to catch a glimpse of that Great Enlightenment. But unfortunately, that enlightenment got obscured by sex, drugs and rock'n'roll.
Thank you for being so sweet
I fear you give the Pubs more credit than the deserve. Their reluctance to embrace Mitt has far more to do with his religion than it does his greed, arrogance and insensitivity. Were Mitt a Baptist, this contest would have been over long ago.
I don't know when your elections are,but I honestly hope that there will be a trendsetting change.
-Rated-
Thanks as always for your kind words. I share your hope -- faint as it may be.
Sic Semper Tyranus.
r
Sick Distemper Puranus