Thoughts the Day After

[MacAllister]

In cruising around the internet, I'm seeing odd bits of hysteria and paranoid ranting - some of it on and from conservative blogs, to be sure - but some of it from my own f-list, or from acquaintances on the bulletin boards I run. A pretty good handful of wingnuts have taken to signing comments, "WOLVERINES!" (from an '80s Patrick Swayze movie, for crap's sake) like they really think they're going to be a handful of freedom-fighters scrabbling out a survivalist living somewhere in Glacier Park, waiting to take their country back.

A sampling:


Rumors that free press is done for (http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/#)
(Just browse the comments. People are talking about hanging their flags upside down to symbolize a country in distress, whether or not Little Green Footballs will be "allowed" to go on publishing, and so on) Sadly, I heard the left going on and on with similar hysteria after the 2004 election.

"Comrade Obama" (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/11/comrade-obama.html)

Conservative Crystal Ball (http://georgfelis.blogspot.com/2008/11/november-2008-crystal-ball.html)
Tongue-in-cheek, but eerily like the stuff I'm hearing and seeing repeated in deadly earnest, elsewhere.
"Illegal Immigrants will suddenly become US citizens. Nobody will quite know how, but INS will begin handing out green cards stapled to Democratic voting registration cards."

We are the Republican Underground (http://www.imao.us/index.php/2008/11/republican-underground/#comments)
From the comments:
"I’m worried that Rush hasn’t updated his site today; I’m still needing a double shot of his infectious optimism. I just hope BHO’s thugs haven’t come for him first."

"This is the time to deal with trunk merchants. This is the time to invest in silicone-sealed PVC tubes. This is not the time to treat the right to keep & bear as is if it’s a normal civic function–because it isn’t, as of this morning. That’s what underground means."

Focus on the Family's "Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America," (http://www.wnd.com/files/Focusletter.pdf)
(Actually, some of these "terrifying" domestic predictions sound kind of like Utopia, to me. Go figure.)

Advice to Christians (http://aredvoiceinabluestate.blogspot.com/2008/11/advice-to-christians-defend-life.html): Defend Life, prepare for persecution
Tony Perkins"We are going to see, I think, unprecedented attacks against our faith through measures like the hate crimes [legislation] to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act," he says. "We're going to see attacks on innocent human life through the Freedom of Choice Act, trying to erase all the gains that have been made in the pro-life movement. And I think even our freedoms are going to come under attack."

There's also a good deal of barely literate asshat fruitbat trollery (http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/11/a-new-and-kinde.html)happening, like this comment: "Thats what we all need, two crazy cunts running for office. I have a really good idea; why dont you all go and fuck yourselves OK? You were the problem with America but now your movement is in ruins and you have been swept out of power. And with this sewer of a website as evidence of your stupidity, its no wonder why. I think the fairness doctrine will do some good. In fact I have already written my Congressman and Senator, both democrats, to get this legislation passed. We are now in power and you are all dead meat. Conservatism is dead! There is a God! For the future I would say stop listening to half crazed twats like this and stop nominating loonies like Palin and maybe you can make a showing in 2012. Doubtful but who knows."

I still don't claim to entirely understand that level of fear, but I'm also a firm believer in an assumption of goodwill on the parts of our countrymen and countrywomen, no matter how deeply we disagree. And I know fear when I see it - this is about fear. Real, honest, "I'm scared to death for my family and my country" fear.

More than anything, losing that philosophical underpinning the last several years (decades, perhaps) has hurt our relationship with each other. To be sure, it's damned hard to presume goodwill on the part of an administration that directly and openly expresses nothing but contempt for you. More than once, during the last administration, officials expressed in so many words that they didn't care what we thought - we didn't vote for them anyway so why should they listen to us?

How much more, then, must the people who've cherished and nurtured and espoused that philosophy believe it? The culture of fear shoved down our throats the last several years was being preached by true believers. Little damned wonder they think the world is over this morning.

The result, of course, is a political climate where it's only too easy to believe that "they" will come take us away and send us to Gitmo to rot, when we're not being tortured. They're doing it to other people, already, so why not to us? Which I've certainly heard from progressives and liberals, the last several years. Now that "we" are in power, the flipside of that same fear is "they're going to take our children away from us, turn them into dykes and faggots, and make it illegal to even talk about God, let alone pray or try to follow the precepts of that faith."

The contrast between that fear-based world view, and a more optimistic and inclusive philosophy couldn't be more apparent than in Obama's speech in Grant Park (http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/04/obama.transcript/index.html) last night:
"As Lincoln said to a nation far more divided than ours, we are not enemies but friends. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection.
"And to those Americans whose support I have yet to earn, I may not have won your vote tonight, but I hear your voices. I need your help. And I will be your president, too."

I profoundly agree with blogger ysabetwordsmith (http://ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com/) who writes (http://ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com/400594.html), "Remember that we live in the UNITED States of America. It's up to all of us to keep it that way."

So I can't pretend to know whether or not Obama is sincere.

But I can, and do, reject the gloating "liberal" trolls out there spewing filth on conservative blogs.

I can, and do, call the people screaming about seceding, taking up arms, and spewing racial epithets cowards, fools, and more morally bankrupt than anything they've accused the left of.

I can and do believe in a return to reasonable and measured discussion and debate - marked not only by making sure my own views are heard, but that I honestly listen to the concerns of fellow citizens who care about their families and their country just as much as I care about my own.

The only way the madness stops is if WE stop it. All of us.

[Christine N.]

Funny, I was truly afraid that McCain/Palin would win. Really, honestly, fear-for-my family and my freedoms afraid. Afraid for my son and his future.

So I can't say I don't understand it, but it is rather funny that we as people ascribe so much power to one position, no matter who you were afraid would win. I guess after the last 8 years, it's not an unfounded fear.

[MacAllister]

Christine, yep. So was I. So it's pretty natural that the "other side" is equally afraid. But that stuff isn't doing the country any good at all, and needs to stop.

[Devil Ledbetter]

I'd thought this crazy country had finally gone sane. But I suppose we'll always have sore losers and sore winners, and I try not to get excited about people who spew hate from either side.

All day I've felt so proud of what America did yesterday. We finally proved to the world, and to ourselves, that we're not a white country. We proved that "real Americans" come in every color, religion and orientation. We proved that everyone in this country matters, not just those who call themselves "the majority."

[Christine N.]

Oh, sure. I really think it'll die down in a few days. The new and unknown is always frightening. Once everyone has a chance to get used to it, things will be more normal.

Hopefully better.

[StoryG27]

I'm curious, would you care so much if it was the other side?

I'm as republican as republican gets and I haven't heard any of the craziness going on in your post Mac, and I do genuinely worry for this country's future, but I don't live in fear. I hope for the best, try to prepare for the worst, but don't expect an extreme at either end of the spectrum.

[Medievalist]

I think that the message near the end of Obama's speech after his win was confirmed last night is important for all of us, as a nation:

"I may not have won your vote tonight. But I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too."

We need, all of us, to work towards reconciliation and emphasizing what we have in common, the values we share as a nation and as individuals.

[MacAllister]

I'm curious, would you care so much if it was the other side?

I'm a republican as republican gets and I haven't heard any of the craziness going on in your post Mac, and I do genuinely worry for this country's future, but I don't live in fear. I hope for the best, try to prepare for the worst, but don't expect an extreme at either end of the spectrum.Yep. It's why we have this forum in the first place. But yeah - I said pretty much the same kinds of things.

See, I've been on the "other side," Storygirl. I grew up in a very conservative, pentecostal church, went to a private Christian School, in the sort of environment where we had drills for when the State came to remove all the children, the same way the public school had fire drills.

I get that the fear for a way of life is very real.

[StoryG27]

Yep. It's why we have this forum in the first place. But yeah - I said pretty much the same kinds of things.

See, I've been on the "other side," Storygirl. I grew up in a very conservative, pentecostal church, went to a private Christian School, in the sort of environment where we had drills for when the State came to remove all the children, the same way the public school had fire drills.

I get that the fear for a way of life is very real.
Okay, that's scary. I guess I'm not largely fear motivated or by most definitions "conservative." Both my parents were independents, I went through an independent phase, now I'm republican and I guess conservative, but I'll totally admit that it irks me that now the dems are all about uniting when I have a strong suspicion that if McCain would have won, they would be more interested in revolting than uniting.

[Sarita]

Okay, that's scary. I guess I'm not largely fear motivated or by most definitions "conservative." Both my parents were independents, I went through an independent phase, now I'm republican and I guess conservative, but I'll totally admit that it irks me that now the dems are all about uniting when I have a strong suspicion that if McCain would have won, they would be more interested in revolting than uniting.
Honestly, to say I was concerned about the outcome is well, an understatement. But if McCain had won, I would have been hoping he stayed alive for his full term and that he showed a bit more of the independent McCain we all got to know in the late 90's.

For my circle of Liberal PSU Cohorts, "revolt" wouldn't have been on the agenda. Letters to our representatives, sure. More volunteering in future elections, yes. Spreading the word about why the dems were a good choice, of course. Canvasing our neighborhoods, you betcha ;-)

And this is how Obama won this time around. The loss of 04 pushed us to... yes, I'm going to say it... rock the vote.

[maestrowork]

Okay, that's scary. I guess I'm not largely fear motivated or by most definitions "conservative." Both my parents were independents, I went through an independent phase, now I'm republican and I guess conservative, but I'll totally admit that it irks me that now the dems are all about uniting when I have a strong suspicion that if McCain would have won, they would be more interested in revolting than uniting.

Storygirl, I think there certainly are "crazies" on all sides that would want to kill McCain if he had won... etc. etc.

But where do you get the "suspicion"? Democrats have gone through eight bitter years of GWB without revolts, riots, and assassinations. I'm not sure where that suspicion of yours come from...

But from my experience, I've seen so much more hatred from the Republican side this year -- the racial epithets, the invocation of "killing" Obama or Ayer, the righteous punishment for these "terrorists." The name-calling: terrorists, Muslims, anti-Christ, anti-semite, etc. People openly threw attacks at Obama at the McCain rallies -- I think some of us had posted them. I honestly don't know if any of this happened on the Obama side. I have not witnessed it -- not even a glimpse. Most people attending the rallies were simply happy to be there. When McCain's name was mentioned, not even a boo or a hiss -- stark difference with the reactions at the McCain/Palin rallies.

Visit any online board you can see that there are hate stuff from both sides. Sure. But the ones from the "conservative" side were truly ugly, frightening, and incredible. One one thread where the death of Obama's grandmother was announced, some of the messages were truly revolting. Reading those comments, I was astounded and disturbed by the irrational fear and wrath -- for God's sake, she was just a sweet old lady in Hawaii!

Anyway, I agree with you that there are haters from all sides, but from my experience, you really have to have gone to an Obama rally to understand the kind of peace I described. And like katiemac said in another thread, Obama said something in his acceptance speech last night that we had waited for George W. Bush to say for 8 years to no avail. It's a stark difference for me.

And no, I'm not even a Democrat.

[MacAllister]

Okay, that's scary. I guess I'm not largely fear motivated or by most definitions "conservative." Both my parents were independents, I went through an independent phase, now I'm republican and I guess conservative, but I'll totally admit that it irks me that now the dems are all about uniting when I have a strong suspicion that if McCain would have won, they would be more interested in revolting than uniting.
I hope not. I don't think that would be the case. I was hopeful that if McCain won, his record of bipartisan work would provide a basis to find common ground - even while I wasn't confident that would be true.

Remember, the Dems are coming at this from an eight year history of being told directly and repeatedly, "you didn't vote for us, so why should we give a crap what you think about the country?"

[Sarita]

Democrats have gone through eight bitter years of GWB without revolts, riots, and assassinations. One of my really good friends is a film professor at PSU and she was assigned to cover the Pre-Palin Rally crowd. She put together shocking footage, but that's not the point.

After the rally, she and a bunch of friends held a peaceful demonstration with Obama signs. People were screaming the nastiest things at them, repugnant, gross, all on camera. And the worst they shouted back was "Tippecanoe and Tyler too!"

LOL. I have the nerdiest friends.

[StoryG27]

But where do you get the "suspicion"? Democrats have gone through eight bitter years of GWB without revolts, riots, and assassinations. I'm not sure where that suspicion of yours come from...
My suspicions come from all the dems I know (and love, really). **deleted a whole long explanation, because that sentence is the long and short of it, IMO, of course, and no way to prove or disprove it**

But from my experience, I've seen so much more hatred from the Republican side this year -- the racial epithets, the invocation of "killing" Obama or Ayer, the righteous punishment for these "terrorists." The name-calling: terrorists, Muslims, anti-Christ, etc. People openly threw attacks at the McCain rallies -- I think some of us had posted them. I honestly don't know if any of this happened on the Obama side. I have not witnessed it -- not even a glimpse. Most people attending the rallies were simply happy to be there. When McCain's name was mentioned, not even a boo or a hiss -- stark difference with the reactions at the McCain/Palin rallies.
I guess what you are using a "republican" in this excerpt is what I call an extremist. I'm republican. . .I'm not racist, I don't want to kill the president or president elect of this country, no matter his political affiliation. Republican yeah, but American first. I guess I don't consider a boo or a hiss an attack (not that I'm saying that's the attacks you're mentioning), especially not in a political race. And like you said, there are extremists on both sides, and there is passion and belief, and so follows some bad decisions and some wonderful ones. Crazies are crazies, no matter who they support, and maybe the repub crazies are louder or scarier, but that does not reflect the party as a whole.

[astonwest]

We need, all of us, to work towards reconciliation and emphasizing what we have in common, the values we share as a nation and as individuals.
Unfortunately, with the close races (number of electoral votes not withstanding), it's going to take a while for Obama to gain the trust of those who did not vote for him...

If he goes in and immediately begins implementing things which those who did not vote for him feared he would (tax increases on far more than he originally promised, for example), that will only widen the divide.

[StoryG27]

Let me say, I have no problem uniting under the president, the current one and President Elect Obama, I guess I just don't think the door would swing both ways if the end result had been different. I could be wrong. It has happened a time or two before. And if you all say you would unite, then maybe that is the case.

[Haggis]

The good news is all the Hollywood elite and university professors will be returning to the US from Canada now.

Look. What you're hearing is so much rhetoric. Is some of it based on real fears? Sadly, yes. But most of it is not all that different from when we were anticipating the mass exodus of liberals following W's victories of 00 and 04.

The racism? Yeah. That sucks. I did not support Obama, but the good news I take away from this election is that his race did not stop his election. If that ain't progress, I don't know what is.

We bounce in this country. We bounce left, then we bounce right. Then we bounce left again. The blatant bullshit will stop soon. Then the pissing and moaning will take over. Then we'll bounce right again. Thus it has always been. America will survive.

[poetinahat]

Okay, that's scary. I guess I'm not largely fear motivated or by most definitions "conservative." Both my parents were independents, I went through an independent phase, now I'm republican and I guess conservative, but I'll totally admit that it irks me that now the dems are all about uniting when I have a strong suspicion that if McCain would have won, they would be more interested in revolting than uniting.
Why? "The dems" didn't revolt through eight years of GWB and eroding civil rights. As Ray has pointed out elsewhere, GWB's claim to be "a uniter, not a divider" rang hollow almost immediately.

We need to stop referring to each other in terms that imply second-class or subhuman status.

It saddens me to see that, less than twenty-four hours after the President-elect's acceptance speech - in which he reached out directly to those who hadn't voted for him, and in which he spoke clearly of the proud and laudable origins of the Republican party - suspicion and accusations are rife.

I'm hoping that Christine is right, and that it'll die down soon. Not everyone has to be happy about the result, but - as we've always done before, no matter who won - we all must live with it, and live together.

[maxmordon]

The comments I have heard today from the people around me; it goes from "It gives me back respect to US" to "It was written in the Bible" to the quotable "Republicans are the far-right while Democrats are the centre-left"

right-wing extremists upset about McCain loosing? Why the hell they don't actually HEAR what McCain said last night?. He took his defeat as a gentleman, as a big boy and accepted it; if Democrats lived 8 years with Bush and didn't planned a coup you should learn about it, bad losers.

And some on the winning side, you should not (doesn't matter how good feels) sneer the Republicans for losing, it make you a bad winner and not better what you were battling...

He who fights monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.

Friedrich Nietzsche

[Bartholomew]

My SO's father has been raving that the only hope for the country is for someone to kill Obama. The way the political right of this country is reacting disgusts me to no end.

[Haggis]

My SO's father has been raving that the only hope for the country is for someone to kill Obama. The way the political right of this country is reacting disgusts me to no end.

You're painting with a broad brush there, Bart.

[Celia Cyanide]

I'll totally admit that it irks me that now the dems are all about uniting when I have a strong suspicion that if McCain would have won, they would be more interested in revolting than uniting.

No. I'd say we generally have a lot more respect for McCain that we ever did for Bush, and yet we didn't revolt.

[Williebee]

I've posted this elsewhere, but hey, what the heck. I'm nothing if not repetitive--

"Anger comes from fear, always." -- Spider Robinson. (A truly great science fiction author.)

Perhaps there will be fear always. But maybe less in the days to come.

[Bartholomew]

We need to stop referring to each other in terms that imply second-class or subhuman status.


I lot of people have shown their true colors today.

[MacAllister]

I'm hearing a lot of the more conservative folks I know calling for a return to true fiscally conservative policies, less international intervention, and live-and-let-live social policies.

But my far-right relatives are still wailing about Obama being a stealth Muslim, and needing to be "put down for the good of the country." And they're already forwarding the mass emails to that effect, complete with slick marketing copy-written prose.

[poetinahat]

Let me say, I have no problem uniting under the president, the current one and President Elect Obama, I guess I just don't think the door would swing both ways if the end result had been different. I could be wrong. It has happened a time or two before. And if you all say you would unite, then maybe that is the case.
Please, name those one or two times.

And please remember that holding a dissenting opinion, and expressing it, is not "revolt". It is a Constitutional right, guaranteed to all Americans, and it is perhaps the most precious of American rights.

[Bartholomew]

You're painting with a broad brush there, Bart.

Sometimes you need a broad tip. NONE of the republicans I know have been acting sane lately. I haven't been on the forum all day; I'm talking strictly in person and on a few blogs I look at.

If I hear ONE MORE PERSON say they're moving to Canada because Obama got elected, I will PERSONALLY extradite them with the extreme prejudice of my boot.

And why Canada?!? Is it some sort of conservative paradise suddenly?

[Bartholomew]

You're painting with a broad brush there, Bart.

Or were you talking about my SO's father? Because he looks like he has a Pilates Ball under his shirt, and it would take a pretty broad brush to--- nevermind.

[Dawno]

Bart, Bart, Bart..."the political right" is a huge spectrum. That's one of the main reasons McCain didn't win - he couldn't convince the moderates (like me) that he was a change to a more sane and moderate Republican party. He should have been leading the party back to its fundamental precepts but he was unconvincing, especially with his choice of Palin, that he was the leader to do that.

Please don't assume all of us on the right are "Rethuglicans" - a phrase that has kept me shaking my head for a great part of these last 8 years, because I kept hearing it in places where I enjoy the literate and intellectual stimulation of people whom I respect in every way but, because of that kind of cruel generalization, I always felt quietly unwelcome and basically keep my mouth shut unless the topic is non-political. Don't make me feel that way here, too.

[Sarita]

But my far-right relatives are still wailing about Obama being a stealth Muslim, and needing to be "put down for the good of the country." And they're already forwarding the mass emails to that effect, complete with slick marketing copy-written prose.
My FIL, who is politically neutral and doesn't vote, said that at least half of the guys in his engineering firm in rural PA have said the same thing.

That's just gross.

[MacAllister]

:) Hey, I'm an early-Marx Socialist. Every vote I cast is a mental compromise.

And Dawno - yeah. "Rethuglican" along with the other nasty crap coming from the left the last eight years is just as completely unacceptable.

[poetinahat]

My SO's father has been raving that the only hope for the country is for someone to kill Obama.
Of course. Because there's nothing more dangerous to Democracy than a democratically-elected President.

[benbradley]

I think a little extreme reaction is to be expected. During the campaign it's been some name-calling such as "socialist" and "buddies with a terrorist" from one side to "clinging to their guns and bibles" from the other. Yeah, we've come a long way that an African-American has been elected President (and just a year ago many pundits thought a woman, Hillary Clinton, would likely be elected), but that doesn't mean everyone is going to celebrate the event. This very event gives extremists an opportuniy to vent, to say "we're all going to Hell like I told you we would, just mark my words" and such. They've always been out there, they just become more vociferous at a time like this.

I think it's a lot of things, much of it the reaction to the last eight years, and relief (as many perceive "it") that it won't continue, as so many believe it would have with a McCain Presidency. I was leaving one UU congregation and started attending another just after the 2004 election, and while I certainly expected to see disapointment that Bush won (Most UU's are quite liberal, politically as well as in other ways), it was worse than I thought - I saw real despair, as in "oh my God, now what are we going to do?"

Polarization has increased greatly within the last decade, so it's not surprising to see a lot of extreme responses from both sides.

There's this response, while not nearly as extreme as those in the OP, I wonder what people think about it being called the "I Want My Mommy" Election:
http://boortz.com/nuze/200811/11052008.html

But long response short, I doubt the people you're describing would read this thread (if they did, no doubt they'd respond with posts ripe for moderating), so you're preaching to the choir. The vast majority of us in the "mainstream" wants to see Obama succeed as President, the US flourish, etc., and are willing to give him the chance.

[maestrowork]

No. I'd say we generally have a lot more respect for McCain that we ever did for Bush, and yet we didn't revolt.

QFT.

Most Dems and liberals I know actually respect McCain. Not so much W. But yeah, they didn't revolt for 8 years.

[brittanimae]

I would not have revolted if McCain won. If he had run against GWB, I would have voted for him (I did in 2000). He's a good guy (though he ran a rather scummy campaign).

We just had a better choice.

[brittanimae]

If I hear ONE MORE PERSON say they're moving to Canada because Obama got elected, I will PERSONALLY extradite them with the extreme prejudice of my boot.

And why Canada?!? Is it some sort of conservative paradise suddenly?



Ooh. Canada. I live in Canada right now, and I have a feeling Republicans would not be very comfortable here. It's sort of, um, socialist.

[StoryG27]

We need to stop referring to each other in terms that imply second-class or subhuman status. Did I?

My SO's father has been raving that the only hope for the country is for someone to kill Obama. The way the political right of this country is reacting disgusts me to no end.
See, I guess it all depends on perception. Am I political right? I'm republican, and that comment sickens me.


And I'm sorry for my off the cuff, use of the word "revolt." But whatever happened under the leadership of GWB wasn't uniting, not by either party, and I guess I get the feeling that dems have this 'phew, now that our guy's in, let's all unite' attitude that would otherwise not be so prevalent among the party. Mac actually swayed my opinion on this a bit. But it's just an opinion.


I don't like extremist views. I'm all for squelching heinous rumors and alleviating as much useless fear as possible. I was just honestly curious if Mac would have cared about such rumors on the other side if McCain/Palin won.

[Devil Ledbetter]

I'm hearing a lot of the more conservative folks I know calling for a return to true fiscally conservative policies, less international intervention, and live-and-let-live social policies.

But my far-right relatives are still wailing about Obama being a stealth Muslim, and needing to be "put down for the good of the country." And they're already forwarding the mass emails to that effect, complete with slick marketing copy-written prose.I'm so glad I'm seeing so much of the former and none of the latter. I'm sorry you have to put up with hate rhetoric, especially from family.

[MacAllister]

I sort of think what's being represented as "I want the government to pay for all my stuff" is actually, at least in the minds of the people voting that way, "I believe that a just society is a compassionate society, and I'd rather my tax dollars went to helping people than to an overseas war I don't believe in and wiretapping my telephone calls without just cause or a warrant."

[Bartholomew]

I need a label with which to refer to the people acting insane right now.

What is the appropriate label for them? They identify themselves as political right along with a lot of other people, except they seem to be using a different definition of "Right."

[maxmordon]

:) Hey, I'm an early-Marx Socialist. Every vote I cast is a mental compromise.

And Dawno - yeah. "Rethuglican" along with the other nasty crap coming from the left the last eight years is just as completely unacceptable.

I don't know what I am, to be honest. Half of the time I do those political side quizes I have ended up just in the middle...

[Death Wizard]

I'm a liberal living in politically conservative (understatement) Upstate South Carolina. Today I was having lunch in downtown Greenville, where I make my living. It was a gorgeous day: crystal-blue skies, light breeze, 70 degrees, etc. As I was walking along Main Street back to work, feeling great about the election and positive about life, a guy on a cell phone strode past me. I heard him say in a loud voice (and I'm not paraphrasing): "Yeah, George, it's a beautiful day, but it feels like the entire country is under a dark cloud."

I'm not saying this is some profound thing, or that it equates to death threats or anything like that. I'm just saying that it made me pause -- and kind of bummed me out.

[benbradley]

And another thing - while I didn't vote for him (I voted for a third-party candidate, none of whom I've heard about in the media in recent days), I'm glad to see Obama won for this reason: It removes (or lessens!) suspicion about the Diebold voting machines being rigged (Diebold has had alleged ties to the Republican party). If McCain had won, many would have wondered if these electronic voting machines had been rigged. These are closed systems (the software running them [their basic internal design] is NOT available for examination, which seems unconscionable for devices so critical to election outcomes), so without them being open to scrutiny, it would be quite easy for them to be rigged.

[maxmordon]

I need a label with which to refer to the people acting insane right now.

What is the appropriate label for them? They identify themselves as political right along with a lot of other people, except they seem to be using a different definition of "Right."

Shell-Shocked?

[maxmordon]

And another thing - while I didn't vote for him (I voted for a third-party candidate, none of whom I've heard about in the media in recent days), I'm glad to see Obama won for this reason: It removes (or lessens!) suspicion about the Diebold voting machines being rigged (Diebold has had alleged ties to the Republican party). If McCain had won, many would have wondered if these electronic voting machines had been rigged. These are closed systems (the software running them [their basic internal design] is NOT available for examination, which seems unconscionable for devices so critical to election outcomes), so without them being open to scrutiny, it would be quite easy for them to be rigged.

I was thinking about it earlier, that makes that Simpsons Halloween Special bit unintentionally funny.

[MacAllister]

I need a label with which to refer to the people acting insane right now.

What is the appropriate label for them? They identify themselves as political right along with a lot of other people, except they seem to be using a different definition of "Right." I'm calling 'em all dingbats - right, left, or center. And I'm seeing some ugly, ugly bullshit from the left out there right now, too.

I don't know what I am, to be honest. Half of the time I do those political side quizes I have ended up just in the middle...Nothing wrong with the middle, Max. In fact, that's where people of any country tend to have to meet.

And another thing - while I didn't vote for him (I voted for a third-party candidate, none of whom I've heard about in the media in recent days). . . I wasn't a fan of Obama until his speech last night, quite honestly. He's far too conservative for my tastes. :)

[billythrilly7th]

I'm sad that Obama has chosen one of the most partisan pitbulls in the democratic party to be his Chief of Staff.

The Democratic Tom Delay. Rahm Emanuel.

RAHMbo.

Hmmmmf.

Oh well. The dream of change and bipartisanship was nice while it lasted.

Let the partisan wars begin again on 1/21/09 or 1/20/09 or whenever Obama takes over.

Let the blood flow.

[donroc]

Everything is cool around here, but then we do not associate with the politically hysterical.

[astonwest]

But yeah, they didn't revolt for 8 years.Aside from hearing all the time about how W should be impeached...

:rolleyes:

Myself, I think it's horrible for anyone to wish ill to anyone, so can only shake my head at anyone thinking that presidential assassination would be a good thing.

Besides, I fear the idea of a Biden presidency far more than one run by Obama...so I hope and pray that he makes it safely through.

[MacAllister]

Billy, I'm going to put you on Global Ignore if you don't let up with the baiting nonsense and actually participate in the discussion. It's starting to sound more and more like trolling.

[Norman D Gutter]

Sometimes you need a broad tip. NONE of the republicans I know have been acting sane lately....[snip]
I'm firmly in the conservative wing of the Republican party, and NONE of the Republicans I know have been acting Insane lately. Sadness, yes; insanity, no.

If I hear ONE MORE PERSON say they're moving to Canada because Obama got elected, I will PERSONALLY extradite them with the extreme prejudice of my boot.....
Well, they learned such talk from prominent Hollywood democrats in 2000 and 2004.

[maestrowork]

But Canada? :)

[Norman D Gutter]

I wasn't a fan of Obama until his speech last night, quite honestly. He's far too conservative for my tastes.
My son, a PhD candidate at the Univesity of Chicago, believes Obama is a warmonger who will be much more likely to use military force in defense of American imperialism than McCain would have been (his words, not mine). He voted green party candidate.

[maxmordon]

But Canada? :)

Alberta is quite conservative, mind you.

[MacAllister]

My son, a PhD candidate at the Univesity of Chicago, believes Obama is a warmonger who will be much more likely to use military force in defense of American imperialism than McCain would have been (his words, not mine). He voted green party candidate.That's really troubling, Norman - and not something I'd heard yet. May I ask what he's basing that belief on?

[maxmordon]

Well, they learned such talk from prominent Hollywood democrats in 2000 and 2004.

Yes, but both are extremists.

[poetinahat]

Did I?
Perhaps not "second-class" or "subhuman", but the use of "the dems" is a generalisation that paints them as certainly "them, not us". Makes them out to be enemies, or at least people you don't like.

[maestrowork]

The biggest gripe I have in the last 8 years was the free-throwing of "unpatriotic" and "un-American." Please, just because I was against the Iraq War did NOT make me unpatriotic and un-American, and LEAST OF ALL, make me anti-troops.

That's just nasty. Made me sad.

Imagine Obama saying, "If you didn't vote for me, you're against us. You're un-American." How would you feel?

[Norman D Gutter]

That's really troubling, Norman - and not something I'd heard yet. May I ask what he's basing that belief on?
Mac:

As he told me in a long phone call last night, he is basing that on his own extensive review of Obama's stated policy positions, most likely (though I didn't ask him) from Obama's website. He says Obama only wants to get out of Iraq to free up troops for Afghanistan, thus trading one war for another. He says the Republicans were correct in interpreting that Obama said he would unilaterally bomb Pahkistahn if he could get Bin Laden. He says Obama would expand the military overall by 90,000 more troops than McCain called for. He said Obama will keep open, and maybe expand, the several hundred US military installations overseas, thus defending American economic imperialism. ETA: He said Obama will fight the war on terrorism much more vigorously than McCain would have, just not in Iraq. In that regard, I think (he didn't say this) he belives Obama using the national dislike for the war in Iraq for political purposes, not for true opposition.

He said a great deal more, but that's all I can remember now.

He can't wait to finish his degree and get some teaching experience so he can emigrate to the UK--which, given the UK's imperialistic past, I see as a hoot.

NDG

[StoryG27]

Perhaps not "second-class" or "subhuman", but the use of "the dems" is a generalisation that paints them as certainly "them, not us". Makes them out to be enemies, or at least people you don't like. Poet, that's just not true. And to say someone is a democrat doesn't mean I'm against them.
<snip>. . . and maybe the repub crazies are louder or scarier, but that does not reflect the party as a whole.

QFT.

Most Dems and liberals I know actually respect McCain. Not so much W. But yeah, they didn't revolt for 8 years.
Just thought I'd point those out too. I often use repubs and dems. I have never thought of those as offensive terms or in any way showing that by abbreviating that meant "them, not us."

[poetinahat]

It could be that "trading one war for another" is an oversimplification, though: If (for example) one of the wars were with innocent bystanders and the other were with terrorists, the trade would sound like a good one, no?

[kristie911]

Wow...until I read this thread I didn't realize that being a Republican meant I was insane or acting crazy. Huh? Who knew? I guess I'd better start taking my meds.

That's almost as bad as being told I was racist for not supporting Obama. Could it be I simply didn't agree with him?

I think there's a lot of craziness from both sides surrounding this election. I don't think either side was lacking in craziness.

I didn't vote for Obama but I was moved by his acceptance speech and I hold out hope for our country for the next 4 years. I hope he can do some of the things he promised...uniting our country again, first and foremost.

And while I didn't see it, a co-worker was watching either MSNBC or CNN (I don't remember which) and there was a woman on there saying she was thrilled that she wouldn't have to pay her mortgage, groceries or gas anymore because Obama would take care of "his people" like he promised. Now there's a mindset that scares me.

[kuwisdelu]

Focus on the Family's "Letter from 2012 in Obama’s America," (http://www.wnd.com/files/Focusletter.pdf)
(Actually, these terrifying predictions sound kind of like Utopia, to me. Go figure.)

Holy crap, talk about bigoted, homophobic, religious radical fear-mongering :rolleyes:

I agree, some of them sound pretty damn good. Same-sex marriage, gay rights, and openly accessible abortions? Oh no!

And some of them are just nonsensical. The USSR Russia can take over all of Eastern Europe without eliciting any US response? Israel can get nuked and all the US will do is offer condolences? Really?

[mscelina]

After listening to the inlaws rant all day about 'the state our country is in now' I must confess I'm a little weary of the world at the moment. Obama wasn't my candidate but McCain's loss will ultimately affect me very little. I said not too long ago that the politics of fear are powerful weapons in the hands of the wrong people and I think what we're seeing today is a natural backlash from one of the most divisive campaigns I can remember. Most Americans are happy with the way the election turned out. The only decision we have left to make is whether we allow the extremists on both sides to compromise our personal senses of security.

For most people, this shouldn't be an issue. For some, it's easier to deal with fear of the unknown than their own latent prejudices--and on that level, I'm speaking about members of my own family (and people like them) before anyone gets their knickers in a knot.

McCain was as gracious in defeat as Obama was in victory. It would be nice if the rest of the nation could follow their example.

[poetinahat]

Poet, that's just not true. And to say someone is a democrat doesn't mean I'm against them.
Then why would you say that "the dems would revolt if McCain/Palin had won"? What's the foundation for that statement? It tells me that, categorically, you think Democrats would act in a way you don't approve of.

All right - take away the "second-class/subhuman" label; the statement above is still an overgeneralisation. Whether you're talking about The Democrats or The Republicans doesn't matter [nod to Kristie's post above]. The answer in either case is, well, "We're not all like that".

No matter who we voted for, I think most of us respect each other's opinions and their right to hold those opinions. As Celina and others have pointed out, the candidates themselves have been above this sort of generalisation - at least in their post-election speeches.

[StoryG27]

Then why would you say that "the dems would revolt if McCain/Palin had won"? What's the foundation for that statement? It tells me that, categorically, you think Democrats would act in a way you don't approve of. Of course I don't think democrats would act in a way I approve of, that's why I'm a repub. :D JK, couldn't resist my smartass side.

Seriously though, I apologized for using the word "revolt." This makes me wonder if you're really reading my post and at least trying to get my meaning, or if you're simply reading it how you want to because I said something that obviously rubbed you the wrong way. Then, to really make a short story long, it makes me wonder if I'm misreading your posts because you don't normally do that. But whatever the case may be poet, I respect you and I hope for nothing but the best for this country and for you too.

[kuwisdelu]

The only decision we have left to make is whether we allow the extremists on both sides to compromise our personal senses of security.

For most people, this shouldn't be an issue. For some, it's easier to deal with fear of the unknown than their own latent prejudices--and on that level, I'm speaking about members of my own family (and people like them) before anyone gets their knickers in a knot.

McCain was as gracious in defeat as Obama was in victory. It would be nice if the rest of the nation could follow their example.

Quoted for truth.

There are crazies on both sides. There are reasonable people on both sides. That's something that AW consistently reminds me of--being able to come here and have an civil, intelligent argument with someone I disagree with is one of the things that's kept me sane during this election, especially when the conservatives I'm surrounded by around here are not as civil and reasonable as many of the ones I know and enjoy debating with here. :)

If anyone else saw it, I hope they can agree with me in saying that tonight's South Park episode's portrayal of the extremes (among other things) was effin' brilliant.

[mscelina]

I was JUST going to bring up South Park, kuwi--I'm watching it again at midnight. What a brilliant episode--and right on the mark.

[MacAllister]

I remember saying four years ago that I had no patience with people threatening to up and leave the country because the election didn't turn out the way they'd hoped. That the answer, if we really love our country, was to roll up our sleeves and work harder, dammit.

And four years later, I still think that's true.

[poetinahat]

Um, story, I think I forgot to take my High-Horse-Itis pills. I'm going away until the swelling subsides.

I'm averaging a public apology a day during the elections; today's your day. I'm sorry. I just don't do well in P&CE - don't have thick enough skin for it.

I'm going back to mooning and juning; be well, amiga.

[MacAllister]

And I've learned so very much from all of you. That conservatives tend to give more money to charitable causes? I had no idea. But it's true.

And if you look at that fact really hard - you realize it means we ALL care about taking care of the less fortunate - we just choose different delivery mechanism. Some of us tend to think more of our tax dollars ought to go to those ends, and some of us would rather donate more directly with more control over that destination.

That's something I don't think I'd ever have believed, without the discussions we've had here, as infuriating and frustrating as those discussions can be. :)

[StoryG27]

Um, story, I think I forgot to take my High-Horse-Itis pills. I'm going away until the swelling subsides.

I'm averaging a public apology a day during the elections; today's your day. I'm sorry. I just don't do well in P&CE - don't have thick enough skin for it.

I'm going back to mooning and juning; be well, amiga.
Don't leave, it's all good. I think I was posting in a lighter tone than what I conveyed. You know I love ya!

[kuwisdelu]

I remember saying four years ago that I had no patience with people threatening to up and leave the country because the election didn't turn out the way they'd hoped. That the answer, if we really love our country, was to roll up our sleeves and work harder, dammit.

And four years later, I still think that's true.

To a great extent, I agree. But what happens when the core values of a society are split? What happens when both sides believe the opposing side's moral values are not only wrong, but inherently immoral? In the end, I think most of the country really believes in ideas like hard work, responsibility, and they all care about their fellow Americans. But what are we left with when one person's idea of "caring" is another's idea of blatant immorality?

I'm talking, of course, about things like Prop 8, abortion, and social issues like these. We've elected the first black president of the US. It's a historic victory for equality and open-mindedness. But there are still those who are being left out in the cold--the "Letter from 2012" Mac posted makes this abundantly clear. The decision in California makes this abundantly clear.

In the end, though people disagree about how to get there, most every American wants financial stability, reliable healthcare, security from foreign threats. We may diverge on our paths in these aspects, but we converge on common goals. But when it comes to morality and our core values as a nation, we are diverging, and it worries me. There is a bitter division of opinion on whose and what "rights" need to be "protected." And the fact that this debate was so hotly debated in a traditionally liberal state suggests this division doesn't always know partisan boundaries.

Those seeking to restrict the rights of gays truly believe they are protecting their most dearly-held morals, that they are doing the right thing. From the recent threads here, this has been one of the few issues on which, it seems to me, we've mostly fell on the same side. And at the end of the day, we were surprised and afraid at the decision. To what extent can we legislate morality? All people are created equal. And yet it took a bloody civil war (yes, I know that wasn't the sole point) to extend that statement to blacks. I am absolutely certain its extension to gays will be less bloody. But what will it take? How long can we continue this way?

[maestrowork]

Some of us tend to think more of our tax dollars ought to go to those ends, and some of us would rather donate more directly with more control over that destination.

I think that's one of the fundamental ideology differences. Some believe it should be up to the individuals to decide -- smaller government, more personal freedom. And some believe if you leave it to private citizens, many of the needy would be left behind (or many would not give at all), so just let the government take care of it -- "redistribute" if you will.

Personally I'm true to my centrist/moderate self to say I support both. I think if you leave it totally to the private sector to pick and choose, many people will fall through the cracks (homelessness, for example -- I seriously don't see a lot of my friends, liberals or conservatives alike, care much about "the bums.") On the other hand, I favor a smaller government and less waste. To me, the hard part is not about one extreme or another, but a delicate balance between the two.

[billythrilly7th]

I didn't know I wasn't allowed to post my "Thought The Day After" and that I was unhappy with Barack's extreme partisan pick was "baiting."

:Shrug:

Now I know. Don't criticize the Obama unless done within the context of the thread even if the thread title seemed apt towards allowing one to just post their thoughts.

Enjoy the rest of your discussion.

I'll be in bed.

Thank you and goodnight.

[MacAllister]

I didn't know I wasn't allowed to post my "Thought The Day After" and that I was unhappy with Barack's extreme partisan pick was "baiting."

:Shrug:

Now I know. Don't criticize the Obama unless done within the context of the thread even if the thread title seemed apt towards allowing one to just post their thoughts.


Of course you are.

But this part? Oh well. The dream of change and bipartisanship was nice while it lasted.

Let the partisan wars begin again on 1/21/09 or 1/20/09 or whenever Obama takes over.

Let the blood flow.
Pure hyperbolic trollery. You're not actually engaging in any of the conversation going on around you. You're offering a smelly fart, then fleeing the room.

Grow the fuck up, for one lousy day, why can't you?

[StoryG27]

If anyone else saw it, I hope they can agree with me in saying that tonight's South Park episode's portrayal of the extremes (among other things) was effin' brilliant.

I was JUST going to bring up South Park, kuwi--I'm watching it again at midnight. What a brilliant episode--and right on the mark.
Just watched it. I was laughing so hard because I'm the type of person who laughs when there's no appropriate reaction and well, I found humor in the irony of it all. I wouldn't have been laughing if it hadn't been so true, exaggerated to make the point while entertaining, but true.

Damn babies, can't ever trust 'em. :D

[billythrilly7th]

Of course you are.

But this part?
Pure hyperbolic trollery. You're not actually engaging in any of the conversation going on around you. You're offering a smelly fart, then fleeing the room.

Grow the fuck up, for one lousy day, why can't you?

Your post before editing it to this one was much nicer.

I didn't flee the room. I do other things sometimes and then I come back to the thread to address anyone who has responded to my post.

What you call hypberbolic trollery, I call pointed razor sharp observations cloaked in comedic hyperbolly in the vein of America's great satirists.

But your point has been made.

[katiemac]

Storygirl, you said something very inspiring upthread. "I'm a Republican, but I'm an American first." If more people from both sides of the line adopted a mentality like that, I believe America would be better for it. It seems like people either ignore that common ground, or are looking for it in the wrong places. We forget it's the name of our country, for crying out loud. The United States of America.

[mario_c]

I'm glad my wingnut Republican relatives will now find that Obama
a. is NOT a Muslim, and
b. is NOT going to appoint Al Sharpton and Don King to the Cabinet.
She thought that was a real riot.

[Bartholomew]

What you call hypberbolic trollery, I call pointed razor sharp observations cloaked in comedic hyperbolly in the vein of America's great satirists.


You're just squirrelly on election years.

[maxmordon]

Nice to chat with ya, I am going to bed now. Watch out the forum for me, will ya Bart?

[Bartholomew]

Nice to chat with ya, I am going to bed now. Watch out the forum for me, will ya Bart?

Like a hawk.

[Bartholomew]

Z z Z z Z z Z marshmallows Z z Z z Z z Z z Z

[mario_c]

This should help you sleep.
Here are 3 of my favorite political brains (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-tv/arianna-on-bbc-newsnight_b_141651.html) on the victory (warning:crap sound and picture)

[Andrew]

Sometimes you need a broad tip. NONE of the republicans I know have been acting sane lately. I haven't been on the forum all day; I'm talking strictly in person and on a few blogs I look at.

If I hear ONE MORE PERSON say they're moving to Canada because Obama got elected, I will PERSONALLY extradite them with the extreme prejudice of my boot.

And why Canada?!? Is it some sort of conservative paradise suddenly?

Not this conservative. I'm glad it's over. I'm especially glad those on the left (not all) who have hated, bitched and moaned for these years will have someone else to blame for their little world being so screwed up. (They never blame themselves).

[MacAllister]

Wave that bloody shirt as long as you need to, Andrew. At least no one is accusing you of treason for having ideological differences with the party in power.

[Joe270]

"Rethuglican" along with the other nasty crap coming from the left the last eight years is just as completely unacceptable.

Eight years of back-biting and undercutting of the POTUS because he 'stole' the election. I doubt any conservative, much less republican will forget that.

So now Obama's elected, and the conservatives are supposed to start singing 'cumbaya' with the liberals? I don't think it'll happen.

The same people calling for 'peace and love and togetherness' right now are the same people who divided our country over the last eight years. It wasn't the Bush administration, it was bitter leftists angry over the election and unwilling, for eight years, who would never let bygones be bygones. They just never let up.

And so now the conservatives are supposed to suck it up? Why? Why can't we bitch about the policies of Obama, Pelosi, and Ried?

There were no riots when Obama got elected. Conservatives don't protest, and conservatives don't riot. There were threats of riots from the left, and even talk of out-right civil war. Remember that crap, mere days before the election? Threat much?

Who's the threat here? I say again, there were no riots, nothing at all happened in any violent way. But if things had gone the other way, I damn well guarantee ya that there would have been violence, and a lot of it. What does that say for the leftist agenda, and the means they will stoop to to achieve them?

Because the conservatives are willing to let the rule of law, rather than mob rule, dictate who leads our country, then they must be the ones to extend the hand of healing? Bullshit.

That was in the hands of the leftists for eight years, and they never once tried.

I'm certainly not in any 'anarchist' camp, but I seriously doubt even a small percentage of republicans are, although there probably are some fringe conservative groups who are up in arms.

Brace yourselves, because I think the left is about to get the 'Bush' treatment, for as long as the democrats are in power.

They've had eight years of democrat example to learn from. What goes around, comes around.

But all this is a an 'out' for a failed Obama presidency. 'I can't do it alone' he stated in his own speech, then all his supporters come out to 'reach across the aisle'. So Obama's already off the hook if he's a complete failure, they'll just blame it on the conservatives, whatever they can't pin on Bush. I can hear it now, 'if the conservatives had just embraced Obama, we'd live in Utopia now. . .'

Obama, and his supporters, are already ducking responsibility. Not even a day has passed since the election, and he's a few months from taking office, but they are hedging their bets and setting the conservatives up for the fall.

Nice. It'll probably work, too, judging from the way the housing crisis got put at the GOP's feet. How the hell did that happen?

Why didn't the democrats and leftist who pushed for 'fair housing' and 'homes for all' stand up when it went to crap? It was their baby, they should take responsibility. A democrat got elected because the democrats screwed up, but they managed to make it 'Bush's failed policy'. Ah, responsibility is a dirty word for anyone but republicans, I forgot that.

Change is coming, alright. The conservatives are going to get a whole lot more vocal. It's high time.

[Joe270]

Waving another bloody shirt, with a few key points.

[MacAllister]

The thing is, Joe, I don't hear anyone on the left calling conservatives "traitors" or advocating killing or deporting them. We've listened to that stuff for eight years. Yep - a bunch of us protested, waving signs and marching. Last time I checked, that was still legal. I've been called a traitor and anti-American right here on my own board.

Worse, there were members of the administration - high up members - calling us traitors and terrorists, and suggesting that peaceful protest should be criminalized.

So you can blame the left all you want for the division, but in fact, I think both sides get to shoulder their own part of that blame. And it's going to take both sides to fix the friggin' mess.

At least we have a president-elect expressing a willingness to listen, instead of telling reporters, "they didn't vote for me anyway, so I don't have to represent them."

[LaceWing]

Wow. This is a hell of a thread. The world needs more like it. Well, I sure do anyway.

Today I began bridging a potential divide with friends who are too susceptible to the far right extremes and might even be considering leaving the country. I privately called it Hug A Republican Day.

Oh, it is so hard to hear the fear and even sincere disgust, and I quickly placed limits, for the sake of thinking forward, always forward. (We agreed long ago that race issues were off the table.) But they have my ear, now that it's stopped ringing from the crowing I did indulgently but silently.

What I heard was, they feel discounted and denied. They tried, they cared, they thought they had the best answers for the best reasons, and the country has judged them wrong. It does not compute for my friends that what they feel now is pretty much what every discounted minority in history has felt.

The message I started with was, first, I still love you, and second, The country still needs you, and third, No one has the whole truth and nothing but the truth. We each have some of it, and everyone needs all the truth we each can share. I stressed the majority in the middle, dismissed the extremes on both ends. And although this was complicated and difficult and resisted, I was willing because I believe it.

And then, very importantly, I helped find a practical way to allow that sharing to happen. They may not need some nebulous public consensus to convince them they haven't been left behind. It may be enough for just one person in the other camp to validate their life experience and continuing value, and to prove it with cooperative action.

Someone: Please PM me if you know of a bi-partisan professional-level economics forum that could make good use of a very knowledgeable contributor.

Everyone: Hug A Republican or some variation thereof, whether you are one or not. Some of them/us really need it right now.

Anyone: Design T-shirts for both sides with quips that ease the tension, and then do whatever to get them out and about everywhere.

~

PS. MacAllister and crew and all y'all have made my politically complicated private life easier with lessons and motivation. THANK YOU.

~

Caution! Caution! Dangerous Thought Alert!
If racists are a persecuted minority (yes, I dare you to go there), then is it possible the persecution reinforces racism, that being persecuted drives them/us to solid entrenchment, and maybe even further extremes?

[MacAllister]

And bloody shirts are pretty normal in American politics. I know some of us that have waved 'em for six or eight years, now.

And some of us have been wavin' 'em since the Clintons were on Pennsylvania Avenue, for that matter.

And Joe? I was pretty sure the conservatives weren't going to show up this morning and say, "Gee, wow! Look at that! You guys were right all along! Huh. Whodathunkit? Well, what can we do to help, then?"

. . . but I can have my own private little fantasy life.

[Ol' Fashioned Girl]

And I've learned so very much from all of you. That conservatives tend to give more money to charitable causes? I had no idea. But it's true.

I'm just cantankerous enough to want to make my own decisions about where my money goes.

At least we have a president-elect expressing a willingness to listen, instead of telling reporters, "they didn't vote for me anyway, so I don't have to represent them."

I've seen that quoted here on AW more than once... did W really say that?!

And Joe? I was pretty sure the conservatives weren't going to show up this morning and say, "Gee, wow! Look at that! You guys were right all along! Huh. Whodathunkit? Well, what can we do to help, then?"

. . . but I can have my own private little fantasy life.

Believe it or not, some of us conservatives are doing just that.

Well... maybe not saying 'you were right all along', but wanting to help anyway. :D

[Don]

I'm hearing a lot of the more conservative folks I know calling for a return to true fiscally conservative policies, less international intervention, and live-and-let-live social policies.
If that had been the message of the Bush years, the Republicans could have won this election -- except McCain would not have been the Republican candidate. It's good to hear them moving back toward their core values. Too bad they didn't listen to Ron Paul when he was expressing exactly those views in the primaries.
Of course. Because there's nothing more dangerous to Democracy than a democratically-elected President.
Sorry, but this is NOT a democracy, contrary to what government schools and the popular media keep repeating. It's a representative republic that happens to elect some officeholders democratically. The Constitution doesn't even require a popular vote for the President; he could be selected by the state legislatures and it would be Constitutional to do so. Also, the founding fathers didn't much care for democracy.

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.


Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide

I'm glad to see Obama won for this reason: It removes (or lessens!) suspicion about the Diebold voting machines being rigged (Diebold has had alleged ties to the Republican party). These are closed systems (the software running them [their basic internal design] is NOT available for examination, which seems unconscionable for devices so critical to election outcomes), so without them being open to scrutiny, it would be quite easy for them to be rigged.
I've been called paranoid for pointing out that the Diebold code should be in the public domain for review, and the process should be considerably more transparent than today. Counting the votes is immeasurably more important than voting.
And I've learned so very much from all of you. That conservatives tend to give more money to charitable causes? I had no idea. But it's true.

And if you look at that fact really hard - you realize it means we ALL care about taking care of the less fortunate - we just choose different delivery mechanism. Some of us tend to think more of our tax dollars ought to go to those ends, and some of us would rather donate more directly with more control over that destination.

That's something I don't think I'd ever have believed, without the discussions we've had here, as infuriating and frustrating as those discussions can be. :)
Mac, I'd like to take issue with a single statement in that quote, the one about 'our tax dollars.' That actually translates to 'our AND other people's tax dollars' because of the involuntary nature of taxation. The initiation of force is inherently wrong, regardless of how caring the rationale may be, and regardless of whether done by Robin Hood or by government. Government has no more business in our pocketbooks than it does in our bedrooms.

I'd also like to point out that the more of their personal efforts people are allowed to retain, the more they have available for charitable work.
The same people calling for 'peace and love and togetherness' right now are the same people who divided our country over the last eight years. It wasn't the Bush administration, it was bitter leftists angry over the election and unwilling, for eight years, who would never let bygones be bygones. They just never let up.
George Bush and his "You're either with us or against us" attitude certainly didn't help heal the divide, IMO.
And so now the conservatives are supposed to suck it up? Why? Why can't we bitch about the policies of Obama, Pelosi, and Ried?
Nobody said you can't. I'll be the first to hold their feet to the fire everytime they propose more debt-based spending, foreign intervention, larger government, or unconstitutional actions. I hope you'll be there helping me.
Because the conservatives are willing to let the rule of law, rather than mob rule, dictate who leads our country, then they must be the ones to extend the hand of healing? Bullshit.
After invading and occupying Iraq, zealous use of signing statements and executive orders, waterboarding, and unconstitutional programs like the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Medicare drug program and NCLB, it takes a hell of a lot of balls for conservatives to claim the cloak of 'rule of law.'
Nice. It'll probably work, too, judging from the way the housing crisis got put at the GOP's feet. How the hell did that happen?
I haven't figured that out either, except to make note that it's more pot and kettle stuff, and common to both sides. Read on.
Why didn't the democrats and leftist who pushed for 'fair housing' and 'homes for all' stand up when it went to crap? It was their baby, they should take responsibility. A democrat got elected because the democrats screwed up, but they managed to make it 'Bush's failed policy'. Ah, responsibility is a dirty word for anyone but republicans, I forgot that.
Why didn't the republicans admit that holding the interest rates artifically low to recover from the Dot-Com mess and get GWB re-elected was the gasoline thrown on the fire that took the housing bubble from an ugly block fire to a raging inferno? It took both sides, and I didn't hear anybody admit to their contribution.
Change is coming, alright. The conservatives are going to get a whole lot more vocal. It's high time.
Hallelujia. And whenever they call for more personal freedom, smaller government, and a non-interventionist foreign policy, I'll be yelling right along with them.
Someone: Please PM me if you know of a bi-partisan professional-level economics forum that could make good use of a very knowledgeable contributor.

Anyone: Design T-shirts for both sides with quips that ease the tension, and then do whatever to get them out and about everywhere.

If you hear of that forum, please let me know, because I'd love to lurk there. I realize I still have a tremendous amount to learn about economics.

As for the T-Shirts, I've already ordered my "Don't Blame ME, I supported Liberty, small government, non-intervention, and Ron Paul" T-Shirt. :D

[MacAllister]

Believe it or not, some of us conservatives are doing just that.

Well... maybe not saying 'you were right all along', but wanting to help anyway. :DHeh. And I think if you check my post history since we started this room, my tune hasn't changed, either. I'm saying the same things now I've said all along. :)

[MacAllister]

Mac, I'd like to take issue with a single statement in that quote, the one about 'our tax dollars.' That actually translates to 'our AND other people's tax dollars' because of the involuntary nature of taxation. The initiation of force is inherently wrong, regardless of how caring the rationale may be, and regardless of whether done by Robin Hood or by government. Government has no more business in our pocketbooks than it does in our bedrooms.

Ah, but taxation isn't strictly involuntary if it's a system designed and approved by representatives of the citizens of the country, right? But I'll grant you that you've got a point about the nature of taxation and government spending, in that the execution of the plan gets awfully sloppy and weird.

[Don]

Ah, but taxation isn't strictly involuntary if it's a system designed and approved by representatives of the citizens of the country, right? But I'll grant you that you've got a point about the nature of taxation and government spending, in that the execution of the plan gets awfully sloppy and weird.
Oh, don't take me down that road. I happen to think Lysander Spooner was right. I never signed anything promising to give up whatever some person elected by 51 percent of the people said I should give up.

If I walk down an alley and see two guys, one with a gun and one with a baseball bat, I don't consider it voting, or voluntary, to hand over my wallet to either one or the other.

[Alice.S]

http://www.insideedition.com/news.aspx?storyID=2306


It's over. The thrilling Presidential campaign has lasted almost two years. But the question facing many people is: What do I do now?
.....the exact same question I asked myself after I finished reading the Twilight seires

[MacAllister]

Oh, don't take me down that road. I happen to think Lysander Spooner was right. I never signed anything promising to give up whatever some person elected by 51 percent of the people said I should give up.

If I walk down an alley and see two guys, one with a gun and one with a baseball bat, I don't consider it voting, or voluntary, to hand over my wallet to either one or the other.Fair enough. And I believe that a just society is a compassionate society, and we have a responsibility to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves - and that doing so is (ideally) more effectively accomplished by means of a well-regulated governmental process.

[Don]

Fair enough. And I believe that a just society is a compassionate society, and we have a responsibility to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves - and that doing so is (ideally) more effectively accomplished by means of a well-regulated governmental process.
We both agree that a just society is a compassionate society, and we have a responsibility to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves. Note, however, that society and government are two separate entities, something those in power work hard to make us forget.

If the history of government was that of successfully implementing programs for the good of society, I might possibly be convinced to agree with the second part of your statement -- as long as those programs were funded voluntarily.

Sadly, the long history of government is that of taking from the productive to give to those most closely aligned with those in power, occasionally throwing a bone to those perceived as less-advantaged to enable them to continue the consolidation of power.

Some people say I'm an idealist; to the contrary, based on history and long-term observation, I'd say I'm a realist.

[Ken]

...if I spot any upside down flags I will turn them right side up by standing on my head.

[lakotagirl]

I'm usually vote Republican. I did this year. I have voted Democrat in the past.

I truely believed that McCain could have made changes in the way our government runs. But, he didn't win so that a moot point.

Obama is a smart, compassionate man. If the country gets behind him, we will do just fine. Not all of his choices will be choices we would make if we were doing the job, but we AREN'T doing the job.

I have a son in the service and I do worry about him. I trust that Obama will make the right choices (I am not 100% sure of what those choices are. But I know that Obama is privy to a lot more information than I am.)

[Ol' Fashioned Girl]

Fair enough. And I believe that a just society is a compassionate society, and we have a responsibility to take care of those who cannot take care of themselves - and that doing so is (ideally) more effectively accomplished by means of a well-regulated governmental process.

I agree. It's where I'm forced to take care of folks who 'will not' take care of themselves for generations that I get grumpy. And those - like members of my very own family - who do whatever they damn well please with no thought for the consequences 'cause there's a Welfare system out there that will pay the bills for their repeated drug rehabs and multiple births with different fathers.

[Don]

I agree. It's where I'm forced to take care of folks who 'will not' take care of themselves for generations that I get grumpy. And those - like members of my very own family - who do whatever they damn well please with no thought for the consequences 'cause there's a Welfare system out there that will pay the bills for their repeated drug rehabs and multiple births with different fathers.
Which illustrates the other major failure of government programs. When charities are financed by voluntary contributions, every dollar counts, and charities become wise stewards of the funds they receive, both because those funds are in short supply, and because if they are not, their reputation may suffer and those funds end up in the hands of other, competing charities. By design, therefore, they are encouraged to be efficient and to assist recipients in finding other modes of support.

Government-established bureaucracies, on the other hand, have no competition, and can only ask for more dollars and more employees next year if they manage to spend all the dollars they received in this year's budget. By design, therefore, they are encouraged to be inefficient, and to grow the pool of recipients.

[Ol' Fashioned Girl]

I've seen them rush to spend 'left over' money in one fiscal year so they don't get their funding for the next year cut, too.

[Norman D Gutter]

It could be that "trading one war for another" is an oversimplification, though: If (for example) one of the wars were with innocent bystanders and the other were with terrorists, the trade would sound like a good one, no?
Well, he thinks both of those wars are USA imperialism at work, so to him there's not a dime's worth of difference between them.

[Andrew]

The thing is, Joe, I don't hear anyone on the left calling conservatives "traitors" or advocating killing or deporting them. We've listened to that stuff for eight years. Yep - a bunch of us protested, waving signs and marching. Last time I checked, that was still legal. I've been called a traitor and anti-American right here on my own board.

Worse, there were members of the administration - high up members - calling us traitors and terrorists, and suggesting that peaceful protest should be criminalized.

So you can blame the left all you want for the division, but in fact, I think both sides get to shoulder their own part of that blame. And it's going to take both sides to fix the friggin' mess.

At least we have a president-elect expressing a willingness to listen, instead of telling reporters, "they didn't vote for me anyway, so I don't have to represent them."

It would be nice if people didn't lump all of us together. I never disrespected anyone who thought Iraq was not the war we should be fighting. That was and is as legitimate of an opinion as any. I have posted here and elsewhere we were not supposed to be using our troops as a police force and I will always stand by that.
But when I see idiots burning and defacating on the flag, when I see Code Pink try to remove a Marine recruiting station from a legitimately leased public access place, when I hear some politicians claim the Marines in Iraq killed innocents in cold blood and when some people carry signs encouraging troops to kill their officers--yeah, these particular people are treasonous--including GE execs who sell to Iran. Sorry, I can't help it.

[Christine N.]

Ugh. I've already seen two blogs today where the authors 'weep for America' and "will never support Obama."

Just making it worse. I didn't dislike Bush right out of the box. It took me a good 4 years to really dislike him. These people need to give him a chance.

[Norman D Gutter]

It would be nice if people didn't lump all of us together...when I see idiots burning and defacating on the flag...Sorry, I can't help it.
Andrew:

It's because of the use of words such as "idiot" in the context you used them that liberals tend to lump all conservatives in a pile and consider us uneducated hate-mongers.

Get a vocabulary, and learn how to engage in erudite debate, please. Or stay out of the debate, and stop giving the other side excuse to paint us with that broad brush mentioned up-thread.

You have to "help it".

NDG

[Roger J Carlson]

Government-established bureaucracies, on the other hand, have no competition, and can only ask for more dollars and more employees next year if they manage to spend all the dollars they received in this year's budget. By design, therefore, they are encouraged to be inefficient, and to grow the pool of recipients.My sister used to work for WIC (Women, Infants and Children). There is a "need" requirement, but she was told explicitly by her boss that she was not to inquire into their financial status. Anyone that came in could get assistance. The reason (and this was also stated explicitly) is that the more clients they have, the larger the budget they will get, and the more people they can help. WIC has absolutely no incentive to help women become self-sufficient.

[Roger J Carlson]

I think this back-biting partisanship goes back to the Nixon years. Many Republicans saw the Watergate investigation and subsquent impeachment talk as a witch-hunt by the Democrats.

That was the motivation for all the Clinton investigations (which Democrats saw as a witch-hunt) and subsequent impeachment. it was the first time that the Republicans had a shot at a Democrat president and they took full advantage of it.

The Republican hounding of Clinton resulted in a similar back-lash against GW Bush.

Like Joe, I fully expect a Conservative/Republican backlash against Obama. In some ways, I even think it's fair. But on the other hand, if somebody doesn't take it on themselves to stop the cycle, it will only get worse and we will become more and more divided.

I hope Republicans can take the initiative. And I hope Democrats won't take advantage of that for their own advantage. If both of those things don't happen, we're going to be in a real mess.

As for myself, I will support President Obama even though I may disagree with his policies (we'll have to see about that). If I disagree with him enough, I may vote for his opponent in 4 years.

[brainstrains]

Just making it worse. I didn't dislike Bush right out of the box. It took me a good 4 years to really dislike him. These people need to give him a chance.

Hey, I gave him a chance the 20 months he was campaigning. I didn't like what he stood for then, and so I really have a hard time believing it'll all change when he gets into office. I am not joining the Impeach Obama group yet, but I am doubtful.

I am really sick of people saying that my fear for America is not legitimate and needs to stop. That didn't stop them from boo-hoo-hooing for the 8 years Bush was in office. No, I'm not going to sit there and call him a Muslim or a Communist or make up lies about him... because I don't need to... the person that he has shown himself to be is questionable enough as it is, without embellishments. I'm going to support him as my President and yes-- give him a chance-- but I'm also still afraid. And I have every right to feel that way.

[Celia Cyanide]

And I'm sorry for my off the cuff, use of the word "revolt." But whatever happened under the leadership of GWB wasn't uniting, not by either party, and I guess I get the feeling that dems have this 'phew, now that our guy's in, let's all unite' attitude that would otherwise not be so prevalent among the party.

I look at it the opposite way around. In other words, "our guy got in" because he IS interested in uniting people. That is why he did so well. Bush claimed to be a uniter, but he was clearly not interested in uniting people. His views were far right, and he never had any interested in how the rest of us felt.

[Bartholomew]

I apologize my gross generalization earlier; I did not see it as such when I said it, and I never intended to say or imply that EVERY republican was acting insane -- I only meant to say that of a certain portion of the political right.

[Cranky]

I think this back-biting partisanship goes back to the Nixon years. Many Republicans saw the Watergate investigation and subsquent impeachment talk as a witch-hunt by the Democrats.

That was the motivation for all the Clinton investigations (which Democrats saw as a witch-hunt) and subsequent impeachment. it was the first time that the Republicans had a shot at a Democrat president and they took full advantage of it.

The Republican hounding of Clinton resulted in a similar back-lash against GW Bush.

Like Joe, I fully expect a Conservative/Republican backlash against Obama. In some ways, I even think it's fair. But on the other hand, if somebody doesn't take it on themselves to stop the cycle, it will only get worse and we will become more and more divided.

I hope Republicans can take the initiative. And I hope Democrats won't take advantage of that for their own advantage. If both of those things don't happen, we're going to be in a real mess.

As for myself, I will support President Obama even though I may disagree with his policies (we'll have to see about that). If I disagree with him enough, I may vote for his opponent in 4 years.

I agree with you completely, Roger. Well, except for the fact that I voted for Obama, hee hee. :)

[Roger J Carlson]

I agree with you completely, Roger. Well, except for the fact that I voted for Obama, hee hee. :)I never said who I voted for. :tongue

[DamaNegra]

I look at it the opposite way around. In other words, "our guy got in" because he IS interested in uniting people.

And we all know where that sentiment has gotten rulers in the past :rolleyes:

I'm scared about all this Obama-hype. Sure, the guy may have some good intentions, but you need to remember he's a president, not a dictator or a god. "Obama will bring change, Obama will do this, Obama will stop that..." Uh... I think people are forgetting that the system is designed in such a way Obama can't make most decisions on his own, they have to be ratified by someone else. That's where it gets really, really interesting.

You're just setting yourselves up for disappointment here.

[Cranky]

I never said who I voted for. :tongue

Foiled again! :roll:

[maestrowork]

I agree. It's where I'm forced to take care of folks who 'will not' take care of themselves for generations that I get grumpy. And those - like members of my very own family - who do whatever they damn well please with no thought for the consequences 'cause there's a Welfare system out there that will pay the bills for their repeated drug rehabs and multiple births with different fathers.

But you can't say you're forced to take care of ______ just as much as I can't say I'm forced to send your children to public school, or forced to send his children to fight in an unjust war, etc, etc.

True, we don't have a say in how the government spend our tax money, but the fact is, the idea that "MY" money is used on something I did not approve of is a false one. We all pitched in. Who is to say your portion of the tax money didn't go into public schools and the military while mine didn't go to homeless shelters and Medicare and public infrastructures? We do have a choice -- by telling the government enough is enough, by getting involved in you local politics, by electing new officials. By advocating welfare reforms. That's what a slight majority of Americans did this time -- they rejected the Republican way of doing things, and hope maybe the Democrats can do a bit better.

I understand the resentment toward those "bums" who just want handouts -- why should WE be supporting them? The truth is, not all welfare recipients are bums. Right here on AW we have people who were/are on welfare. The idea that we should leave charities to the private sector is a dangerous one, because you'll be damn sure many needy ones will fall through the cracks. Prejudice will sink in. People will rather send money to Cancer associations than helping homeless mothers get back on their feet. The problem isn't whether these people deserve it or not, the issue is what happens if they're left on the street? What kind of society would we be? Chaos, I'll tell you. And the issue is how we're going to manage it, and get people off welfare, for example, as quickly as possible by providing education, job training and self-sufficiency. That's the kind of reform we need. And not people saying, "I want to decide for myself who should be helped and who shouldn't."

[Don]

I'd love to sing a few rounds of cumbyah with ya, Ray, but I'm too much the realist.

http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2928773&postcount=100

http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2928773&postcount=104

Like I said, if I saw any signs that government actually works the way people wish it worked, I'd be right there, accompanying you on the keyboard.

The War on Poverty has been almost exactly as successful as the War on Drugs and the War on Terror.

Since we always get more of what we declare war on, why not declare a War on Peace and a War on Prosperity?

[maestrowork]

I agree with you completely, Roger. Well, except for the fact that I voted for Obama, hee hee. :)

I think Roger has a good point, and that's exactly what we did this time -- 52% of Americans (well, those who voted anyway) chose another party. They weren't happy with what we saw. Now if Obama doesn't deliver, there is 2012. If the Democrats don't deliver, there is 2010. Thus the beauty of our system.

Look, people supported Bush even though some thought he stole the 2000 election. His approval rate was as high as 90%, all the way up to the War on Iraq. But he screwed up. And it is NOT anti-American to question the war or ay of Bush's policies. Trust me, I HAVE been called un-American because I thought the war was wrong. And after all these years, there are still people who think George W. Bush is the greatest president of all times. Go figure.

Generalization is bad -- the truth is, there are extremists on all sides. But we can't -- seriously, we can't -- use that sample as a demonstration of the entire group of people. I know many Republicans and Democrats and independents and whatever in between and they are all decent, good people even if we don't agree on how things should be done and run.

But we either support our President and country as one people, or we don't. Now, if Obama screws up, it's within our right as Americans to bitch about it. And it's up to us to accept or reject him and his administration 4 years from now.

That's the American way.

Seriously, I'm tired of all the "doomsday" stuff from both sides. The world hasn't ended after all these millennia. Certainly, it's not going to end on Obama's watch, even if he really was the anti-Christ. [sarcasm]

[Roger J Carlson]

And the issue is how we're going to manage it, and get people off welfare, for example, as quickly as possible by providing education, job training and self-sufficiency. That's the kind of reform we need. Sure, but this is precisely the thing that government programs are least likely to do. I'm going to quote a recent post of mine from up-thread because it illustrates this exactly.
My sister used to work for WIC (Women, Infants and Children). There is a "need" requirement, but she was told explicitly by her boss that she was not to inquire into their financial status. Anyone that came in could get assistance. The reason (and this was also stated explicitly) is that the more clients they have, the larger the budget they will get, and the more people they can help. WIC has absolutely no incentive to help women become self-sufficient.

And not people saying, "I want to decide for myself who should be helped and who shouldn't."
I'll disagree because I think there are sufficient people, such as yourself, who care deeply about those things. I think there are sufficient people who care deeply about all issues to cover it. I don't think it takes the government to decide for us.

[maestrowork]

And we all know where that sentiment has gotten rulers in the past :rolleyes:

I'm scared about all this Obama-hype. Sure, the guy may have some good intentions, but you need to remember he's a president, not a dictator or a god. "Obama will bring change, Obama will do this, Obama will stop that..." Uh... I think people are forgetting that the system is designed in such a way Obama can't make most decisions on his own, they have to be ratified by someone else. That's where it gets really, really interesting.

You're just setting yourselves up for disappointment here.

Obama himself said that -- don't expect the government to solve all your problems. Don't expect him to be the perfect president. We all have to pitch in.

I think Obama is more of a realist than most people give him credit for.

However, don't underestimate the power of hope. JFK inspired a whole nation. He said "Let's go to the moon" -- and everyone said, "Are you crazy? It can't be done." Guess what? We did.

Naysaying will get you exactly what you fear -- nothing. Negativity only has one way to go -- down.

I don't EVER want to live that way, even if my life ends tomorrow.

[maestrowork]

I'll disagree because I think there are sufficient people, such as yourself, who care deeply about those things. I think there are sufficient people who care deeply about all issues to cover it. I don't think it takes the government to decide for us.

My assertion is that there ARE NOT enough people. At the org I'm involved with (homeless agency, health consortium, etc.) we have a hard time getting funding. If not for the government funds (which have dwindled in the past few years), the organization would have disappeared completely -- we're now going on the 20th year. This year, we had a hard time getting donations because of the economic downturns. I honestly can't see how these programs can completely rely on private funding. There are people who care deeply about these causes, just not enough.

But look, this is an ideology difference, and we're not going to convince each other to change our minds. But what we can do is to understand that we all have ideas how it should work, and we all have experiences. People do care. People do make charitable contributions and volunteer. Americans are in general very giving people. Some simply wants their freedom of choice. And I understand that -- gosh, I wish I had a choice of where exactly my tax money goes.

But my question is, say, we cut fundings for those programs, and give the tax breaks back to the people. Do you really think they will compensate by privately donating that tax cut back to those programs (of people in need)? My org, for example, needs an annual operating budget of about $300,000 -- really, not that much. Do you really think if people are getting tax cuts back, they're going to donate $10,000 instead of $3000? Or do you think suddenly we'll get 15,000 donors instead of 5000? The cynical me says no. And if the government funding completely goes away, that org will die instantly.

[Don]

Obama himself said that -- don't expect the government to solve all your problems. Don't expect him to be the perfect president. We all have to pitch in.

I think Obama is more of a realist than most people give him credit for.

However, don't underestimate the power of hope. JFK inspired a whole nation. He said "Let's go to the moon" -- and everyone said, "Are you crazy? It can't be done." Guess what? We did.

Naysaying will get you exactly what you fear -- nothing. Negativity only has one way to go -- down.

I don't EVER want to live that way, even if my life ends tomorrow.
Absolutely, Ray, and I actually feel a bit of hope where Obama's concerned, precisely because he is a realist. He's backed down from some of his earlier rhetoric and focusing more on the assertion that government can't solve all the problems. Nothing would please me more than to see him continue that trend.

If he were to call for people to start saving, to call for private investment in productive industries, I'd be cheering him from the sidelines. We can recover from this economic mess, but we won't do it by encouraging more debt and bailing people out from poor decision-making.
My assertion is that there ARE NOT enough people. At the org I'm involved with (homeless agency, health consortium, etc.) we have a hard time getting funding. If not for the government funds (which have dwindled in the past few years), the organization would have disappeared completely -- we're now going on the 20th year. This year, we had a hard time getting donations because of the economic downturns. I honestly can't see how these programs can completely rely on private funding. There are people who care deeply about these causes, just not enough.
But what would your organization's funding look like if government at all levels wasn't sucking almost half of every dollar earned out of people's pockets? This is another perfect example of unintended consequences, and the forgotten man. People only notice what government does, not the things that are NOT done because government has misallocated resources.

[kuwisdelu]

The idea that we should leave charities to the private sector is a dangerous one, because you'll be damn sure many needy ones will fall through the cracks. Prejudice will sink in. People will rather send money to Cancer associations than helping homeless mothers get back on their feet. The problem isn't whether these people deserve it or not, the issue is what happens if they're left on the street? What kind of society would we be? Chaos, I'll tell you. And the issue is how we're going to manage it, and get people off welfare, for example, as quickly as possible by providing education, job training and self-sufficiency. That's the kind of reform we need. And not people saying, "I want to decide for myself who should be helped and who shouldn't."

I just wanted to repeat this, because it's an important point. Yes, there are good people who will give to charity and look out for their brothers and sisters; there are people who would do this even better if it weren't for those darn taxes. But would that be enough? If we could really depend on everyone to look out for everyone else, anarchy would present a much more attractive utopia. And even those people who donate--yes, it's doing a good thing, but will those charities which are seen as less important be ignored? How many people will donate to drug rehab when they can donate to cancer? How many will volunteer to counsel inner city gang members when they can volunteer in a hospital or a nursing home? Private charities do great work, but they are not the whole answer. Neither is the government, which isn't perfect, and does need reform. But nonetheless, it takes both.

Maybe....maybe if we could somehow make it so people who did give to charity had to pay less taxes, and so are able to give more to charity....maybe...maybe we could call it a tax deduction?

[maestrowork]

But what would your organization's funding look like if government at all levels wasn't sucking almost half of every dollar earned out of people's pockets? This is another perfect example of unintended consequences, and the forgotten man. People only notice what government does, not the things that are NOT done because government has misallocated resources.

So the question is not whether the government should manage, but how well they should manage it? But I don't feel that that's the question here. I feel that people are saying, get the government out of social programs and let the private sectors decide on their own.

I have absolutely no question that the management and allocation sucks. And the issue is how to manage that better. My assertion is not to take the government completely out of it and leave it to private charities.

[robeiae]

The only way the madness stops is if WE stop it. All of us.
Good stuff, Mac. And a point that is an absolute truism.

But look, as I noted on the boards, I voted for Obama. I didn't much like it, but there you have it. And now, Obama is MY President. He will be for the duration of his term. Good enough, right? But look a little harder at the last eight years. How many insisted Bush was NOT their President, over and over and over again? How many still insist--despite all evidence to the contrary--that Bush STOLE an election, if not two? How many colored every reference to Bush with some sort of insult, from "Bushie," to "Shrub," to "Commander-in-thief"?

So, NOW we need to stop, all of us? Hey, I know you haven't changed your tune. You've avoided such nonsense, always. That doesn't prevent you being critical of actual policies or actions, and that is completely fair. But--imo--you're speaking on behalf of a group that was largely unable to stop, still will not stop, for the past eight years. And it's not a fringe group, it's mainstream. I think you know that. As I've noted in the past, it's tolerated here and elsewhere.

And for every person calling another "un-American," there's someone touting fascism.

I agree with you: it should stop. It would be best for us all if it did stop. But you know, timing is everything...



My thoughts on the Day After the Day After:

I'm not worried or scared. Perhaps I'm a little anxious, but that was also true in 2000 and in 1992.

I am, however, disgusted by the continued attacks on Palin, here and elsewhere.

I am, however, less than inspired by the selection of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff. Same ol', same ol'. That's NOT a choice that suggests a desire to end the partisan bickering.

I am less than happy with what appears to be happening to Lieberman, though that doesn't involve Obama.

I was truly horrified at school yesterday, when a child wearing an Obama shirt threatened another child--took a swing, actually--who said their daddy voted for McCain. Yes, just children. But that kind of reaction comes from somewhere.

However, I was equally horrified by the talk in a group I know at Starbucks, that seemed to be thinking Obama was gonna sink Israel as Job Number One.

I was happy--to some degree--with McCain's speech.

I was--in fact--very happy with Obama's.

Still, I don't trust Congress and I do not believe partisanship will go away. In fact, I fully expect Congress to open a host of investigations against Bush, while simultaneously ignoring the transgressions of Rangel, Dodd, and Schumer, to name a few.

But I would like to see the madness stop. Yeah.

[Roger J Carlson]

But my question is, say, we cut fundings for those programs, and give the tax breaks back to the people. Do you really think they will compensate by privately donating that tax cut back to those programs (of people in need)? My org, for example, needs an annual operating budget of about $300,000 -- really, not that much. Do you really think if people are getting tax cuts back, they're going to donate $10,000 instead of $3000? Or do you think suddenly we'll get 15,000 donors instead of 5000? The cynical me says no. And if the government funding completely goes away, that org will die instantly.Yes Ray, I really do. I have faith in the generosity of people. I think that if the government cut back, private donations would take up the slack. It might take a while because we've been so conditioned to the government doing it for us, but I think it would happen.

That's not to say that your organization (or any specific organization) would not fail. Failure of some is guaranteed. That's the nature of competition. But the best would succeed and the people in need would be helped, even if some organizations failed. And that's really the important thing, isn't it?

[DamaNegra]

I'm justa sayong, here in méxico we has our own historic election in 2000. People were exastic, for the first time in 70 years we has true democracy. A great candidate became president, and people had high hopes for him. And he tried to make the change he had promised, but the system, corruption and wealthy businesmen didn't allow him. He became a joke and one of the most hated presidents in history. Something similar may happen to Obama, because even though most people in this forum seem to be realistic, what I see is that most other people, even outside the US, have set their sights way too high.

[kuwisdelu]

But look, as I noted on the boards, I voted for Obama. I didn't much like it, but there you have it. And now, Obama is MY President. He will be for the duration of his term. Good enough, right? But look a little harder at the last eight years. How many insisted Bush was NOT their President, over and over and over again? How many still insist--despite all evidence to the contrary--that Bush STOLE an election, if not two? How many colored every reference to Bush with some sort of insult, from "Bushie," to "Shrub," to "Commander-in-thief"?

"If you walk away, I'll walk away
First tell me which road you will take
I don't want to risk our paths crossing someday
So you walk that way, I'll walk this way

And the future hangs over heads
And it moves with each current event
Until it falls all around like a cold, steady rain
Just stay in when it's looking this way..."

[maestrowork]

That's not to say that your organization (or any specific organization) would not fail. Failure of some is guaranteed. That's the nature of competition. But the best would succeed and the people in need would be helped, even if some organizations failed. And that's really the important thing, isn't it?

I guess I just don't share your sense of optimism given how hard it's been this year for us to get donations. We're struggling to stay operating. The fact is, more people care about cancer prevention than homeless people. The Cancer association would get millions in charitable donations while my organization, which is already one of the few in the area, is struggling to stay afloat and our operating budget is a mere $300K. That's the problem. Every time I brought up the stuff we did, people would say, "those bums? Why are you helping them?" Yes, people are generally generous, but people also have prejudice, and that's the thing that stands in the way.

[Don]

So the question is not whether the government should manage, but how well they should manage it? But I don't feel that that's the question here. I feel that people are saying, get the government out of social programs and let the private sectors decide on their own.

I have absolutely no question that the management and allocation sucks. And the issue is how to manage that better. My assertion is not to take the government completely out of it and leave it to private charities.
My point is that by nature, and by observing its historical behavior, government can not allocate those resources effectively. It's the nature of the beast, as my explanation of the difference between private charity and government bureaucracy, and Roger's example, illustrate. Government can never be as efficient a manager as the free market, and has never been shown to be.

If government allocation of resources was successful, we'd be the country that collapsed in the 1980's, and the Soviet Union, that bastion of central planning, would be the world's economic powerhouse.

I hesitate to use the term 'a rising tide lifts all boats,' since it's been equated with trickle-down economics, one of the worst jokes ever perpetuated on the American people.

But look at one basic truth. Every advancement, from the taming of fire to the Internet, has been the result of individuals working to improve their own lot, and in the process bringing new productivity tools to everyone, raising the standard of living for all.

Government can only reallocate resources; it does not create. The funds diverted to our quest for the moon may have cured cancer, or brought us the Internet sooner... or they may not have. But the funds spent for that project were diverted from other uses that the producers had for them, and reallocated by bureaucrats who had less understanding of the marketplace than the entrepreneurs who had successfully raised those funds in the first place.

We know the benefits we received from the space program, and they were legion. But we'll never know what the cost of that program was to human advancement in space exploration and myriad other fields.

Given the example of the Soviet Union, my guess is that we'd be further along in space today if FedGov had not controlled the process for so long.

[Alpha Echo]

We finally proved to the world, and to ourselves, that we're not a white country. We proved that "real Americans" come in every color, religion and orientation. We proved that everyone in this country matters, not just those who call themselves "the majority."

Okay, I know this is from the beginning of the thread, but I'm trying to work my way through, and I'm afraid I'll have too many quotes if I do multiples.

My question is why, everytime I turn on the TV, is it all about "America has made history by voting in the first African American as President?" Why not focus on the issues? I hope that that is not the reason people voted for him.

[StoryG27]

I guess I just don't share your sense of optimism given how hard it's been this year for us to get donations. We're struggling to stay operating. The fact is, more people care about cancer prevention than homeless people. The Cancer association would get millions in charitable donations while my organization, which is already one of the few in the area, is struggling to stay afloat and our operating budget is a mere $300K. That's the problem. Every time I brought up the stuff we did, people would say, "those bums? Why are you helping them?" Yes, people are generally generous, but people also have prejudice, and that's the thing that stands in the way.
Ray, I guess this is where we differ. I have very little faith in politicians doing what is best and not causing more corruption, and I have unending faith in the humanity of my fellow human beings. I'm sorry your disillusioned because people would rather give to cancer charities (which, having lost my niece to cancer, I can understand), but people are giving, are trying, and they will continue you to do so. I hope your organization gets the boosts it needs. I think it's wonderful what you are doing and I'm glad you have a passion for it.

[cethklein]

Okay, I know this is from the beginning of the thread, but I'm trying to work my way through, and I'm afraid I'll have too many quotes if I do multiples.

My question is why, everytime I turn on the TV, is it all about "America has made history by voting in the first African American as President?" Why not focus on the issues? I hope that that is not the reason people voted for him.

It's no less trivial than "McCain was a war hero". Relax, give people their moment. And Obama himself ISN'T talking much about the historical factor, so I'd wager he is focusing on issues right now. As for everyone else, who cares?

[maestrowork]

My question is why, everytime I turn on the TV, is it all about "America has made history by voting in the first African American as President?" Why not focus on the issues? I hope that that is not the reason people voted for him.

Because race is still a huge issue, and a racial minority ascending to the #1 post of the #1 country in the world has significant meaning. Only half a century ago that racial minorities couldn't even VOTE in this country. And now we have an African-American President.

It's a significant milestone in the history of the land. I can't see it any other way.

Issue still matters. Trust me, it will. People will judge Obama, maybe even more harshly than they should, on what he will or can do in his first 100 days, first year, first term. Many people still don't trust his policies. Issues do matter. But the intangibles are just as important.

I don't think people voted for him simply because of his race. Gosh, we didn't elect Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton, did we? And can you imagine Flavor Flav as President of the United States?


As a person of color, I can't tell you how significant it is for my country to elect a person of color to the highest position.

[robeiae]

I have a tan.

[maestrowork]

Ray, I guess this is where we differ. I have very little faith in politicians doing what is best and not causing more corruption, and I have unending faith in the humanity of my fellow human beings. I'm sorry your disillusioned because people would rather give to cancer charities (which, having lost my niece to cancer, I can understand), but people are giving, are trying, and they will continue you to do so. I hope your organization gets the boosts it needs. I think it's wonderful what you are doing and I'm glad you have a passion for it.

I don't believe the government can or should fix all our problems. In fact, I'm all for smaller government. But I'm also a realist. I know a lot of people will fall through the cracks if we only leave charities to the private sector. I do think the government can do more to help, but I don't disagree that it may lead to more bureaucracy, waste, and corruption.

The answer lies somewhere in between, I think.

[Roger J Carlson]

I guess I just don't share your sense of optimism given how hard it's been this year for us to get donations. We're struggling to stay operating. The fact is, more people care about cancer prevention than homeless people. The Cancer association would get millions in charitable donations while my organization, which is already one of the few in the area, is struggling to stay afloat and our operating budget is a mere $300K. That's the problem. Every time I brought up the stuff we did, people would say, "those bums? Why are you helping them?" Yes, people are generally generous, but people also have prejudice, and that's the thing that stands in the way.Well, perhaps there's a reason more people care about cancer. Here are two quotes:

America's Demand For Cancer Treatment Will Exceed Supply Report Forecasts (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/65246.php)
The number of people diagnosed with cancer in 2005, including those who had finished treatment was 11.7 million, representing about 1 in 26 Americans. According to the report, by 2020 this figure will be 18.7 million, representing about 1 in 19 Americans.

How Many People Experience Homelessness? (http://www.nationalhomeless.org/publications/facts/How_Many.pdf) The best approximation is from a study done by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty which states that approximately 3.5 million people, 1.35 million of them children, are likely to experience homelessness in a given year (National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, 2007).
Shouldn't more people be concerned about cancer? It affects more people.

But I think it's really a psychological thing. Why do you suppose that Conservatives give more to charities? Because they are more caring? No. I seriously doubt that. It's because they know that many of the charities they are interested in giving to won't get Federal funds. If Liberals had the same expectations, they would give in similar or even greater fashion.

[StoryG27]

The answer lies somewhere in between, I think.
Yep, and that's the illusive middle ground. I think we all want to get there and simply disagree how to do it.

[maestrowork]

Yep, and that's the illusive middle ground. I think we all want to get there and simply disagree how to do it.

I think that's a significant quote. As Americans, we all love this country, and we all care. We all want to have the American dreams, and we all want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What we differ is how we're going to do it. I see that at work all the time -- we know the problems, we know we need a solution, and we all want to succeed, but we just can't agree on the solution and how to do it.

And I don't expect Obama to somehow possess a magic crystal ball either. Unfortunately, there are people who believe he's going to solve all their problems, and then there are people who think he's going to destroy this country.

[Don]

I don't believe the government can or should fix all our problems. In fact, I'm all for smaller government. But I'm also a realist. I know a lot of people will fall through the cracks if we only leave charities to the private sector. I do think the government can do more to help, but I don't disagree that it may lead to more bureaucracy, waste, and corruption.

The answer lies somewhere in between, I think.
So government doing more to help will lead to more bureaucracy, waste, and corruption, but somehow that means the problem will be more efficiently resolved than if it was handled by society sans government?

That sounds like the old saw about losing a little money on every widget, but making up for it in volume. :)

Another unintended consequence of government involvement is reduced citizen participation. If the government's addressing the problem, the rest of us can sluff off, assured that it's being taken care of. This applies not only to society, but to individual action as well.

Remember the video Tuesday night, of the woman saying she was glad Obama got elected, because he'd take care of the gas in her car and her too-high mortgage payment? Wouldn't we all be better off if she was out shopping for a more fuel-efficient car and a smaller house today, instead of waiting for Obama to fix it for her?

[Don]

I think that's a significant quote. As Americans, we all love this country, and we all care. We all want to have the American dreams, and we all want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. What we differ is how we're going to do it. I see that at work all the time -- we know the problems, we know we need a solution, and we all want to succeed, but we just can't agree on the solution and how to do it.
If we introduced the government solution to solving problems at work, one guy would come to the meeting with a gun, listen to all the opinions of how to solve the problem, then say 'here's the way we're going to do it, and since I have the power, that's the way it'll be done.' Not a very effective way to build concensus.

What was the overwhelming concensus concerning the bailout? Did the guy with the gun listen to the rest of the people at the table, or just do what he wanted to do anyway?

When you take away the gun, you now enable everyone to pursue their own solution to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If the guy with the gun is simply tasked with assuring nobody else forces others to agree to his solution, you end up with lots of workable solutions, each of which has happy supporters.

[maestrowork]

Again, some people believe in micromanagement and sort of a totalitarian approach. Some people in consensus. I have seen success and failure in both. I have seen teams and departments dissolve into chaos because they can't come up with consensus, and the little solutions don't mesh, don't work together. And I've seen places where decisions are made clear and quick, but they're wrong because the guy holding the gun is wrong. But what if the guy holding the gun is right? What if the people involved in the consensus making are brilliant thinkers and collaborators?

See, to me, it's not a matter of approach, but a matter of people. You put a bunch of crackheads and crooks in the government and nothing gets done. You put decent people in charge and you may not need a government at all. Again, the answer lies somewhere in between.

[Celia Cyanide]

I think people are forgetting that the system is designed in such a way Obama can't make most decisions on his own, they have to be ratified by someone else. That's where it gets really, really interesting.

I don't think anyone is forgetting that. I think we still know how our government works. Obama has it easier, though, because his party has a stronger presence in congress now.

[Dawno]

But I think it's really a psychological thing. Why do you suppose that Conservatives give more to charities? Because they are more caring? No. I seriously doubt that. It's because they know that many of the charities they are interested in giving to won't get Federal funds. If Liberals had the same expectations, they would give in similar or even greater fashion.

Roger, I also think that a lot of conservatives just wish they had more say over where the money goes - and not always because the charities won't get Fed funds, but that the Fed could give but have priorities we don't agree with.

For example, I'd like to see my tax dollars that are going to DHS funding (not the budgets for the individual agencies, the operational organization of DHS) slashed drastically and every penny of that going to Veteran's causes or at least the VA.

Take $ out of any fed agency dedicated to putting yet one more person through expensive training and equipping so they can snoop thru my luggage and scan my body as I walk past them barefoot, thirsty because I had to leave my water in the trash and with the anticipation of buying yet one more sample sized hairspray (that I'll have to throw away after one use) so I can fix my hair after I get off the plane, and put that money into effective anti-terrorism intelligence assets in the field and new anti-terrorism technology*.

I could go on and on...but since charitable donations are a deduction, I get my dig in by donating to causes and getting to hold back some of those tax dollars that I'd gladly pay and even a bit more, if the gov't would spend it more intelligently.

*which all that airport security theater crap is NOT. All that junk does is annoy good people and won't keep one dedicated and half smart terrorist from doing whatever he/she wants.

[Don]

I still argue that all the TSA theater crap is more about teaching us poor citizens who's in charge than about protecting us from terrorists. There have been any number of reporters who have reported the masses of junk that get by the TSA 'operatives.'

[maestrowork]

I still argue that all the TSA theater crap is more about teaching us poor citizens who's in charge than about protecting us from terrorists. There have been any number of reporters who have reported the masses of junk that get by the TSA 'operatives.'

I travel a lot, and I have to agree. It's about "ooh, we're in charge and you can't say anything about it" then actually protecting us. I've "sneaked" things in (without knowing I had them in my carryon) multiple times. And if a terrorist really want to, they can bring anything they want on a plane, I believe. They're not deterring terrorists. They're just making life more annoying for Joe Six Pack. It's a fucking joke.

[shawkins]

Ray, I guess this is where we differ. I have very little faith in politicians doing what is best and not causing more corruption, and I have unending faith in the humanity of my fellow human beings.


I have faith in the generosity of people.

Interesting. I myself have absolutely zero faith in the generosity of people; quite the opposite. I wonder if there's a correlation between that outlook and political affiliation?

[Don]

Interesting. I myself have absolutely zero faith in the generosity of people; quite the opposite. I wonder if there's a correlation between that outlook and political affiliation?
I think there's some, in that it seems to me that liberals lean a bit more toward that view, and toward expecting government to be the bellweather of society, than conservatives. More than that, I think liberals and conservatives differ greatly on the things they believe people can't be trusted to manage on their own.

However, the difference between liberal and conservative is a tiny spec on the huge line between Republicrats of both colors and libertarians.

See my signature for Robert Heinlein's take on the issue. :D

[Don]

I travel a lot, and I have to agree. It's about "ooh, we're in charge and you can't say anything about it" then actually protecting us. I've "sneaked" things in (without knowing I had them in my carryon) multiple times. And if a terrorist really want to, they can bring anything they want on a plane, I believe. They're not deterring terrorists. They're just making life more annoying for Joe Six Pack. It's a fucking joke.
I vacillitate between thinking government is made up of idiots, and thinking government is very capable of accomplishing its goals, but that the goals differ from what we're expected to believe.

Since you seem to have more faith in the capability of government than I, can you explain to me why they would intentionally have an organization that functions in such a manner?

I lean toward Thomas Jefferson's explanation on those days I believe they're not all total idiots, and attribute it to their desire to be sure we know who holds the upper hand.


When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the peoplefear the government, there is tyranny.

[Roger J Carlson]

Interesting. I myself have absolutely zero faith in the generosity of people; quite the opposite. I wonder if there's a correlation between that outlook and political affiliation?Really? I see generosity everywhere.

What is AW if it isn't people generously sharing their experiences with others? Whether about the craft of writing or simply to spare them from writing scams? Heck, all you other writers out there are my competition and I am yours. By rights, I should be hoping you all fall for the Publish America scam or Writer's Literary Agency. It would be a clearer field for me. If selfishness was the rule, then AW would not exist.

How do you explain all those newsgroups and Google and Yahoo technical groups? I participate in a lot of them devoted to Microsoft Access. (there are hundreds of such groups for Access alone). If people are selfish, why would complete strangers answer questions for others and provide free solutions?

If people aren't generous, why do they buy over-priced cookies and candy bars from complete strangers? Give toys to complete stranger's children at Christmas? Walk to raise money for innumerable charities?

Man, more than just about any animal, shows compassion for others outside of the immediate family group. As vicious as humanity is, it is also the only one that is truly generous.

[kuwisdelu]

If everyone's so generous, why don't we have an anarchy?

[SC Harrison]

I guess I just don't share your sense of optimism given how hard it's been this year for us to get donations. We're struggling to stay operating. The fact is, more people care about cancer prevention than homeless people. The Cancer association would get millions in charitable donations while my organization, which is already one of the few in the area, is struggling to stay afloat and our operating budget is a mere $300K. That's the problem. Every time I brought up the stuff we did, people would say, "those bums? Why are you helping them?" Yes, people are generally generous, but people also have prejudice, and that's the thing that stands in the way.

Not only is there prejudice, there's also a dash of selfishness in there as well.

Cancer is an equal-opportunity killer. It can strike down anybody, regardless of how moral or ethical or successful they are. By giving to cancer research, the donors are (maybe in the back of their minds) helping themselves out in the process. Homelessness, on the other hand, is something that can be avoided through proper behavior (or so most people believe). So there's no potential "personal" benefit in helping the homeless, and many people actually believe that helping them only exacerbates the problem.

[robeiae]

"If you walk away, I'll walk away
First tell me which road you will take
I don't want to risk our paths crossing someday
So you walk that way, I'll walk this way

And the future hangs over heads
And it moves with each current event
Until it falls all around like a cold, steady rain
Just stay in when it's looking this way..."
It's a hard world to get a break in
All the good things have been taken
But girl there are ways
To make certain things pay
Though I'm dressed in these rags
I'll wear sable
Someday
Hear what I say
I'm gonna ride the Serpent
No more time spent
Sweatin' rent
Hear my command
I'm breakin' loose
It ain't no use
Holdin' me down
Stick around

But baby (baby)
Remember (remember)
It's my life and I'll do what I want
It's my mind and I'll think what I want
Show me I'm wrong, hurt me sometime
But some day, I'll treat you real fine...

[robeiae]

Really? I see generosity everywhere.

What is AW if it isn't people generously sharing their experiences with others? Whether about the craft of writing or simply to spare them from writing scams? Heck, all you other writers out there are my competition and I am yours. By rights, I should be hoping you all fall for the Publish America scam or Writer's Literary Agency. It would be a clearer field for me. If selfishness was the rule, then AW would not exist.

How do you explain all those newsgroups and Google and Yahoo technical groups? I participate in a lot of them devoted to Microsoft Access. (there are hundreds of such groups for Access alone). If people are selfish, why would complete strangers answer questions for others and provide free solutions?

If people aren't generous, why do they buy over-priced cookies and candy bars from complete strangers? Give toys to complete stranger's children at Christmas? Walk to raise money for innumerable charities?

Man, more than just about any animal, shows compassion for others outside of the immediate family group. As vicious as humanity is, it is also the only one that is truly generous.
The thing most disturbing to me about the direction of this conversation is the end point on the opposite side: compassion is the province of government, not the individual.

I find that idea incredibly repulsive and demonstrably untrue.

[Jcomp]

I find it interesting to see how opposing sides generally fall into the categories of "I have a lot of faith in humanity" and "I don't have that much faith in humanity."

[robeiae]

Well you know, I don't have "faith" in humanity, at all. But I accept that people will--from time to time--act in ways that are not a product of pure self-interest. They always have. And I accept that man--while basically a selfish creature--has compassion as a matter of course.

Mencius once noted--in order to show how man is basically "good"--that anyone, in seeing a child about to fall in a well, would reach out to help when no personal risk is involved. For all but the sociopathic, I think that's a true, but it demonstrates inherent compassion, not inherent "goodness."

On the flip side, I reject completely the idea that governments are bastions--let alone mere sources--of compassion. Governments exist--first and foremost--to control, through violence if necessary.

[maestrowork]

What is AW if it isn't people generously sharing their experiences with others? Whether about the craft of writing or simply to spare them from writing scams? Heck, all you other writers out there are my competition and I am yours. By rights, I should be hoping you all fall for the Publish America scam or Writer's Literary Agency. It would be a clearer field for me. If selfishness was the rule, then AW would not exist.


Well, my guess is people are generous when it "doesn't cost them anything." Giving advice, opening doors for people, even loose change, etc. Even small amounts to local organizations. But it's perceived as "costly" people tend to bulk. Like someone said earlier, it seems like we have to depend on volume a lot of times. People tend to give small amounts when they see it as "just the cost of a cup of coffee." Obama's campaign, for example, see most donations coming under $100 -- he just happened to have A LOT of people donating.

But when is the last time we cut a check of over $1000 to a charitable organization is neither a) our church or b) somehow affiliated with/affecting us in some way -- say, a pet cause (cancer, autistic children, etc.) or c) a natural disaster such as Katrina? Especially in economic bad times.

Like I said, our org is having trying soliciting private donations. I personally couldn't really afford the kind of financial support I gave in the past years since I don't have a job, etc. People who used to give $5000, $2000, or even $500 are not even close to that level this year, let alone the number of people giving has shrunk. It's not as if they don't care -- they still care, but they need to cut.

Let's do the Math. If most people wouldn't mind cutting a check of $100, we would still need to get 3000 people to donate in order to meet our $300K goal. So how do you get 3000 donors when you only have a staff and group of volunteers of, say, 30 people, and not all of them can be involved in fundraising? And that's the killer -- like SC and Rob said, people tend to be generous for self-interest a lot of times, on top of prejudice.

As you all know, I favor smaller government. I don't want the government to get into my business. And I do think people are generally generous -- but we're also very self-interest. And that's the thing: if we leave it to the people to decide where their money should go, many will be left on the street because either a) people don't know they exist, or b) they don't care enough.

[kuwisdelu]

The thing most disturbing to me about the direction of this conversation is the end point on the opposite side: compassion is the province of government, not the individual.

I find that idea incredibly repulsive and demonstrably untrue.

And I find the idea that we are all compassionate, caring, kind-hearted people who are willing to extend our open arms not only to strangers but also to strangers who are nothing like ourselves without any thought of self-gain to be hopelessly idealistic and naive.

Like most things, the truth is somewhere in between. Compassion is the province of the individual. But the government must be there to make sure no one gets left behind.

Maybe that annoying hitchhiker in the back is a great guy who just needs a ride, and--even if we let in that nice-looking hitchhiker with the sad eyes--if we all kick the other guy out of the van because we're afraid, it's the role of government to look past the dirt on his face and say "hey, now, let's give this guy a chance." (Okay, of course to do that, voters have to stop electing crooks, but that's not the government's fault; that's on us.) And it's not because governments should have anything to do with compassion, not in the least, but rather because one of their purposes is to protect the equality and rights of the minorities, regardless of what everyone else wants.

Trying to riff on Cranky's van motiff....well, you get the idea.


The point is that neither polar ends of the opposing sides can be expected to be the whole answer. To argue against those polar ends is a convenient strawman, but inconvenient when it comes to coming together and getting things done. We do have a common goal, and maybe it's just me, but I think it makes sense to make some kind of compromise. Worked well enough for a little document called the Constitution. :rolleyes:

[Jcomp]

Well you know, I don't have "faith" in humanity, at all. But I accept that people will--from time to time--act in ways that are not a product of pure self-interest. They always have. And I accept that man--while basically a selfish creature--has compassion as a matter of course.

Mencius once noted--in order to show how man is basically "good"--that anyone, in seeing a child about to fall in a well, would reach out to help when no personal risk is involved. For all but the sociopathic, I think that's a true, but it demonstrates inherent compassion, not inherent "goodness."

On the flip side, I reject completely the idea that governments are bastions--let alone mere sources--of compassion. Governments exist--first and foremost--to control, through violence if necessary.

Interesting. I like the Mencius example, that's something new for me.

I tend to think people are inherently capable of far more harm than good. Even when well-intentioned they have the ability, and I dare say tendency, to screw it up. And, of course, any good can be undone in a fleeting instant, while various types of harm are irreversible.

But I don't mean to derail the discussion, it was just something I thought was interesting.

[mscelina]

In times of economic crisis, charity really does begin at home.

I've always been extremely particular about how I approach charities. I rarely donate money; I always donate time and effort and skill, if necessary. In a year like this, I'll have to donate time entirely.

But it's not entirely grim in the world of charitable work. Every year, my circle of friends does food drives at Thanksgiving and Christmas for homebound AIDS patients--we try to feed every patient for five counties around. I was pretty much convinced that this year, we'd be unable to meet our necessities list. And then I found out that a local company is donating a turkey for EVERY PATIENT ON THE LIST. It's a company I didn't even solicit really--just one that heard we might be in danger of not doing our drives this holiday season and called up out of the blue.

Every once in a while, even I have to relapse from my cynicism.

[Don]

If everyone's so generous, why don't we have an anarchy?
Because of the two types of people in my signature. Those who feel others should be controlled work actively toward that end. Those who feel otherwise are too busy leading productive lives to get involved in the whole power struggle until they're finally pushed up against the wall, as they were in 1776.

One of productive man's biggest mistakes is regularly leaving the field of the game to the leeches while they go off to pursue something of far greater benefit to mankind's advancement.

[robeiae]

Like most things, the truth is somewhere in between. Compassion is the province of the individual. But the government must be there to make sure no one gets left behind.The government's role is to maintain the system, nothing more, imo. If it happens to do more, great. But EXPECTING it to do more, that's problematic. It breeds apathy, across the board. It's a fine line, to be sure. The government has safety nets to help the citizenry, and that's a good thing imo. But it doesn't follow that an expansion of those nets is automatically a good thing, at all. I think there's an obvious tipping point--that we've already passed--wherein the expectation becomes reliance.


The point is that neither polar ends of the opposing sides can be expected to be the whole answer. To argue against those polar ends is a convenient strawman, but inconvenient when it comes to coming together and getting things done. We do have a common goal, and maybe it's just me, but I think it makes sense to make some kind of compromise. Worked well enough for a little document called the Constitution. :rolleyes:Really, there's nothing in the Constitution that allows for the kind of government programs we have, today. Do you honestly think Madison believed the government should be guaranteeing every citizen income, healthcare, and a retirement plan?

[shawkins]

Really? I see generosity everywhere.

Well, sure. There is indeed an impulse to generosity in man. My point is that it takes a distinct second place to self-interest, and can't be relied on as a support mechanism when times are tough.

Kuwisdelu mentioned anarchy. It has indeed been tried, and I think most of us (possibly excepting Don) will agree that it's not an ideal state of affairs. Without some sort of governing body to enforce a rule of law, murder, rape and theft run rampant. The strong prey on the week. Government isn't an absolute counter to that sort of thing, but it's better than nothing.

I think the same argument--government intervention isn't perfectly effective, but it's better than nothing--also applies to issues of health care, financial markets, housing and nutrition. Yes, people are charitable and kind when it's convenient for them to be so, but that convenience tends to dry up when it is most needed.

You ever see that movie Apt Pupil? At one point the Nazi was talking about gas chambers, and somebody asked him about what happened to the children. His answer was that they, as the weakest, ended up on the bottom of the pile as people climbed on top of each other to reach fresh air.

I couldn't believe that was real, so I looked it up. Sure enough.

The thing most disturbing to me about the direction of this conversation is the end point on the opposite side: compassion is the province of government, not the individual.

No, not compassion. I don't think compassion or cruelty are concepts that have meaning when applied to a process.

[maestrowork]

Really, there's nothing in the Constitution that allows for the kind of government programs we have, today. Do you honestly think Madison believed the government should be guaranteeing every citizen income, healthcare, and a retirement plan?

Probably not. We only want to guarantee people life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not happiness itself.

However, it comes down to what we believe is a right or a privilege. Income is not a right, IMHO, nor retirement plan, nor a good job. But certain things, to me, are rights for the people of a civilized society: health, shelter, basic needs, freedom. That's the very basic that allows everyone the "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." How do we protect "life" if we don't guarantee health care for all citizens? Must people EARN their care? How can we ensure the pursuit of happiness when our people don't even have a roof over their heads? Or clean air and water or food? When people are left behind, the society becomes to crumble -- and most will turn to violence... what they can't have, they take -- and wouldn't it be the government's job to prevent that from happening?

Other than that, I believe in personal responsibilities and smaller government involvement. The government shouldn't get in my way on how I make my income and what I do with my income, or how I should go about my pursuit of happiness, and least of all what I do in my own bedroom. ;) Those are my privileges and the government should stay clear and away as much as possible, unless I'm infringing on other people's rights.

[robeiae]

Those who feel otherwise are too busy leading productive lives to get involved in the whole power struggle until they're finally pushed up against the wall, as they were in 1776.
Right.

And the ability of man to lead a really productive life is a product, historically, of what?

And the same guy that answered that question in full--Max Weber--is also the guy that properly noted what a government really is.

The circle is now complete...

[kuwisdelu]

Really, there's nothing in the Constitution that allows for the kind of government programs we have, today. Do you honestly think Madison believed the government should be guaranteeing every citizen income, healthcare, and a retirement plan?

I think you read more into that than I intended. I only meant to point out the Constitution was a compromise of a great many views. As for the rest? What Ray said.

[Don]

Like most things, the truth is somewhere in between. Compassion is the province of the individual. But the government must be there to make sure no one gets left behind.


The War on Poverty started in the 60's, and it hasn't eliminated poverty, although it has created a permanent underclass in society.

This continuous claiming that government can successfully do anything should have stopped by now. In addition to the War on Poverty, The War on Drugs has been going on for 35 years, and consumption's higher than ever. Al-queda has more members today than when the War on Terror started. Social Security and Medicare, established to provide retirement, has instead saddled the youth of the country with a debt they'll never be able to pay.

I'm sick to death of being called an idealist, when the reality can be seen everywhere that government consistently fails at the tasks it's assigned by the citizens, and instead focuses on moving the wealth of the country to the favored friends of those in power and consolidating even more power into the hands of those in control.

Idealism is claiming over and over again that if only the right people were in control, the power would be used for good. That wasn't true in the 30's, or the 50's, or the 60's, or today, or any time in between. If it hasn't happened by now, it ain't gonna happen!

[Don]

Right.

And the ability of man to lead a really productive life is a product, historically, of what?

And the same guy that answered that question in full--Max Weber--is also the guy that properly noted what a government really is.

The circle is now complete...
Rob, you might find it productive to answer some of these rhetorical questions, since not everyone is as familiar with the answers as you.

Just sayin... :D

[robeiae]

Well, sure. There is indeed an impulse to generosity in man. My point is that it takes a distinct second place to self-interest, and can't be relied on as a support mechanism when times are tough.
I think that's exactly right, and I don't think man's impulses in this regard should ever be RELIED on as a support mechanism. I don't think anyone has said it should be.

What people have said--it seems to me--is that the GOVERNMENT should be relied on as a support mechanism. But you know, given the above, I'm having a hard time seeing the genesis of this concept of government. After all, if man himself cannot be relied on, how can one of his social constructs?

[shawkins]

Interesting. I like the Mencius example, that's something new for me.

It's perhaps worth keeping in mind that Mencius threw up his hands and retired from public life when his philosophies had absolutely no impact on how things worked at court. :)

[Jcomp]

After all, if man himself cannot be relied on, how can one of his social constructs?

Indeed...

[Don]

Kuwisdelu mentioned anarchy. It has indeed been tried, and I think most of us (possibly excepting Don) will agree that it's not an ideal state of affairs. Without some sort of governing body to enforce a rule of law, murder, rape and theft run rampant. The strong prey on the week. Government isn't an absolute counter to that sort of thing, but it's better than nothing.

Government's purpose should be to uphold the rule of law, not subvert it. The initiation of force and fraud is wrong, regardless of who does it. Claiming the right to steal, and call it taxation, or enslave, and call it conscription, or murder, and call it war, doesn't make it any less wrong.

What we're discussing here goes far beyond a government tasked with, and committed to, upholding the rule of law. False argument, but a good try.

[maestrowork]

After all, if man himself cannot be relied on, how can one of his social constructs?

To me, the society/government should be bigger than the man himself, and a greater evolvement. Otherwise, like kuwi said, you have anarchy -- the dark side of individualism.

[robeiae]

Rob, you might find it productive to answer some of these rhetorical questions, since not everyone is as familiar with the answers as you.

Just sayin... :D
Fine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism) . And, of course (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_as_a_Vocation).

[Jcomp]

It's perhaps worth keeping in mind that Mencius threw up his hands and retired from public life when his philosophies had absolutely no impact on how things worked at court. :)

I must admit, I've never really read up on this Mencius cat. He seems more and more interesting now. His ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to his newsletter...

[robeiae]

To me, the society/government should be bigger than the man himself, and a great evolvement. Otherwise, like kuwi said, you have anarchy -- the dark side of individualism.
Bigger, sure. But better? I doubt it. What government--in all of history--has acted in such a way over time?

Government is there to control: dictating at worst, protecting and maintaining at best.

[Don]

Bigger, sure. But better? I doubt it. What government--in all of history--has acted in such a way over time?

Government is there to control: dictating at worst, protecting and maintaining at best.
We're both arguing the same point, one that history supports fully, and yet it's like a tree falling in the wilderness.

Yet we're the idealistic ones. Go figure. :D

[shawkins]

But you know, given the above, I'm having a hard time seeing the genesis of this concept of government. After all, if man himself cannot be relied on, how can one of his social constructs?

I can't be relied upon to identify million digit prime numbers, but my calculator can. Government isn't a man, it is a tool of man and it works as well or as poorly as it is constructed.

[robeiae]

It's perhaps worth keeping in mind that Mencius threw up his hands and retired from public life when his philosophies had absolutely no impact on how things worked at court. :)
Yes. Han Fei Tzu's ideas were far better received. Of course, he was poisoned by his student so the latter could receive all the accolades from the Emperor...

[shawkins]

I must admit, I've never really read up on this Mencius cat. He seems more and more interesting now. His ideas intrigue me and I would like to subscribe to his newsletter...

Personally, I'd start with Lao Tzu. He had some mystic to him. The neo Confucians bored the shit out of me.

[robeiae]

I can't be relied upon to identify million digit prime numbers, but my calculator can. Government isn't a man, it is a tool of man and it works as well or as poorly as it is constructed.Really? Do you vote on your calculator's parts every few years? Does your calculator exercise control over you? Does it tell you what to do and what not to do? Does it make itself larger without your permission?

[Don]

To me, the society/government should be bigger than the man himself, and a great evolvement. Otherwise, like kuwi said, you have anarchy -- the dark side of individualism.
Let government attend to those functions it must, the protection of the individual from force and fraud. Let there arise amongst the people a thousand voluntary organizations to perform all other acts, the successful organizations moving forward to solve society's problems, the rest falling by the wayside as their failure is noted. If a thousand little acorns grow, there is no disaster if any one fails in its job to become a mighty oak.

Not a quote by anyone, but perhaps it should be. :D

[Don]

I can't be relied upon to identify million digit prime numbers, but my calculator can. Government isn't a man, it is a tool of man and it works as well or as poorly as it is constructed.
Government might better be thought of as a sword, wielded by some to exert power over others, than as a calculator.

[maestrowork]

Government is there to control: dictating at worst, protecting and maintaining at best.

But what are governments controlling, protecting, and maintaining?

To me, the idea behind the US independence, government, and constitution is right there, that it's bigger and better than the common men. It's first an ideology, and then an execution of that ideology. When most founders still had slaves, it said "all men are created equal." So to me, the government really should be bigger and better, or else you will eventually have a failed government, such as the Nazis.... (did I just godwin this thread?)

[Jcomp]

I think everyone discussing this is idealistic to some degree.

You have to be a bit idealistic to think a government can achieve greatness despite history teaching us time and again that eventually corruption and ineptitude result in a precipitous downfall.

Conversely, you have to be idealistic to a degree to think that human beings free to act without a some sort of authority to keep us in line, or a sense of reward for being well behaved, will not devolve into consuming the weak and battling for power; endeavoring to create a government in the void left behind.

In the absense of a governing body, man creates one, even if it means looking to (or "creating," depending on your beliefs or lack thereof) unseeable deities.

I think anyone seeking some solution for the betterment of humanity that involves trusting human beings to be pure and altruistic is guided more by an ideal than a practical consideration...

[Don]

I think everyone discussing this is idealistic to some degree.

You have to be a bit idealistic to think a government can achieve greatness despite history teaching us time and again that eventually corruption and ineptitude result in a precipitous downfall.

Conversely, you have to be idealistic to a degree to think that human beings free to act without a some sort of authority to keep us in line, or a sense of reward for being well behaved, will not devolve into consuming the weak and battling for power; endeavoring to create a government in the void left behind.

In the absense of a governing body, man creates one, even if it means looking to (or "creating," depending on your beliefs or lack thereof) unseeable deities.

I think anyone seeking some solution for the betterment of humanity that involves trusting human beings to be pure and altruistic is guided more by an ideal than a practical consideration...

Which is exactly why the idea that the founding father had, of a severely restricted federal government assigned specific purposes, was the bellweather event in the history of political thought, and it's subversion to other purposes is the greatest crime against humanity ever committed.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed


Government's just purpose is to protect the rights of the individual through the prevention of the initiation of force or fraud.

[maestrowork]

"to secure these rights" -- back to my points. :)

[shawkins]

Let government attend to those functions it must,

Isn't that what we're debating here? Which functions government should attend to? I don't think "must" is the right word; as already noted, we could try anarchy again.

the protection of the individual from force and fraud. Let there arise amongst the people a thousand voluntary organizations to perform all other acts,

No one's stopping anybody from feeding the homeless, paying other people's medical bills, and helping people get themselves out of poverty. Indeed, as Mr. Carlson noted, there are quite a few folks doing just that.

Nonetheless, people remain homeless, poverty stricken, and uninsured.

[shawkins]

Which is exactly why the idea that the founding father had, of a severely restricted federal government assigned specific purposes, was the bellweather event in the history of political thought, and it's subversion to other purposes is the greatest crime against humanity ever committed.

I call hyperbole.

Government's just purpose is to protect the rights of the individual through the prevention of the initiation of force or fraud.

Certainly that's one facet of it. I'd argue that there may be others.

[maestrowork]

I think anyone seeking some solution for the betterment of humanity that involves trusting human beings to be pure and altruistic is guided more by an ideal than a practical consideration...

Self-interest. Case in point, the same people who demand and celebrate civil right are advocating taking rights away from certain groups (gays, in this case). The idealism that "all men are created equal" does not go far enough beyond "what matters to me."

Or people who are otherwise generous and giving say, "But I will not help that bum; he doesn't deserve my help." Again, an idealism -- altruism, for example -- doesn't go far enough beyond "what matters to me."

[Don]

Self-interest. Case in point, the same people who demand and celebrate civil right are advocating taking rights away from certain groups (gays, in this case). The idealism that "all men are created equal" does not go far enough beyond "what matters to me."
And that government that's supposedly working so well is failing to protect those equal rights, while handing out money for bridges to nowhere and research into the mating habits of fruit flies. If it can't do the very basics right, why would we think it would manage to do anything else correctly?

[shawkins]

And that government that's supposedly working so well is failing to protect those equal rights, while handing out money for bridges to nowhere and research into the mating habits of fruit flies. If it can't do the very basics right, why would we think it would manage to do anything else correctly?

My car broke down last week, but I didn't throw it away. I fixed it.

[maestrowork]

And that government that's supposedly working so well is failing to protect those equal rights, while handing out money for bridges to nowhere and research into the mating habits of fruit flies. If it can't do the very basics right, why would we think it would manage to do anything else correctly?

The problem is the government is relying on a subgroup of people instead of being bigger and better than the common folks by following its guiding principles. Shouldn't the government protect the constitution and say: "this is discriminatory"? But instead, it lets the people decide on something that is fundamentally against our constitution ideals. And then it goes to the Supreme Court, and hopefully SCOTUS would deem it unconstitutional and strike it down -- so our government at the end prevails: Look, this is bigger than you and me. But what a waste of time and energy. It is not that the government is unnecessary, but it's letting individuals getting bigger than itself.

[Jcomp]

Self-interest. Case in point, the same people who demand and celebrate civil right are advocating taking rights away from certain groups (gays, in this case). The idealism that "all men are created equal" does not go far enough beyond "what matters to me."

Or people who are otherwise generous and giving say, "But I will not help that bum; he doesn't deserve my help." Again, an idealism -- altruism, for example -- doesn't go far enough beyond "what matters to me."

True, but what you're describing is the more cynical view of things, which wouldn't qualify as ideal. Hence my adding "pure" to the previous statement.

And I completely agree that a lot of human goodness stems from selfishness. I've often wondered how many religions would maintain a following if there was no promise of happiness in the afterlife for doing the right thing.

If the message was simply--"Do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, and then after you die... actually that's a crapshoot, we really have no control over what happens to you at that point. Good luck, though. And behave." --the cynic in me thinks a good number of people wouldn't be believers.

I guess for me it's sort of a damned if you do or don't situation, which is why I think that anyone who truly believes there's a "no damnation at all" option is at least a little bit idealistic.

So then it sort of comes down to an argument of "my ideal is ideal-ier than yours."

Mind you, I don't think ideals are necessarily bad. I'm just sort of "thinking out loud" here...

[maestrowork]

If the message was simply--"Do the right thing because it's the right thing to do, and then after you die... actually that's a crapshoot, we really have no control over what happens to you at that point. Good luck, though. And behave." --the cynic in me thinks a good number of people wouldn't be believers.

It's actually one of the themes of my new novel. :)

[Cranky]

Really? Do you vote on your calculator's parts every few years? Does your calculator exercise control over you? Does it tell you what to do and what not to do? Does it make itself larger without your permission?

http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t115/jpayne75/hal9000.jpg?t=1226001566

[Don]

My car broke down last week, but I didn't throw it away. I fixed it.
Fine, let's fix it. But let's quit filling the trunk with more junk until we get it moving in the right direction again.

[Don]

The problem is the government is relying on a subgroup of people instead of being bigger and better than the common folks by following its guiding principles. Shouldn't the government protect the constitution and say: "this is discriminatory"? But instead, it lets the people decide on something that is fundamentally against our constitution ideals. And then it goes to the Supreme Court, and hopefully SCOTUS would deem it unconstitutional and strike it down -- so our government at the end prevails: Look, this is bigger than you and me. But what a waste of time and energy. It is not that the government is unnecessary, but it's letting individuals getting bigger than itself.
But that's what governments do; that's what they've always done. A few individuals get control, and get bigger than everyone else. They start moving wealth into their cronies' hands, and consolidating power. That's the entire history of the US government as well. Terry and Kelo are two prime examples of how well the Supremes have done their job of restraining the other two branches.

My argument isn't that we need to get rid of the government. I'd be perfectly happy if we could scale FedGov back to those items they were assigned in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. That's precisely why the founding fathers made it clear what the duties of FedGov were to be, and exactly why every member of the 545 since then has done all they can to expand the power of the federal government.


In questions of power...let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others.

It [is] inconsistent with the principles of civil liberty, and contrary to the natural rights of the other members of the society, that any body of men therein should have authority to enlarge their own powers... without restraint.

I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That "all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people." To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specifically drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.


Note to Shawkins. There's plenty of philosophical background to back up the second statement of Jefferson's above. (In reply to your earlier statement that government has other legitimate purposes.)

[Christine N.]

That didn't stop them from boo-hoo-hooing for the 8 years Bush was in office.

That's because we GAVE him a chance and he blew it. Big time. I wasn't really boo-hooing until 2004. He's left this country in the worst shape it's been in nearly a century, AND he's now the least popular president IN HISTORY.

I'd say Bush deserves his boo-hooing. If Obama screws up, I'll boo-hoo him too, but I gotta let him at least get in there and try before I do.

[maestrowork]

You're more patient than I was, Christine. I was boo-hooing him after he waged war with Iraq.

[mscelina]

You're more patient than I was, Christine. I was boo-hooing him after he raged war with Iraq.

I thought he was pretty calm about it myself. ;)

[Christine N.]

LOL.

[maestrowork]

Writers.

[robeiae]

But what are governments controlling, protecting, and maintaining?

To me, the idea behind the US independence, government, and constitution is right there, that it's bigger and better than the common men. It's first an ideology, and then an execution of that ideology. When most founders still had slaves, it said "all men are created equal." So to me, the government really should be bigger and better, or else you will eventually have a failed government, such as the Nazis.... (did I just godwin this thread?)
Well, no. The ideology behind the Framers was one that assumed most governments were bad, as a matter of course. Their hope was to create a government that couldn't take take freedom and liberty (read: property) form the citizenry, a government that couldn't be wielded by demagogues, a government--a republic--that could endure without collapsing into mob rule or regressing into tyranny.

The essential point was--and is--that GOVERNMENT is not a good thing, just a necessary thing.

[kuwisdelu]

The essential point was--and is--that GOVERNMENT is not a good thing, just a necessary thing.

Ultimately, I agree. We just disagree on the things for which it is necessary.

[robeiae]

My car broke down last week, but I didn't throw it away. I fixed it.
These kind of analogies are devoid of meaning. A government is not a "tool." That's just a metaphoric description. It's why I called it a "social construct." Laws are--perhaps--closer to being tools. But remember, a government is not a coda of laws and a constitution, it's really the people that hold office--whatever the mechanism. To suppose that these people--who are, as you noted, predominantly selfish first and foremost like everyone else--will somehow table that self-interest in order to be used as a tool (used by who, exactly?), such that some sort of nebulous "greater good" will be served is kind of far-fetched and naive, to say the least.

[MacAllister]

These kind of analogies are devoid of meaning. A government is not a "tool." That's just a metaphoric description. It's why I called it a "social construct." Laws are--perhaps--closer to being tools. But remember, a government is not a coda of laws and a constitution, it's really the people that hold office--whatever the mechanism. To suppose that these people--who are, as you noted, predominantly selfish first and foremost like everyone else--will somehow table that self-interest in order to be used as a tool (used by who, exactly?), such that some sort of nebulous "greater good" will be served is kind of far-fetched and naive, to say the least.Not devoid of meaning - a metaphor is by definition imperfect and not completely accurate, because it's comparing two things that are unlike. In so doing, however, understanding of meaning may be enhanced.

As for far-fetched and naive? Meh. Studies show over and over that people are more altruistic when someone is watching. Horrible as the ramifications of that really are. So yes, people put together and told that thinking of the greater good is their job and we-the-people will pay them to do it? I expect them to do their job. And if/when they don't, then we-the-people need to fire them and find someone who WILL do the job.

[Don]

Ultimately, I agree. We just disagree on the things for which it is necessary.
Then let's work together to gut it of all the things we agree are not necessary, and argue about the rest at a later date. But let's not give it any more to do until we get rid of a bunch of the worthless junk first.

[robeiae]

Not devoid of meaning - a metaphor is by definition imperfect and not completely accurate, because it's comparing two things that are unlike.Okey-dokey. But nonetheless, a government is not "fixable" like a car is fixable. A government is not a tool like a calculator is a tool. In the context of this discussion, both comparisons are meaningless, insofar as they make no real point, but serve to avoid actually addressing a point--my point--re the expectation that governments can somehow do what man cannot, in terms of being relied on as support mechanisms. Not only unrealistic, but illogical as well.

As for far-fetched and naive? Meh. Studies show over and over that people are more altruistic when someone is watching. Horrible as the ramifications of that really are.But I'm not saying people can be relied on, either. That would also be naive.

And I believe those studies completely. True altruism--didn't we already do this?--doesn't exist in the world of man.

ETA: The "altruism" discussions, for those interested:

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42685
http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=18633

[shawkins]

Okey-dokey. But nonetheless, a government is not "fixable" like a car is fixable.

Sure it is. I'll cite as evidence of my assertion that government can be improved the fact that Mac voted on Tuesday, whereas 200 years ago she would not have been allowed to do so.

A government is not a tool like a calculator is a tool. In the context of this discussion, both comparisons are meaningless, insofar as they make no real point, but serve to avoid actually addressing a point--my point--re the expectation that governments can somehow do what man cannot,

Government can certainly do things man cannot. Ours, for instance, has survived over two centuries. No man has done that. See also my point about calculators and prime numbers. Tools do stuff people can't do all the time. That's why we make tools.

The question is what tasks we wish to assign to this particular tool, and how best to craft it so that it may accomplish those tasks.

[kuwisdelu]

Sure it is. I'll cite as evidence of my assertion that government can be improved the fact that Mac voted on Tuesday, whereas 200 years ago she would not have been allowed to do so.

You can throw me into that category, too.

[robeiae]

Sure it is. I'll cite as evidence of my assertion that government can be improved the fact that Mac voted on Tuesday, whereas 200 years ago she would not have been allowed to do so.
That, in and of itself, does not represent an improvement of government. It represents--for those who believe in equality--a greater level of egalitarianism in citizenship.


Government can certainly do things man cannot. Ours, for instance, has survived over two centuries. No man has done that. See also my point about calculators and prime numbers. Tools do stuff people can't do all the time. That's why we make tools.

The question is what tasks we wish to assign to this particular tool, and how best to craft it so that it may accomplish those tasks.
You've snipped my quote inappropriately. I said that the expectation that "governments can somehow do what man cannot, in terms of being relied on as support mechanisms" is not realistic. You're still avoiding that point.

Beyond that, you're still wrong: government is made up of men (and women). Therefore, whatever it does is done by man.

[kuwisdelu]

That, in and of itself, does not represent an improvement of government. It represents--for those who believe in equality--a greater level of egalitarianism in citizenship.

Call it whatever you want; it would've taken a lot longer without government.

[Don]

Call it whatever you want; it would've taken a lot longer without government.
Uh, yeah... if there was no government, there would have been no election, so you would not have voted. Did I miss something in there somewhere?

[kuwisdelu]

Uh, yeah... if there was no government, there would have been no election, so you would not have voted. Did I miss something in there somewhere?

I'm speaking more far-reaching than that. Mob rule; discrimination through fear and violence. And as far as the voting issue itself, it could not have arisen naturally from the people, but required a "fix" or improvement in the laws. So, take that however you will.

[robeiae]

Call it whatever you want; it would've taken a lot longer without government.
It's only meaningful when there is a government, no?

Still, it didn't improve government in a measurable way, in terms of, say, limiting corruption, right?

Don't misunderstand me: it's good thing. Every citizen--in my world view--should have a voice. And every person in a nation should have the same rights of citizenship. But that makes the nation better, the society better. It's not the same thing as fixing something that breaks, which was where Scott was trying to go.

[kuwisdelu]

It's only meaningful when there is a government, no?

Still, it didn't improve government in a measurable way, in terms of, say, limiting corruption, right?

Don't misunderstand me: it's good thing. Every citizen--in my world view--should have a voice. And every person in a nation should have the same rights of citizenship. But that makes the nation better, the society better. It's not the same thing as fixing something that breaks, which was where Scott was trying to go.

I don't quite agree with the "fixed" vs. "broken" metaphor either, but Scott's other point is that it can be improved. There's no discounting that.

[Jcomp]

I think the question is, if something has never worked optimally before does that mean it can never work optimally?

[shawkins]

You've snipped my quote inappropriately. I said that the expectation that "governments can somehow do what man cannot, in terms of being relied on as support mechanisms" is not realistic. You're still avoiding that point.

Well, again, there's no reason Warren Buffet or whoever couldn't fulfill the same function as social security by sending out checks to retirees every month. We just can't rely on him to do so.

Similarly, Christian charity doesn't seem to be reliably covering basic health care for the uninsured.

Similarly, I suppose you (or, more likely, Don) could imagine a Manhattan project or an interstate highway system that happened without government funding and organization.

The flaw in your point is that while individuals may choose to provide necessary services X,Y, and Z out of the goodness of their hearts, they cannot be relied upon to do so.

That's why I think it's reasonable to discuss what constitutes a "necessary service."

[SC Harrison]

Which is exactly why the idea that the founding father had, of a severely restricted federal government assigned specific purposes, was the bellweather event in the history of political thought, and it's subversion to other purposes is the greatest crime against humanity ever committed.


One of the (really neat) things I've discovered about our Founding Fathers is just how hard they worked during those years the Continental Congress gathered. In between bouts of debate about the construction and limitations of our future government, these guys also used every last bit of their wits and energy financing, equipping and directing the Continental Army. I believe this second thing taught them all the importance of the need for the central government to manage the resources of the Union, if said Union were to survive.

After years of this struggling, and during a time (post-war) when he was left behind for a while to "babysit" the new Republic, Thomas Jefferson wrote this in a letter to James Madison:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(dg021458))

The produce of our slave tax being nearly equal to the Continental requisitions, can you not get it appropriated to that purpose, and have it all paid in money?(6) Virginia must do something more than she has done to maintain any degree of respect in the Union & to make it bearable to any man of feeling to represent her in Congress. The public necessities call distressingly for aid, and very ruinous circumstances proceed from the inattention of the states to furnish supplies in money. S. Carolina is the foremost state in supplies notwithstanding her distresses. Whence does this proceed? From a difference of spirit solely; from a pride of character; from a rejection of the unmanly supineness which permits personal inconveniency to absorb every other sentiment. There is no man who has not some vice or folly the starving of which would not pay his taxes.

Okay, so TJ was a little stressed out at the time, and I'm not going to ascribe too much to his venting here. But the fact remains, the Founding Fathers envisioned a government that could readily adapt to changing conditions but still (and always) work for the public good. They believed in personal liberty and collective responsibility, which is something we should never forget.

[Don]

I think the question is, if something has never worked optimally before does that mean it can never work optimally?
No, the question is, is human nature likely to change soon, so that politicians actually seek office so they can serve the people who elect them?


In questions of power...let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

And while I was looking that one up, I found another that applies to segmenting government according to its logical concerns.

The way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the function he is competent to. Let the National Government be entrusted with the defense of the nation and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police, and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with the local concerns of the counties, and each ward direct the interests within itself.

It is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great national one down through all its subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best.

[kuwisdelu]

I wonder if one of the things that makes one a Federalist or an anti-Federalist can be broken down into whether one is happy with their local government or not? Until two days ago, I've lived in a red state my whole life, and that wasn't by choice. Even as my state voted for its first Democratic candidate since LBJ, all of my local candidates lost. My neighbors and peers here are happy with them. I think they suck. They're really not that bad fiscally, because I have no great problem with fiscal conservatism as long as its reasonable--but socially, I consider us one of the most backward states in the union. I'd be much more comfortable with a Federal government strong enough to tell my state when it's overstepping on the liberties of its citizens; I'd be much more comfortable with a Federal government that slaps California on the knuckles over Prop 8 and says "no!" (of course, that particular issue should be taken to the Supreme Court and shot down as unconstitutional rather than legislated by Congress, but you get my point...).

States rights were far more important in the 18th century, when they really were more like separate states (in the dictionary-definition sense of the word) than they are now. I consider myself an American long, long before I would ever consider myself a Hoosier. As far as the things I identify with go, my state is pretty far down the list.

For the libertarians and anti-Federalists out there: are you happy with your local government? I'm not. And I am wondering if perhaps that is one of the things that is causing our differences.

[shawkins]

No, the question is, is human nature likely to change soon, so that politicians actually seek office so they can serve the people who elect them?

A very reasonable question. I agree that the worst problem that a designer of governments faces is the fact that the type of person likely to seek power is exactly the type of person who can not really be trusted to wield it benevolently.

I just got done with a stint of revolutionary-era reading, and I came away with a newfound respect for the founders of the U.S. They were some really smart guys. They put a lot of thought into the checks and balances, and I think the tool they came up with was very well thought out, much better than anything that had come before.

However, this does not, in my mind, preclude the possibility that it could be improved upon. Also, I think it's a bit dated. Spying, in particular, has come a long way. If I had my druthers I'd put something in there about a right to privacy.

[kuwisdelu]

However, this does not, in my mind, preclude the possibility that it could be improved upon. Also, I think it's a bit dated. Spying, in particular, has come a long way. If I had my druthers I'd put something in there about a right to privacy.

Agreed. What was optimal 200 years ago is not necessarily optimal now. Jefferson remarked of his admiration for the native tribes (that's me!) and their prosperity despite the lack of an organized governing body. That's what was optimal for us (us Injuns). At the same time, he noted how for any sizeable population, such as the US of 1787, anarchy was neither practical nor desirable. If it is conceivable that, if anarchy can be practical for a small tribal society, and a small, severely-limited government for the a nation with a population of the 18th-century variety, is it not inconceivable that it is only natural, practical, and even necessary for government to grow to meet the demands and needs of a society as large and complex as the US in the 21st century?

[Don]

Similarly, I suppose you (or, more likely, Don) could imagine a Manhattan project or an interstate highway system that happened without government funding and organization.
I won't address the Manhattan project, since we'd have to go all the way back to Wilson and his push to get us into WWI, and the Treaty of Versailles, which lead to Hitler's rise and WWII, just for starters.

As for the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act, had FedGov not heavily subsidized wheeled transportation by that act and other means, chances are good we'd have a much more effective (and energy-efficient) rail system than the one we have today, and our dependence on foreign oil would be considerably lower. What a horrible situation that would be. :rolleyes:

You can't judge any government action without looking at the unintended consequences. Failure to look at both sides of the equation is a fatal mistake that always makes government expenditures look better.

[Don]

I'd be much more comfortable with a Federal government strong enough to tell my state when it's overstepping on the liberties of its citizens; I'd be much more comfortable with a Federal government that slaps California on the knuckles over Prop 8 and says "no!"
I consider that one of the fundamental responsibilities of FedGov. Remember the 'to secure these rights' clause in the Declaration? FedGov should immediately step in when equality under the law is challenged.

Some of my earliest disillusionment with FedGov was in the 60s, when we had to go to the streets and risk getting our heads caved in to assure equal rights for black people and to stop our government from enslaving children and shipping them off to shoot at people in southeast Asia.

People who talk about the great strides made by LBJ in equal rights forget that the only reason that happened was to stop us from burning down the country.

I said earlier that FedGov should be concentrating on protecting equal rights instead of bridges to nowhere and the breeding habits of fruit flies.

[Don Allen]

Hey mac,

Just a quick comment on your original Op, This election process has had a very sobering effect on me personally in regards to the deep divisions I see between the people in our country. The right, the left, liberals, conservatives, race haters it dosen't matter, people in general seem to be less and less capable of seeing another persons point of view, and its gotten to the point where everyone seems to have adopted the attitude of "its my way or the Highway."

I don't know why this has become the prevailing attitude, but I think it stems from lack of empathy for each other which is sad. I have also seen a general lack of understanding or just plain ol' ignorance in understanding the issues and that saddens me as well. I hope obama does well, we all should...

[MacAllister]

Then let's work together to gut it of all the things we agree are not necessary, and argue about the rest at a later date. But let's not give it any more to do until we get rid of a bunch of the worthless junk first.
I can get behind that, actually.

Hey mac,

Just a quick comment on your original Op, This election process has had a very sobering effect on me personally in regards to the deep divisions I see between the people in our country. The right, the left, liberals, conservatives, race haters it dosen't matter, people in general seem to be less and less capable of seeing another persons point of view, and its gotten to the point where everyone seems to have adopted the attitude of "its my way or the Highway."
Me too - which is why I deplore the sentiment I'm sometimes seeing that sounds sort of like "you guys had your shot for the last eight years, now sit down and shut up, it's our turn."

There are things I think most of us can agree on. But it does require (back to the drum I've been banging on since I opened the politics rooms) an assumption of goodwill.

Since I'm a writer and a verbal person, the most effective way I know to deal with the lack of empathy and the deep divisions and the hard feelings is to write/talk. And read/listen. And then write and listen some more.

Does it make a difference for me to learn that someone who supports extraordinary rendition lost a nephew in the 911 attacks? Perhaps I can at least better understand the grief, pain, and fear driving that support, even while I deeply and fundamentally disagree on the principle.

But as soon as I simply dismiss that same person as stupid, lazy, greedy, and evil, with a raging case of white-male-entitlement disease . . . What room is left even for discussion, let alone resolution?

[Ken]

I just caught a somewhat unsettling clip on CNN. The republican minority leader of the House, or near equivalent, was voicing an attitude I've heard expressed by republicans several times this week: that it's in some ways good demos are in the majority as any ills that befall the country will now fall on their lap. This doesn't seem like the sort of attitude that would foster an environment for growth and well being of the country. Maybe I'm evaluating this wrong? I'm no political pundit.

[Unique]

I just caught a somewhat unsettling clip on CNN. The republican minority leader of the House, or near equivalent, was voicing an attitude I've heard expressed by republicans several times this week: that it's in some ways good demos are in the majority as any ills that befall the country will now fall on their lap. This doesn't seem like the sort of attitude that would foster an environment for growth and well being of the country. Maybe I'm evaluating this wrong? I'm no political pundit.

Make a mess and point the finger at someone else. It works sometimes for children, in adults - not so much.

I'm so very tired of it. If more of us wrote, called, and emailed those who are supposed to be representing us - maybe we'd get less of it.

::: tightens wishful thinking cap another notch:::

[Ken]

...would be good if the words "Put Your Country First" could be emblazoned on the walls of both the House and Senate.

[Unique]

I'm evil. I'd make the Senate 50/50, no tie breaker - you can't come out until you're in 100% agreement. And we all get to know the details. Without having to hunt them down in obscure publications.

Take all night? That's okay. We'll wait.

[jst5150]

As a people, there is more that unites us than divides us.

And even Mr. Obama asked for help on the night of his acceptance speech.

[shawkins]

Scott McClellan (former Bush press secretary) made the point in his book What Happened that partisan politics really went into overdrive about the time Clinton took office. That's not an indictment; we on the left certainly bear our share of the blame in that we adopted similar divisive tactics through the Bush administration.

I actually do think it would be a good thing if everyone cooled out their rhetoric for a while. We do have some fairly serious problems that need to be addressed. Yes, that's easy to say after last Tuesday. FWIW, upon consideration of President Obama's speech Tuesday night I've been making a real effort to resist the temptation to be be unduly obnoxious about my glee.

<sniff> Can't we all just get along?

If it is conceivable that, if anarchy can be practical for a small tribal society, and a small, severely-limited government for the a nation with a population of the 18th-century variety, is it not inconceivable that it is only natural, practical, and even necessary for government to grow to meet the demands and needs of a society as large and complex as the US in the 21st century?

Complex processes (like government) have a way of doing unexpected things if they run long enough. For instance, I doubt the founding fathers gave a whole lot of thought to what might happen if you gather several hundred lawyers together every year with a mandate to make new laws. All the good ones--killing bad, don't steal--got written pretty quick, but they still have to pass stuff every time Congress is in session in order preserve the illusion that they deserve to get re-elected.

I think societies bear some resemblance to very slow running algorithms. At any given moment, what they do next is partly determined by what input they receive (war, economic doom), partly determined by the inherent nature of the parts (Don's point about ambitious politicians and Roger's point about human charity) and partly by the rules imposed on the system (the constitution and the law of the land).

In general, I think our system is doing well above average for human societies. Having said that, I agree with you that it's worth considering what changes might be made to our system of governance in light of what has happened since the system was created. However, I also concede that it would be very easy to make things worse instead of better.

But it is an interesting problem.

[Don]

Me too - which is why I deplore the sentiment I'm sometimes seeing that sounds sort of like "you guys had your shot for the last eight years, now sit down and shut up, it's our turn."

I just caught a somewhat unsettling clip on CNN. The republican minority leader of the House, or near equivalent, was voicing an attitude I've heard expressed by republicans several times this week: that it's in some ways good demos are in the majority as any ills that befall the country will now fall on their lap.
Two sides of the same coin, and exactly the sort of divisiveness we don't need four more years of.
I'm evil. I'd make the Senate 50/50, no tie breaker - you can't come out until you're in 100% agreement. And we all get to know the details. Without having to hunt them down in obscure publications.

Take all night? That's okay. We'll wait.
In Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, a discussion is underway concerning the formation of a new government. The best I remember it, the sage of the liberation movement, Professor de La Paz, suggests two houses of government; one charged with creating laws, the other with repealing them. Creating a law would require 100% approval. Repealing a law would require only a small number of votes.

His argument was along the line that if all the lawmakers can't agree that something is good for the country, it's not something the citizens should be saddled with. If the representatives of the citizens feel a law is a bad law, the subject should be revisited.

I bet we wouldn't have over a million pages of federal laws on the books today if that had been the rule here. :roll:

[shawkins]

I'm evil. I'd make the Senate 50/50, no tie breaker - you can't come out until you're in 100% agreement.

I think that's a really good idea.

[kuwisdelu]

I think societies bear some resemblance to very slow running algorithms. At any given moment, what they do next is partly determined by what input they receive (war, economic doom), partly determined by the inherent nature of the parts (Don's point about ambitious politicians and Roger's point about human charity) and partly by the rules imposed on the system (the constitution and the law of the land).

In general, I think our system is doing well above average for human societies. Having said that, I agree with you that it's worth considering what changes might be made to our system of governance in light of what has happened since the system was created. However, I also concede that it would be very easy to make things worse instead of better.

But it is an interesting problem.

To clarify my own thoughts, I don't think the government needs to grow any larger than it already has. It's already much bigger than it was in 1789. I do think that is justified. However, it's still bloated and inefficient. It hasn't grown in all the right ways. (To make an analogy to the human form, it's grown out instead of up.) Many things need to be reworked and reformed. Some things cut back, some things expanded. Federal Government needs to be streamlined like nothing else; go on a diet, lose that fat, and put on some productive muscle. :)

[kuwisdelu]

I think that's a really good idea.

I'd prefer abolishing parties, so "50/50" would have no meaning. :rolleyes:

Not that I have any idea exactly how to do that...

[AncientEagle]

Here's an interesting NY Times site that shows a glimpse of the way McCain supporters and Obama supporters describe their feelings (one word) on election day and after. Despite some obvious differences, I was struck by how many of the same words were chosen by both groups. Here's the link:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11/04/us/politics/20081104_ELECTION_WORDTRAIN.html?hp

[MacAllister]

I'd prefer abolishing parties, so "50/50" would have no meaning. :rolleyes:

Not that I have any idea exactly how to do that...That's an interesting thought, actually, Kuwi - how do you see the system working, if rather than running under party banners, everyone had to run independent?

[kuwisdelu]

That's an interesting thought, actually, Kuwi - how do you see the system working, if rather than running under party banners, everyone had to run independent?

Like it was intended. I know that sounds blunt and trite, but I'll again cite a speech I've reposted so often I've lost count:

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.

There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose. And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.

Washington saw the danger of group mentality back then, and how it encourages divisiveness and the erosion of public liberty.

Without the banners of parties, politicians would have to argue points instead of talking points. Politicians would be responsible for themselves and their own decisions, not their party's. There would be less "us" vs. "them." It's much easier to work together when there are labels and opposing associations standing in your way before you can even get started.

People would be forced to really judge candidates and their actions by their positions, character, and actions rather than the letter next to their name on the ballot. Politicians would have to come to a decision on matters based solely on debate and their own intellectual processes and morals rather than toeing the party line or have their mind made up before even reading the bill.

Of course, it would be hard. Washington recognized that. Maybe impossible. It wouldn't be perfect. But I think it would be improvement.

Sometimes I like resorting to idealism. :rolleyes:

[MacAllister]

I'm thinking about it in terms of representation in Congress - so the Honorable Senator from, say, Wyoming -- he's there as a guy from Wyoming, first, not as a dem or republican.

It's interesting to consider.

[kuwisdelu]

Oh boy.

Someone restrain me.

Going back to the original thoughts of this thread.

I just came across this website (http://www.godhatesfags.com/). Here is their petition schedule (http://www.godhatesfags.com/schedule.html). Scroll down to Jan 20.

I can't even bring myself to type the URL here or quote the listing for Jan 20.

I'm not sure I've ever seen anything so hateful in my life.

They even intend to picket Obama's grandmother's funeral (http://www.godhatesfags.com/written/fliers/20081104_madelyn-payne-dunham-funeral.pdf).

If there are any Christians on right now, please come and remind me these people are just radical assholes. (No sarcasm at all, I love my fellow AWers and the diversity of people here. You give me faith in people and the world. I need it right now. :rant:)

[MacAllister]

Honestly? Every Christian I know deplores those people and their tactics, Kuwi. Don't let 'em get you down. They've been around a long time, and they thrive on attention.Oh boy.

Someone restrain me.

Going back to the original thoughts of this thread.

I just came across this website (http://www.godhatesfags.com/). Here is their petition schedule (http://www.godhatesfags.com/schedule.html). Scroll down to Jan 20.

I can't even bring myself to type the URL here or quote the listing for Jan 20.

I'm not sure I've ever seen anything so hateful in my life.

They even intend to picket Obama's grandmother's funeral (http://www.godhatesfags.com/written/fliers/20081104_madelyn-payne-dunham-funeral.pdf).

If there are any Christians on right now, please come and remind me these people are just radical assholes. (No sarcasm at all, I love my fellow AWers and the diversity of people here. You give me faith in people and the world. I need it right now. :rant:)

[Cranky]

If you're referring to the people I think you're referring to, kuwi, yes.

They're...disgusting. That's about the most polite word I can dredge up at the moment. Even though I don't think they're worthy of any courtesy whatsoever.

[kuwisdelu]

Honestly? Every Christian I know deplores those people and their tactics, Kuwi. Don't let 'em get you down. They've been around a long time, and they thrive on attention.

I know. One of the things I've enjoyed most about P&CE is interacting intelligently and respectfully with people with different views and perspectives than I. It keeps me grounded and hopeful. It would be much easier ignoring these people, but the idea of picketing his grandmother's funeral? That got to me. Anyway, thanks.

[MacAllister]

Honestly, I don't know anyone at all that thinks of them as anything but fringe wackos. What they profess to believe bears no relationship with what the Christians I know believe - they use some of the same vocabulary, is all.

And yes. I know exactly what you mean about viewpoints changing. Many of the Christians on this board - Roger, first and foremost - have done a really tremendous amount to change my views for the better, as well.