There is this strange idea that I have had for years and being that many people here think along the lines of my thinking – while they remain highly critical and objective (although even brutal in their remarks), it is exactly those people that I consider my intellectual peers, and it is exactly there where I could test the validity of my thinking which I am somewhat apprehensive to accept fully (not just yet).
I looked into the frequent clashes between the two major groups of the United States (one group I shall name RADICALS, the other group I shall name LIBERALS – as I perceive their ideological stands).
In the Radical wing I shall include most Republicans and proponents of “America First”, along with a higher degree of militancy, and a more fierce defense of what is generally perceived to be American traditions and values (liberty, the right to bear arms, etc.)
In the Liberal wing I shall include most Academia, staunch Catholics, many Jews, most Democrats and proponents of appeasement, conflict reducing tensions – domestic and abroad, along with more lenient policies towards who is often even perceived as a potential “enemy” of America (the Russians, the Chinese, the Germans, the Muslims)
I consider myself a member of the Radical group, but I can’t deny that every one from the opposing side is my brother and sister even if I violently disagree with some of their views. Somehow I wish the sharp conflicts were not there, but I can’t get myself to change my mind – so I would rather have them change their mind, and embrace what I feel to be a more American way of thinking.
I don’t think that either of the above two groups has any ill feelings towards the other, but it’s foolish to pretend there are no differences. Even, during our last two presidential elections the country was almost evenly split in half. I wish that didn’t exist, but I fear that it is necessary if we were to survive many tests and tribulations ahead of us. An even greater fear is borne (to me) if I envision the Liberal block taking greater control, and loosing a grip on what I perceive as our American fundamental rights and values (liberty, freedom of speech, right to bear arms, etc.)
I had a vision of the changing presidency of the United states and came to the following conclusions (I don’t know yet if there is much merit in this type of thinking so I’ll offer it to all of us for more dissection and corrections). I shall be using a term “holding the bag” which is best described by the following from another two American presidents (“During his few weeks as Vice President, Harry S Truman scarcely saw President Roosevelt, and received no briefing on the development of the atomic bomb or the unfolding difficulties with Soviet Russia. Suddenly these and a host of other wartime problems became Truman's to solve when, on April 12, 1945, he became President. He told reporters, "I felt like the moon, the stars, and all the planets had fallen on me."):
1. I started with JFK, whom I admired and feared. I thought him a capable well educated man with our best interests at heart, but I feared his being too lenient with Cubans, Russians and feared he would give the whole country away just to avoid some war or conflict – for myself, I always felt, “Hell if there is gonna have to be a war let’s get into it right away and be done with. We do have those marvelous Marines, we do have an incredible Air Force and a powerful Navy, why should we be pussyfooting around too long” Now, JFK was a Democrat and somewhat more inclined to propose the Liberal wing of this assumed country division, but in my mind he was no less an American than anybody else, and I was heart broken when he was killed – he was our President. Strange that LBJ who followed him was also a Democrat but he didn’t fit my “liberal mold” – I would be more comfortable putting the LBJ’s legacy into the Radical group – just so that we agree that my groups are not hermetically sealed and there are exceptions. In a political sense I feel that JFK gave away more than we could afford so that LBJ was left with holding a bag of goods that he couldn’t easily reverse (similar thing happened when Clinton left under the illusion that it was a prosperous America he left behind him, while in truth he left a hot air balloon that popped the day G. Bush took office – so we end up looking critically at the man holding a bag, which is unfair and inaccurate since he only inherited the situation and had to deal with the consequences of his predecessor.
2. From the Democrats dominating 1961 to 1969, most of us realized that things are not as rosy as they could be, and we elected Nixon to tighten things up a little bit. He got a little too eager and too fast and too slick so he leaves in a hurry and we get two more Liberal members (Ford and Carter). This is where I saw the pattern for the first time. We seem to be highly reactive and will go to the other extreme if things don’t go to our liking. Ford and Carter both good men, were rather imbued with some (almost unearthly goodness) which made me think they cared about the poverty in China more than the jobs at home, and I can’t tell you how little I care about the poverty in China or hunger in Ethiopia – don’t get me wrong I am not happy about their miseries, but I’d much rather focus on our veterans, social security, unemployment, racial issues and other homegrown concerns. That was from 1974 to 1981.
3. Again a backlash, we react and Reagan comes on with flying colors. Not afraid to confront the perceived enemies, he’s outspoken, he puts Russians in their place, he is tough and the economy at home improves tremendously. But now the Liberal wing is a little slighted and they feel their “liberties” and views are being impinged on, so we get G. Bush Senior a slightly more moderate Republican, but equally, and fully Radical in my categorizing, things go well and he does the Gulf War I as a pre-emptive strike – good going for my money. After the 4 year term the backlash again.
4. Next backlash was instigated by the Liberal wing who in response to Reagan/Bush rule from 1981 to 1993, forces Clinton into the office. I read some Clinton’s writings and I can’t tell you enough how impressed I was, which was hard as Hell because I always had this feeling of him being a little too slick. I think more than the Presidency Clinton was in the business of being liked, so he goes around playing saxophone, eating burgers, being slightly overweight, jogging with his security detail – which all made him more “like me” and “like us” resulting in his incredible (and in my view, not rightly deserved) popularity – during his term.
5. Most recent backlash. During Clinton’s closing years we notice things are starting to “slip” and we react with electing GW Bush – who in my mind, is left holding not only the bag of the prior administration’s mismanagement, losses and artificially inflated values, but also holds a proverbial bag of all the others that came before him.
A small tragedy ensues. The country gets divided in two. The voting is almost as close as it was with JFK – Nixon election, (that’s why I started with JFK). The biggest surprise to me was the learning how W. is able to project a folksy Texan look (and speech with all those “NU-Kuh-Lurs”) while behind the curtain he is pulling some of the wisest most far reaching moves of any president in the history of the United states – so far. I am almost certain that there will be one more president added to Mount Rushmore before too long. He’s sharp, he’s decisive, he’s not afraid of conflict, he fights off unpopularity, he attacks head-on (and all of that earns him more respect in my view), but all of that also makes him more feared by the Liberal half of the country.
PROGNOSIS: Imagine the catastrophe (that I fear) if as a backlash to W. we get some Ralph Nader or someone new along those lines in the nearest future to undo all that W. has done...?
MISTAKES: Each one of those “backlash” reactionary moves was based on one President’s failures and forced us to vote for his opposite while we failed to look into the positive sides of the guy that did make the few mistakes from office. That’s exactly why Kerry didn’t win. I can sit here all day and keep finding flaws and shortcomings of Albert Einstein, but finding one man’s flaws does not make me a good scientist. It is the act of doing and a sum of all things good that I may have done that will make me a good scientist, thinker, politician. The “backlash” system is highly unproductive and leads us sliding into the opposite type of failure that somebody subsequent has to deal with after it’s all said and done. Not a lot of fun for any newcomer.
PROPOSED SOLUTION/REMEDY/DISPOSITION: Since it now “us” in power (the “radical” group), I think it will be wise to allow some of those a little more pink in color, to get some of their steam off. Let’s allow a few cities to get very Liberal mayors, and a few states (I’d go for Alaska and Hawaii) go get very liberal governors, so that the contrast between “us and them” is not so sharp during the next election and so that we don’t elect some wussy to lead us downhill. Give them the rights to gay marriage, give them some of what they want (in some limited way), let’s not antagonize them too much. In turn let’s keep the top clean, sharp, decisive, moral and strong. I am not sure that’s the best idea either, I could be giving in to liberal pressures myself and that I will not like once I discover it to be true (if it is true), but I think that our greater steaks are within the leader of the country (like W.) who is far more important than some gay marriage or some other liberal leanings in remote Alaska, Hawaii, Vermont or Rhode Island. It would be ideal if we didn’t have to make any compromises at all – but the ideal rarely happens.
I am in the "lets roll" category, no democrat every "felt sorry" for our side. Ever!
You seem too soft, time get tough, politics is war without bullets, start firing!
Oops
As a side point and being Catholic, I agree with you putting "staunch Catholics" in the Liberal wing.
Nothing personal, but to me this sounds ludicrous. America already has severely liberal mayors as a rule, and plenty of liberal governors. Politics is the mechanism for compromise. The left is on the ropes, and now that the right has power it is time to enact change, not toss them a bone. It is time for the left to compromise and get on board with the center, not vice versa. Selling out principled stands (e.g. gay marriage) does not make for 'clean, sharp, decisive, moral and strong'. Quite the opposite. As with our enemies abroad, our domestic political enemies see capitulation as weakness, and then become even more intransigent. The country is moving away from wussy whackjob liberals, not towards them. I will agree the general stance ought to be welcoming the left-center to the right, but not through coopting leftist policies.
PIFFLE
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Viking Kitty/ZOT ping list!. . .don't be shy.
Are U Hawt?
Hi!
There is this strange idea that I have had for years...
|
|
See, this is where you lost me. |
GOOD GRIEF! Piling it higher and deeper again, eh iliya?
This is as far as I need to go. What in the hell is radical about loving your Home and wanting to protect it?
Leftists twist and bend definitions into absurdity. Just what are you?
