Posted on 04/25/2012 6:19:31 PM PDT by IBD editorial writer
The country faces monumental problems — a national debt crisis, an entitlement crisis, an energy crisis, to say nothing of the lingering economic crisis. But on issue after issue, Democrats have absolutely nothing constructive to offer. Instead, they reflexively attack the Republicans who are actually proposing fixes.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
The Romneybots are peddling the same thing.
The Republicans have nothing to offer but a Democrat!
This is essentially the problem.
The liberals have gotten so leftward, it’s dragged everything to the left, so now what used to be left, is moderate.
This is what the marxist Hegelian Dialectic is all about.
And what we are left with are people in this party that do not realize it, and are begging us to vote for the leftist that is being passed off as “severely conservative” but in fact falls very short of that title.
this is how the left wins. Because they force the republicans to go left. And most of the leadership falls for it or is totally okay with it. Or thinks it’s okay because even though it goes left it’s not as far as a democrat will take it. They either have no clue about the dialectic incrementalism, or they do understand and think it’s not a problem. In any case they sure as hell don’t mind compromising.
When does the other side have to compromise? we’re done. Stop asking us to. You go ahead and compromise you RINOs. You deserve who you vote for. It’s you guys who are going to give us another freaking McCain moment.
“When does the other side have to compromise?”
A number of years ago I had a conversation with a liberal colleague- an old school hippy Vietnam war college draft-dodger liberal. Anyway, at some point he asked “But what is the compromise?” My reply was, there was no point in compromising anymore- the lefties got everything they wanted every time. Compromising with evil only gets you more evil, just like borrowing money to pay off money you owe still leaves you in debt.
The entire point of the hegelian dialectic principle is that it always favors the people that want to change things.
Thesis = current state
Antithesis = desired change state (opposing the current state)
Synthesis = compromise between thesis and antithesis.
By definition the dialectic always moves things in favor of those who want to change things. The only thing in question is how much the synthesis solution changes things (ie big increments, small increments).
“The Republicans have nothing to offer but a Democrat!”
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Reading that is like being struck across the face with a frozen fish.
It should- preferably a frozen marlin.
Good points you are making there! Its a shame we can actually watch them occur.
See, we can use the dialectic process against them too.
We just have to reject their antithesis, and instead offer our own antithesis and then work towards continuing the synthesis towards what we have as OUR goal, not theirs,
Our problem is we accept their antithesis position. Instead we must control the debate and doing that, posit a better antithesis to synthesis with.
That would require being the side that initiates the change...
Exactly, it’s called “changing things back” if they were better before. Or at least offering a more conservative antithesis to the current status quo.
It’s the idea behind the phrase “taking the country back.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.