.
TASK FOR INDEPENDENTS — DO NOT TRUST IVY LEAGUERS:
Ivy league Republicans (George Will , David Brooks , Peggy Noonan, Christopher Buckley, and Kathleen Parker and war cheering Democrats (led by Christopher Hitchens ) are acting out against Sarah Palin. Why?
Might war-cheering Democrats, in light of the financial meltdown brought on by excessive Big Government, now long for less international activity by the U.S.? Might ivy league Republicans, ruing Big Government, now prefer that Democrats be elected to suffer blame for mismanaging any recovery? Might ivy league Republicans also fear hints of common sense in Sarah Palin, as if she may dare to question blue blood Republican rationalizations of outrageously disproportionate allocations of wealth, nearing levels of Mexico? On social issues, might blue-blood, self-ingratiating Republicans be more aligned with far left Democrats?
If so, consider:
1) Is the threat of Islamofascist pursuit of nuclear dissemination substantial? If so, compare the costs of retreat.
2) Are ivy leaguers conditioned to “justify” their hiring out to help in the farming of all other Americans, as if we should be reduced to be satisfied with chicken feed? If so, why?
Bottom Line: Look behind the words of “elites;” consider who and what they work for and stand for; do not just assume their “educations” are grounded in fellow-empathy or in good judgment derivative of actual experience. Do not just assume their words are grounded in wisdom as opposed to shallow opportunism.
.
****
Money-Holders, acting behind humanity’s various thrones, play volatility thusly: Empower Republicans, to teach them how to whip mules to the point where they can work no harder, and then alternate, to empower Democrats, to let them learn from hard knocks why to defer to adults. Regardless, the parameters within which Republicans and Democrats are allowed to operate are regulated by a top level of Interest-Charging-Money-Holders, who need not especially empathize with the mass of humanity, but instead pursue fulfillment in a game of pursuing power over humanity.
The problem and challenge for Enlightened, Empathizing, Moderating People (aka, "Red Ass Moderates," or RAM’s) is: How best to grasp power away from power mongers, while protecting human freedom and dignity, without empowering nihilists bent on destroying earth.
Role of Independents (and Red Ass Moderates):
Debate helps to clarify ideas. Opposing advocates and parties are necessary to spirited debate. More than two parties tends to undermine focused elections. Having only two parties encourages covering-over deal-making for fringe special interests, leaving wallflower Independents, often, to be the last ones to be wooed. Independents often have at heart the best interests of the country as a whole. For the country to be served, and for Independents not to be treated as wallflowers, Independents must get assertive, early.
Moderates must get the Red Ass!
Moderates must actively monitor political shenanigans.
Moderates must make evil doings of evil doers famous.
Moderates must sponsor responsible candidates.
Requisite to their loyalty and energy, Moderates must demand responsible governance.
Moderates must rationalize a uniting philosophy of decent governance.
Moderates must teach us to coalesce in support of a uniting philosophy of decent governance.
****
Snippets from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13427.html:
Independents swing toward McCain
By JOHN P. AVLON
9/14/08
Since the GOP convention and his selection of the Alaska governor as his running mate, McCain has changed a months-long tie among independents into a 52 to 37 percent advantage. Support for McCain among self-described "conservative Democrats" has jumped 10 points, to 25 percent, signaling the shift among swing voters to McCain.
….
The Bush administration is deeply disliked by many independents and centrists because they feel duped. Bush campaigned in 2000 with an explicitly centrist message as a “compassionate conservative,” but he governed as a polarizing partisan conservative.
While most independents can be described as fiscally conservative and socially liberal, the Bush administration has been the opposite: fiscally liberal and socially conservative.
…
Obama’s campaign is confronting a political reality that Democrats have a difficult time dealing with: that America is essentially a center-right nation. Winning a national election comes down to winning over independents and centrists in swing states.
And the professional partisans in the Republican Party needs to appreciate that John McCain is leading a broader resurgence of the Republican brand because of his independence, not in spite of it.
13 comments:
Everyone seems somewhat on edge, this season of hurricanes, financial meltdowns, cultural strains, and elections.
A lot of folks feel betrayed. Bush said he would govern as a compassionate conservative, but, instead, has often governed as a non-compassionate spendthrift (even as he seems not to want to protect national borders).
Meantime, Russia has invaded a free country and seems intent on stirring up trouble for the U.S.; China is dependent on oil to grease its economic expansion and is not helping efforts to restrain WMD development in Iran; and Iran is making bellicose threats against Israel.
So, there is much volatility, and high rollers stand to make pots of war money by lighting everything to go up in flames. Whoever is really behind buying up Merrill Lynch for cents on the dollar, I suspect, will profit considerably. I doubt the meltdown in financial markets is innocent.
Although Democrats have overextended loans to folks not able to make payments, and Republicans have done precious little to help the middle class get much trickle-down money, I suspect some high rollers have plans in place for profiting.
Meantime, people are losing jobs, pensions, and portable health care. And I am not altogether confident folks driving this situation are innocent. Whoever is driving it, I suspect both Democrats and Republicans are under their control — which may explain why our borders will never be vigorously enforced and why the whole notion of nationalism is being undermined in headlong movement towards world government. To me, that seems a little like forcing disagreeable cousins to share a single room. And community minded Middle Eastern Muslims seem not to mix well in close quarters with more libertine Westerners.
I don’t know the solution, but I do think shenanigans are rampant all around. So, folks are on edge.
Meantime, Obama seems well spoken, but why do those most responsible for his rise seem to be so radical? Although I suspect he is funded by some shady characters, I also suspect some of the same shady characters are funding McCain. So, who do we trust? I wish I had a simple answer.
A lot of folks, who have lived through real depressions and world wars, are especially concerned — and sometimes prone to jump the gun in prejudgment.
People are worried and passions are running high, across various age levels. Sometimes, it becomes hard to converse without becoming strident. As much as ever, the country needs intelligent debate, but instead is getting emotional mudslinging — at the level of 8 year olds — in nearly every political party.
Some folks are likely profiting by fueling emotional volatility, but the fire also feeds itself. Anxious people are becoming more and more prone to seek refuge in strident opinions — on all sides.
I don’t have the answer. It would seem best if as many folks as possible could come to their own judgments as dispassionately and reasonably as possible. Humor may help.
See http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/w/whatiam.htm.
Managing pre-planned panic: Who you gonna call?
Whatever the high-level money-people say, no matter how fast or deep they may push the rest of us into debt slavery, we appear poised to acquiesce right along, trained little puppets that we are!
See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/opinion/22krugman.html?em.
Political Incredulity:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20080930/us_time/thebailoutdefeatapoliticalcredibilitycrisis:
Nearly every major political leader in the U.S. supported the $700 billion financial-bailout bill. The President. The Vice President. The Treasury Secretary. The Chairman of the Federal Reserve. The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Democratic and Republican nominees for President. The Democratic and Republican leadership of the House and Senate. All of them said the same thing: vote yes.
But a majority of those politicians anointed by the Constitution to reflect the will of the people voted no. This is a remarkable event, the culmination of a historic sense of betrayal that Americans have long felt for their representatives in Washington. The nation's credit crisis on Monday exposed a much deeper and more fundamental problem: a crisis of political credibility that now threatens to harm our nation further, should the markets freeze up and more companies begin to fail, as many experts predict.
....
Years ago, the trust between the people and their politicians was broken. Credibility was lost. The reserve of goodwill went bankrupt. And when they needed it most, our nation's leaders found that they had squandered their ability to exert influence over the people who chose them to lead.
WILL TO MATH:
All physics is based on spiritual faith in “Will-To-Math.”
All angst could be reconciled were we able to agree to effect some simple bookkeeping entries.
See http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/purple_power_survey/2008/10/02/136681.html?s=al&promo_code=6C1B-1.
GINI INDEX GULF:
Snippet from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/opinion/09reich.html?th&emc=th:
The top 1 percent now takes home about 20 percent of total national income. As recently as 1980, it took home 8 percent. Although the economy has grown considerably since 1980, the middle class’s share has shrunk. That’s a problem not just because it strikes so many as being unfair, but also because it’s starting to limit the capacity of most Americans to buy the goods and services we produce without going deep into debt. The last time the top 1 percent took home 20 percent of national income, not incidentally, was 1928.
PROGRESSIVE CONSUMPTION TAX:
Corporations should be prohibited from making political contributions. And contributions by individuals to specific political candidates or parties should not be tax deductible. Rather, such contributions should be considered as a form of “consumption,” and should make the contributor subject to a progressive consumption tax.
It is immoral to take from those who produce in order to "spread their wealth" and income around to work-a-phobics.
It is also immoral to fail to check against institutions calculated to advantage such disproportionate accumulations of wealth and power as to sink democracy under the rule of oligarchic aristocrats.
The way to check against both of the above modes of immorality is not with taxes on income or with giveaways to non-workers. Rather, it is consumption that should be taxed, progressively. Such tax revenues should be used to build, rebuild, and maintain the infrastructure that is used by all citizens.
Such use would create jobs. Such tax would not harm the poor. Such tax would help check against oligarchies.
I. Self Delusion is not Elite:
Who but Ivy League, “mommy-coddled elites” would be so skilled in artifice as to delude even themselves into believing that government should or could encourage and finance every person, no matter how unqualified, to undertake mortgage for pursuing his/her “right” to the American dream of home “ownership”?
Having endured the economic wreckage of one group of mommy-coddled elites, now should we endure the political wreckage to be given us by another?
So long as we accept leadership of mommy-coddled elites, so shall we endure the folly and wreckage to be imposed by toddlers.
Hitchens, Powell, Noonan, Buckley the Younger, and McClellan can KMA!
Why have American adults gone AWOL?
II. Spreading Wealth is not Moral:
It is immoral to take from those who produce in order to "spread their wealth" and income around to work-a-phobics.
III. Allowing Rule-Leveraging for Money Masters is not Democratic:
It is immoral to fail to check against institutions calculated to advantage such disproportionate accumulations of wealth and power as to sink democracy under the rule of oligarchic aristocrats.
IV. The way to check against both the immorality of (1) wealth-spreading and (2) money-ruling is not with taxes on income or with giveaways to non-workers. Rather, the way to check against such abuses is by taxing consumption, progressively.
V. Consumption tax revenues should be used to build, rebuild, and maintain the infrastructure that is used by all citizens.
VI. Such use would create jobs. Such tax would not harm the poor. Such tax would help check against the sort of oligarchic influence we suffer on account of those who now own and control our politicians, journalists, and professoriate.
Adults of the world must rise up!
CIVICS EDUCATION:
See http://townhall.com/columnists/CalThomas/2008/11/20/the_other_deficit:
“Thomas Jefferson's admonition: "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free ... it expects what never was and never will be."”
True Neo-Conservatism:
We have spiritual, religious, individual freedom to pursue the creation and expression of such lives as we will, subject to such competitive niches and markets as associate with that which defines us. Such freedom charges us with responsibility to pursue and try to shape such civilizing niches and markets as we intuit would best facilitate our moral pursuits of purposefulness and fulfillment.
Compare http://townhall.com/columnists/BillSteigerwald/2008/12/01/memories_of_a_neocon.
Post a Comment