I found this one, didn't write it myself, but it does sum up my feelings about partisanship rather well.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
On the absurdity of partisanship
- Thread starter PLC1
- Start date
Werbung:
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
I think the adversarial system is built into our government as a check and a balance against too much power.
And still this is the result:
"While Congress abides in gridlock, as Republicans and Democrats debate tax policy, and the SuperCommittee admits failure over deciding how to tame the mounting federal deficit, the fight against American liberty remains a bipartisan war. Conservative and liberal elites seem to share a common theme: The American people are too free for their own good.
Indeed, for those in the elite ranks of Washington politics, the concept of liberty is regrettably similar: Those on both the Left and the Right continue to stomp on the Founders’ vision of a free America.
In agreement with those who are determined to suppress American liberty, William Galston of the Brookings Institution penned his anti-freedom sentiments recently in a New York Times op-ed article entitled "Telling Americans to Vote, or Else." In the article, Galston cited the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, which reported that 31 countries currently have some form of mandatory voting, many of which impose fines on citizens who refuse to vote. Of course, advocates of liberty may suggest that the freedom not to vote is just as important as the freedom to vote, but Galston recommends that the government confiscates such freedoms.
Congressional leaders, those appointed to protect American liberty (not grant it), carry much of the blame for losses of freedom — and no one party is the sole culprit. ObamaCare proponents believe every American should be forced to purchase health insurance, while providers are required to offer federally mandated services and individuals are compelled to subsidize the negligence of their fellow citizens.
Also in the crosshairs of healthcare-minded bureaucrats is a mandated service, recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which would oblige boys and young men to be vaccinated against human papillomavirus, or HPV, as a safeguard against various cancers that often stem from sexual activity.
GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s answer to illegal immigration is an expanded E-Verify system — which he recently advocated at a town hall meeting in mid-October — a national identity program that would require government pre-approval of all new hires in the country. Romney’s proposal would not only be used to control employment, but it would feasibly grant the federal government more authority over healthcare, financial services and credit, housing, gun ownership, and the list goes on and on. Indeed, a national identity system would only tighten Washington’s strangling grip on American liberty.
Another GOP-driven legislative boondoggle designed to suppress Americans’ freedoms is the Patriot Act, a law that grants the federal government unbounded authority to implement warrantless searches, in shameless violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Beyond their landmark healthcare overhaul, President Obama and congressional Democrats have proposed or enacted a slew of new authoritative plans and actions to oppress the will of the American people. Last year, during a "tabletop speech" at a National Press Club, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the administration’s "livability" initiative "is a way to coerce people out of their cars." Further, President Obama and his Democratic disciples long to compel auto consumers to buy fuel-efficient vehicles, force insurance providers to cover birth control and abortions, and squander more taxpayers’ dollars to help fund the welfare and entitlement programs that deepen the country’s federal debt.
But politicians are not only to blame, as many in the mainstream media also support a Big Brother-style form of governance that plunders American liberty and strips the individuality that America’s Founders so adamantly touted. For instance, Time magazine proposed in 2007 that the next President should "create a program for universal national service," where citizens would get involved in civic life to "create a common culture that will make a virtue of our diversity."
Whether military or civilian, serving in the national service "should become a countrywide rite of passage," Time acclaimed, which would be "the common expectation and widespread experience of virtually every young American." Indeed, the magazine’s 2007 article indicated that the champion of the 2008 presidential election should harness the "spirit of volunteerism" and transform it into a "permanent part of American culture."
Such action, of course, could only lead to a compulsory federal requirement where every young American would be forced to relinquish their freedom and "serve their country" — much similar to the Hitler Youth, a paramilitary national service organization of the German Nazi Party.
In a recent article for Reason magazine, Barton Hinkle wrote:
Voices outside the administration … fret that it is not being forceful enough. In a recent Washington Post column, Dana Milbank advised the president to emulate the ruthless tactics of JFK. Milbank recounts how Roger Blough, chairman of U.S. Steel, raised prices in defiance of the president's wishes. "'You have made a terrible mistake,' Kennedy told him. Subpoenas flew, FBI agents marched into steel executives' offices, and Kennedy spoke about IRS agents examining 'hotel bills and nightclub expenses [that] would be hard to get by the weekly wives' bridge group out at the country club.'"
Similar to Milbank’s assertions, the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman has also dabbled with the notion that the American people should be ruled by a governing authority that is more authoritative. In observing the healthcare and environmental debates in Congress, Friedman wrote an article in 2009 about how China’s one-party autocracy is more effective and more just than America’s two-party democracy.
"One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks," Mr. Friedman wrote, "but when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people … it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies to move a society forward." The Times columnist went on to chronicle China’s "critically important policies," and its commitment to overtaking the United States in electric cars, solar power, wind power, and other forms of energy-efficient mediums.
Indeed, such government action and media propaganda, which litter American society, load inestimable weight on citizens’ God-given rights — which are liberties that the Founders hoped would endure for centuries to come. And while Congress still endures gridlock, many self-serving politicians on both sides of the political aisle still agree on one thing: The American people are not capable of functioning without government assistance."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/10000-the-bipartisan-war-on-american-freedom
And still this is the result:
"While Congress abides in gridlock, as Republicans and Democrats debate tax policy, and the SuperCommittee admits failure over deciding how to tame the mounting federal deficit, the fight against American liberty remains a bipartisan war. Conservative and liberal elites seem to share a common theme: The American people are too free for their own good.
Indeed, for those in the elite ranks of Washington politics, the concept of liberty is regrettably similar: Those on both the Left and the Right continue to stomp on the Founders’ vision of a free America.
In agreement with those who are determined to suppress American liberty, William Galston of the Brookings Institution penned his anti-freedom sentiments recently in a New York Times op-ed article entitled "Telling Americans to Vote, or Else." In the article, Galston cited the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, which reported that 31 countries currently have some form of mandatory voting, many of which impose fines on citizens who refuse to vote. Of course, advocates of liberty may suggest that the freedom not to vote is just as important as the freedom to vote, but Galston recommends that the government confiscates such freedoms.
Congressional leaders, those appointed to protect American liberty (not grant it), carry much of the blame for losses of freedom — and no one party is the sole culprit. ObamaCare proponents believe every American should be forced to purchase health insurance, while providers are required to offer federally mandated services and individuals are compelled to subsidize the negligence of their fellow citizens.
Also in the crosshairs of healthcare-minded bureaucrats is a mandated service, recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which would oblige boys and young men to be vaccinated against human papillomavirus, or HPV, as a safeguard against various cancers that often stem from sexual activity.
GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney’s answer to illegal immigration is an expanded E-Verify system — which he recently advocated at a town hall meeting in mid-October — a national identity program that would require government pre-approval of all new hires in the country. Romney’s proposal would not only be used to control employment, but it would feasibly grant the federal government more authority over healthcare, financial services and credit, housing, gun ownership, and the list goes on and on. Indeed, a national identity system would only tighten Washington’s strangling grip on American liberty.
Another GOP-driven legislative boondoggle designed to suppress Americans’ freedoms is the Patriot Act, a law that grants the federal government unbounded authority to implement warrantless searches, in shameless violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Beyond their landmark healthcare overhaul, President Obama and congressional Democrats have proposed or enacted a slew of new authoritative plans and actions to oppress the will of the American people. Last year, during a "tabletop speech" at a National Press Club, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said the administration’s "livability" initiative "is a way to coerce people out of their cars." Further, President Obama and his Democratic disciples long to compel auto consumers to buy fuel-efficient vehicles, force insurance providers to cover birth control and abortions, and squander more taxpayers’ dollars to help fund the welfare and entitlement programs that deepen the country’s federal debt.
But politicians are not only to blame, as many in the mainstream media also support a Big Brother-style form of governance that plunders American liberty and strips the individuality that America’s Founders so adamantly touted. For instance, Time magazine proposed in 2007 that the next President should "create a program for universal national service," where citizens would get involved in civic life to "create a common culture that will make a virtue of our diversity."
Whether military or civilian, serving in the national service "should become a countrywide rite of passage," Time acclaimed, which would be "the common expectation and widespread experience of virtually every young American." Indeed, the magazine’s 2007 article indicated that the champion of the 2008 presidential election should harness the "spirit of volunteerism" and transform it into a "permanent part of American culture."
Such action, of course, could only lead to a compulsory federal requirement where every young American would be forced to relinquish their freedom and "serve their country" — much similar to the Hitler Youth, a paramilitary national service organization of the German Nazi Party.
In a recent article for Reason magazine, Barton Hinkle wrote:
Voices outside the administration … fret that it is not being forceful enough. In a recent Washington Post column, Dana Milbank advised the president to emulate the ruthless tactics of JFK. Milbank recounts how Roger Blough, chairman of U.S. Steel, raised prices in defiance of the president's wishes. "'You have made a terrible mistake,' Kennedy told him. Subpoenas flew, FBI agents marched into steel executives' offices, and Kennedy spoke about IRS agents examining 'hotel bills and nightclub expenses [that] would be hard to get by the weekly wives' bridge group out at the country club.'"
Similar to Milbank’s assertions, the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman has also dabbled with the notion that the American people should be ruled by a governing authority that is more authoritative. In observing the healthcare and environmental debates in Congress, Friedman wrote an article in 2009 about how China’s one-party autocracy is more effective and more just than America’s two-party democracy.
"One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks," Mr. Friedman wrote, "but when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people … it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies to move a society forward." The Times columnist went on to chronicle China’s "critically important policies," and its commitment to overtaking the United States in electric cars, solar power, wind power, and other forms of energy-efficient mediums.
Indeed, such government action and media propaganda, which litter American society, load inestimable weight on citizens’ God-given rights — which are liberties that the Founders hoped would endure for centuries to come. And while Congress still endures gridlock, many self-serving politicians on both sides of the political aisle still agree on one thing: The American people are not capable of functioning without government assistance."
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/congress/10000-the-bipartisan-war-on-american-freedom
Good article.
I'd say that the system of checks and balances is supposed to be the Congress vs. the Supreme Court vs. the white House, and not the Democrats vs. the Republicans.
But neither party seems to believe in a real government of, by, and for the people any more.
They just disagree on how best to take power and what to do with it.
I'd say that the system of checks and balances is supposed to be the Congress vs. the Supreme Court vs. the white House, and not the Democrats vs. the Republicans.
But neither party seems to believe in a real government of, by, and for the people any more.
They just disagree on how best to take power and what to do with it.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Statism is a system of institutionalized violence and perpetual civil war. It leaves men no choice but to fight to seize political power—to rob or be robbed, to kill or be killed. When brute force is the only criterion of social conduct, and unresisting surrender to destruction is the only alternative, even the lowest of men, even an animal—even a cornered rat—will fight. There can be no peace within an enslaved nation.
...
The degree of statism in a country’s political system, is the degree to which it breaks up the country into rival gangs and sets men against one another. When individual rights are abrogated, there is no way to determine who is entitled to what; there is no way to determine the justice of anyone’s claims, desires, or interests. The criterion, therefore, reverts to the tribal concept of: one’s wishes are limited only by the power of one’s gang.
...
The human characteristic required by statism is docility, which is the product of hopelessness and intellectual stagnation. Thinking men cannot be ruled; ambitious men do not stagnate.
That is a much better explanation for the source of partisanship than the kitschy article posted in the OP....
The degree of statism in a country’s political system, is the degree to which it breaks up the country into rival gangs and sets men against one another. When individual rights are abrogated, there is no way to determine who is entitled to what; there is no way to determine the justice of anyone’s claims, desires, or interests. The criterion, therefore, reverts to the tribal concept of: one’s wishes are limited only by the power of one’s gang.
...
The human characteristic required by statism is docility, which is the product of hopelessness and intellectual stagnation. Thinking men cannot be ruled; ambitious men do not stagnate.
while this may appear in the dictionary...
..I do not believe it applies to the American political reality at least as stated.
life as we know it is changing constantly so to think that one could just somehow deny the change makes no sense.
I believe that what is missing in that defintion is thought process utilized to address changes. One can be that thought process used over time, the conservative one which is based in principle or the alternative to use some other means of an adhoc nature.
my opinion clearly.
No, that doesn't make sense, I agree.
Yet, people seem reluctant to accept any change at times.
Clearly.
So, how would you define the term "conservative"?
have to ask 'why' at those times. if its based on principle then there you have it.
a way of thinking based on proven principles of right and wrong.
Which is a way of saying, "I'm a conservative, so I'm always on the side of right." Pretty difficult position to support, it seems to me.
On the issue of waterboarding, is the conservative position that the USA is above that sort of thing, or is it that the end justifies the means?
its not a question of whether I am right but whether the action in question is or not. but I suspect you already knew that.
neither. there is nothing to be above or below here. gathering intelligence is a requirement in wartime situations so if you've chosen to go to war then the thing you want most is to finish it off as quickly as possible. intel is key to that.
Correct. The action in question is correct if it is based in reality, and, as you said, on correct principles.
Now, just how do we determine what correct principles are?
Yes, if you've chosen to go to war... chosen to go to war? Is it a conservative ideal that we can choose to go to war, and under what circumstances?
My opinion is that we go to war when there is no other choice, and only then, and when we do it is all out war, no holds barred, go in to win and utterly defeat the enemy.
Much like WWII.
Otherwise, we don't go to war at all.
Is that conservative, or is it liberal?
Alias
Well-Known Member
Saving American lives is worth putting water up a terrorist's nose. What do you think?
nothing new about right and wrong
you always choose to do it. you do it when then consequences of failing to do so are worse than going to war.
no holds barred ? yet you have issues with waterboarding. without consistency its liberal, with it, its principled and therefore conservative.
but there is something very new about people agreeing on what is right and what is wrong.
and there is something very new about absolute, black and white right and wrong.
Is it wrong to steal?
Even if the alternative is to allow a child to starve?
You don't choose to do it. You go to war when you are attacked and have no choice but to fight back.
The issues with torture (or "enhanced interrogation", if you prefer) is that it was counterproductive, and that there was a whole lot more than waterboarding done, just not acknowledged.
Alias
Well-Known Member
What do you mean by "counterproductive"? How can obtaining information that saves lives be "counterproductive"?
Werbung:
Dr.Who
Well-Known Member
The term conservative clearly does not mean embracing values of days gone by any more than the term liberal means embracing liberty.
Many of the conservatives of today would be called progressives were they to speak their ideas in 1959. And the liberals are the least promoters of liberty that we have today.
The terms today merely refer to a collection of platforms that are embraced by a group of people living under an umbrella term.
The conservatism of today is still leaps and bounds better than liberalism of today but it too is flawed.
We need to examine a world view and systematically hone it to be a sensible and coherent philosophy based on principles that work. The best chance we have of that is to take the best of conservatism and constitutionalism and libertarianism and a tiny bit of liberalism and put them together, not as a hodgepodge, as an integrated work.
Similar threads
