Tuesday, February 2, 2016


Evangelicals gave Cruz a victory in Iowa, which is a disaster You are getting close to the basics of politics. Politics represents the various views related to social organization. It has long been my contention that these views are innate and manifested in our feeble attempts to describe them. We have shaped and reduced these views into two groups under the simplistic label of two political parties. With that thought in mind, in addition I attempt to subdivide political parties. Although it gets a little complicated, all society is divided up by central or core beliefs. In addition top those core beliefs, we all understand that within each political party there are extremes. Everyone likes numbers. My guess is that those who are with the core belief make up 60% of the total while those on the extremes make up 20% each of the extremes. In one sense, the political parties form a continuum. The extreme of one end of the party are very much like the opposite extreme of the other party. For example, we use the term liberal republican to signify a Republican who tends to belief as a Democrat; thus, forming a political circle with a place for everyone. This may sound a bit strange to those who claim to be apolitical or to not to believe in either party, but one of the messages in this blog post is that no such person exists, short of being brain dead. That is what innate means. As their core belief, Republicans want to be in control to benefit themselves as individuals while Democrats want to be in control to benefit all the people, which we can describe as being altruistic. To be in control means something different to Republican from what it means to a Democrat. I know it is irrational for a person to think this way, but Republicans want all the benefits of society and want laws that everyone has to follow but them. On the other end of the spectrum, as a group, Democrats want to share the wealth so everything equally including power and wealth. History tells us that all governments based on these extremes have failed miserably. The innate sense is that of greed, which makes it awkward to discuss because to refer to someone as greedy is demeaning even though both Democrats and Republicans are greedy. What is being discussed is the degree to which a person greedy. An extreme Democrat will say they will sacrifice everything to help others, and under extremely rare circumstances, this may be the case. At the other extreme, there are those who demand control of all resources whether needed or not that is regardless of the needs of others. People who think this way do not consider other; others simply do not exist. Ayn Rand’s philosophy is a variant of this thinking. Nonetheless, because the extremes of either of these conflicting philosophies are so irrational, they are never part of open debate in this fundamental form. In democracy, we have a complicated scheme of government in which we learned to compromise between these two extremes. We often hear that people in Washington. Just as in political debate, we do not want to compromise; however, that is what people do everyday. The way we do this is to disguise the extremes in rhetoric; however nuanced the core beliefs might be, they are there. For example, when a friend posts on Facebook in the form of a challenge as follows; “my point is that the social agenda has come with a great price and the middle class is the victim. .7% [sic] growth is an inch away from a recession. On another point, I came across this quote, which I agree with. "Freedom is hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate." ~Hubert Humphrey But HHH's opinion is that both parties will listen, grow, and learn from one another. How are we doing with this Jerry?” I find this post greatly disturbing for a number of reasons. The principle reason is that his post was in retaliation to my condemning Evangelicals for wanting to replace the Constitution with Biblical Law. His use of the expression “social agenda” means the one who posted this intends to refer explicitly to handout to the lazy. This in his mind means Social Security, Affordable Care Act, food stamps, A For Dependent Children, and Children’s Health Insurance Program, (CHIP) and paying taxes are the “great price” people are paying for these things. The fact that he refers to paying taxes for something the people want and need makes them “victims”. This seems counter to what people tell me the New Testament says people want, although I must add; I have very little idea of what the bible says. I would like to remind the person who posted this challenge to me that my mother worked for Hubert H Humphrey and that I knew him and talked to him on several occasions. There is no question in my mind that Social Security, Affordable Care Act, food stamps, Aid For Dependent Children, and Children’s Health Insurance Program, (CHIP) are freedoms “ hammered out on the anvil of discussion, dissent, and debate." In addition, the “Happy Warrior” was or would have been the man with the hammer standing at the anvil. My answer is that I am doing just find living under the constitutional and statuary law. URL: firetreepub.blogspot.com Comments Invited and not moderated

No comments:

Post a Comment