Category Archives: Political philosophy

AT RANDOM

Topsy turvy
The dictionary says, in a democracy the majority rules. In a republic
the people choose representatives to rule for them.

Every poll shows a clear majority do not want any of the proposed health care bills. Democrats named their party after the concept of democracy. Therefore, it should follow, that in as much as a majority of the people oppose Obamacare, the party of democracy should be bound by their creed to oppose Obamacare also.

Republicans, on the other hand, named their party after the concept of representatives who are authorized to make decisions for the citizens. Once elected, they are not bound by their creed to follow the will of the people on any particular issue.  It follows then, that if one of the parties is taking a stance of its own, apart from the expressed will of the majority, it should be the party of republicanism.

Could it be that the names got mixed up at the hospital?

Some aphorisms
You cannot help the poor, by destroying the rich.
You cannot strengthen the weak, by weakening the strong.
You cannot further the brotherhood of man, by inciting class hatred.
You cannot build character and courage, by taking away man’s initiative and independence.
William J. H. Boetcker (1873 – 1962)

I don’t know who Boetcker was but he obviously was not a Democrat.

From Thomas Jefferson
[If you are thinking Congress is a lot of talk without action,] how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send 150 lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour?  That 150 lawyers should do business together ought not to be expected.

Let us pray
The Bible exhorts us to pray. Let us pray for President Obama according to the dictates of Psalm 109 verse 8 (108:8 in the New Catholic version)

BILL OF RIGHTS

The Supreme Court is about to hear a case on gun control. The Second Amendment gave citizens the right to bear arms. The first ten amendments to the US Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. The case at issue will bring the entire Bill of Rights into the picture.

The narrow issue is whether states and cities can restrict gun control without violating the Second Amendment. One side argues that the Bill of Rights was intended to limit Federal government and does not apply to state and local government. The opposition will counter with the tenet that state and local law cannot contravene Federal law.

If the first argument prevails logic follows that the entire Bill of Rights only prevails at the will of each state. The ten amendments get their name from their function, a list of citizens rights that cannot be abrogated by government.

If you have read A Conflict of Visions or even just the review, you know where each side stands and the core reason why. The Left trusts leaders of government more than it trusts the citizens. They favor more power to our leaders. The Constitution limits the power of our leaders. The Right supports the limitation because it recognizes that all leaders are not good and wants a strong Constitution to protect America from ever drifting into control by a despot.

This case is about a lot more than gun control. It is about government control.

Bob B

Bookmark and Share

JEFFERSON AND MY MOTHER

Is your path occasionally crossed by an obnoxious zealot? Perhaps it is a friend, relative, or co-worker who asks for your opinion then snarls at your answer. Thomas Jefferson left some advice for you in a letter to his grandson on November 24, 1796.

“In the fevered state of our country, no good can ever result from any attempt to set one of these fiery zealots to rights, either in fact or principle. They are determined as to the facts they will believe, and the opinions on which they will act. Get by them, therefore, as you would by an angry bull; it is not for a man of sense to dispute the road with such an animal.”

My mother’s advice was, don’t argue with a drunk. Same concept.

So much fuss is made about political acrimony today one could easily get the idea it was never so in the past. But our very nation was born out of political acrimony. The Tea Party, the one in 1773, was a manifestation of political acrimony between the King and the people.

If you are set upon with offensive words, be not dismayed. If you are charged with same, be not intimidated. For of such has it always been and forever will it so remain.

Click this link for a short video of the Bolivian Parliament in action and I mean action.

Bob B

Bookmark and Share

FULL OF BLUSTER

The nuclear option and the filibuster brouhaha – pay it no attention. It’s just routine politics. Remember, these guys are mostly lawyers so they argue a lot. The “nuclear option” was a Republican bid to render the filibuster to eternal oblivion by deeming it unconstitutional. It is a thorn to the majority and a tool for the minority. Republicans were the majority at the time so they sought to remove the thorn and the Democrats argued to keep the tool. When the tool changes hands the advocates change sides but the argument remains the same.

The most famous filibuster took place when Sen Robert Byrd (D)WV stood for 14 straight hours on the Senate floor reading portions of the Bible and his mothers cooking recipes all in an effort to block the the civil rights bill. At that time a speaker had to hold the floor in order to maintain the filibuster.

Since then some senators have questioned the need to learn how to make grits and gravy before voting on a vital issue. Others felt a Senator should not be required to stand for hours just to obstruct legislation. So they changed the rules. I believe all you need do now is stand up, say “I am filibustering” and sit down. I think they got the idea from Japanese workers who would work their butts off at the job while wearing a button that said “we are on strike”.

Politics isn’t always serious. Sometimes it’s just silly.

Bob B

Bookmark and Share

AMERICAN GENEROSITY

2009 – Recession – Unemployment 10% – Charitable giving 300 Billion dollars. Some claim America is the most generous nation in the world. It probably is true.

Reasons – Capitalism, Conservatism, Freedom.

Capitalism has created more prosperity for more people than any other system, thus enabling greater giving at all levels of society. Capitalism is a system that fosters the desire in many of those who have created great wealth to want to give something back to the system. Socialism does not.

Conservatism is a philosophy of small government and self reliance. Where there is a need, the conservative mindset is how can I help, rather than waiting for the government to help. And we are a nation of conservatives. A 2009 Gallop poll found conservatism to be the most widely held political ideology by a 50% margin of self declared conservatives over self declared liberals

Freedom, freedom to help when, where and what you choose without government interference encourages the wealthy to establish charitable foundations to further a favorite cause. Andrew Carnegie wanted to see a library in every town in America and he made it happen. Bill Gates wants to see malaria eradicated from the face of the earth and is giving millions toward that pet goal.

Capitalist America has given extensive aid to Haiti in their need. Socialist Venezuela has given nothing. The free market system is the greatest generator of the means and inclination for private giving.

Bob B

WHOSE SOCIALISM?

Obama is a socialist. Obama is not a socialist. So the sides argue.

Each side is debating on a different premise and neither seems to realize it. The Left sees socialism as that form of government represented by Sweden or Germany and argues for it. The Right sees socialism as it is exemplified by Venezuela, Cuba or the USSR and argues against it. Resolution cannot occur as long as the two sides continue to argue past each other.

A recent Rasmussen poll reported that 47% of Americans either think socialism is better than capitalism or are unsure which is better. Liberals heaved a ho-hum, conservatives expressed alarm. Rasmussen asked one question. The respondents each interpreted the question differently and answered accordingly. Conservatives would do well to realize 47% of Americans are not leaning in Hugo Chavez’s direction, Sean Penn notwithstanding. Liberals would do well to realize the Right fears socialism because it is aware of how many times socialism has brought totalitarianism and tyranny to the people.

The Right and the Left have been with us since Aristotle and Plato. We will never agree. But we might learn to understand each other if we only had the book of life open to the same page.

Bob B

Bookmark and Share

IT’S LINCOLNS BIRTHDAY

From Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall — but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one thing or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new — North as well as South.”

You can read the entire speech here.

Those who would re-write history like to cite the House Divided speech as foundation for their assertion that Lincoln was ambivalent about slavery, that his concern was saving the union not ending slavery. However, Lincoln’s response to Douglas’ speech puts the lie to any such notion.

Those arguments that are made, [by Lincoln’s opposing Democrats] that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What are these arguments? They are the arguments that kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of king-craft were of this class; they always bestrode the necks of the people, not that they wanted to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. That is their argument, and this argument of the Judge [Douglas] is the same old serpent that says you work and I eat, you toil and I will enjoy the fruits of it.

Turn in whatever way you will—whether it come from the mouth of a King, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is all the same old serpent, and I hold if that course of argumentation that is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we should not care about this, should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man?

If that declaration is not the truth, let us get the Statute book, in which we find it and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it! [Voices—“me” “no one,” &c.] If it is not true let us tear it out! [cries of “no, no,”] Let us stick to it then. [cheers], Let us stand firmly by it then. [Applause.]

The text of the Lincoln/Douglas debates can be found here.

Bob B
Bookmark and Share

PROPAGANDIC, THE NOUN

If you have read Orwell’s “1984” you will remember NewSpeak and see propagandic as a variation of it.  If you haven’t read the book, you should.  In “1984 ” any history that reflected badly on The Party was torn from books and records and thrown down the Memory Hole by the Ministry of Truth.  Everything adverse to The Party was changed so that all truth would reflect favorably on the government.  Propagandic is the Newspeak of the real world.

While NewSpeak is a whole language, propagandic is simply a word or phrase employed to deflect a truth or cover up an adverse image, often changing  the image to one directly opposite from the real truth.    Totalitarian regimes tend to apply propagandic in the naming of their lands.  Nations where the people have the least voice in government often name their countries People’s Republics.  In this context “People’s” is propagandic.  The Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea is not a democracy, not of the people and not a republic.  It is a dictatorship presuming to hide its true nature under a blanket of propagandic.  The country we call “South” Korea is The Republic of Korea, no propagandic there.

Propagandic is spoken everywhere but it is most prolific in the political world.  Lawmakers apply it to hide the real purpose of a proposed law.  You can guess the true objective of some legislation simply by reversing their titles. For example, The Employee Free Choice Act is a bill that would limit free choice by ending secret balloting and open the door to intimidation.  If the name were changed to The End of Employee Free Choice Act it would be de-propagandized,  revealing the true purpose of the bill. Here is another example.  To help jump start a slow economy, former President Bush announced tax “rebates”.  The payments went to everyone including those who had not paid any taxes.  It wasn’t a rebate at all; it was a cash distribution.  But the idea of a rebate was more palatable to voters than “cash distribution”.  “Rebate” was propagandic.

Some propagandic becomes so standard in the language that its influence on thought is completely subliminal.  From its beginning, America has operated on an economic system whose philosophic core is the right of its citizens to exchange goods and services freely and to own private property including the means of production.

However, in his famous book, Das Kapital, Karl Marx labeled this system Kapitalism, which one dictionary translates into English as “assets in the form of money”.  Thus a system whose foundation is freedom, ownership rights and equal opportunity for everyone is known by a word that means a system based solely on wealth.  It puts the cart before the horse.  Capitalism creates wealth; wealth does not create capitalism.  “Capitalism” is propagandic because it creates the false impression that capitalism is of, by and for only the wealthy.

Propagandic is a subtle and devious tool used to manipulate your mind.  Be very aware of it lest you fall prey to it.

UPDATE
The very beginning of this video is a brief tribute to Andrew Breitbart.  The rest of the video is about words.  It’s about how the Left’s application of words is often dead opposite to their original meaning to make their agenda sound more palatable.  It is a good companion to this post.

ZINN NO MORE

Howard Zinn noted historian 1922 – 2010.

Credit must be given to this most famous historian for articulating his agenda, an agenda many historians of his persuasion shared but dare not acknowledge. In the nature of a true believer Howard Zinn made clear his belief that the first duty of a historian is to influence the future. He held to the idea that a better world is a higher goal than truth.

Howard would likely deny that, but the sincerity in his denial would be grounded on a different definition of truth. Broadly distributed imbalance, a Zinn hallmark, is deception trading as truth.

“What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives.… this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction.”

Consider these quotes. “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”. “There is no flag large enough to cover the shame of killing innocent people.” There may be truth in those quotations, but truth is sacrificed to agenda by the intended inferences.

Howard Zinn has been highly admired by the Left and little known by the Right. His teachings have shaped the beliefs of students for years. I recommend reading Ron Radosh’s post “America the Awful” at Minding the Campus.

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2010/01/america_the_awfulhoward_zinns.html

THE GREAT DIVIDE

When Obama refers to “social justice” he is lamenting the truth that some people are better off than others. There are the very rich and the very poor and that to him is the great injustice. Obama, I think sincerely, seeks to eliminate that inequality,an inequality of status.

Opposing thinkers do not use the term “social justice”. But if they did it would be defined as equal treatment. To create equal status you must take from the haves and give to the have-nots. This is not equal treatment. It requires force or coercion against one individual and charity to another without regard to merit. It is a great injustice.

Equal status vs. equal treatment, that is the Great Divide.

“A society that puts equality- in the sense of equality of outcome – ahead of freedom will end up with neither equality nor freedom. The use of force to achieve equality will destroy freedom, and the force, introduced for good purposes, will end up in the hands of people who use it to promote their own interests”   Milton Friedman

Bob B