God bless the new President of the United States!
Now let us do all we can do to help him uphold his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States! Let those of us who pray, pray for him, and let all of us ensure that he hears the voice of the American people on every issue of moment in the hope that he will be able to govern wisely.
Throughout the campaign, Senator McCain kept repeating that “nothing is inevitable.” Well, of course, but even though African Americans are still a minority, almost everyone of them became an immediate committed campaign worker for Obama. And why not? If Guiliani had gotten the nod, I admit that I would have felt a little prouder, a little more committed knowing that a New York Italian had a chance at the presidency. How grand it is that an African American is at last president! I only wish that he had been a Conservative. Perhaps he will come to his senses (ha ha) . We will surely put the politics of race behind us now, especially since Obama will not be spared the sharpest criticism , for he is in the hot seat. The Republicans will no doubt find African Americans to push to the top of the Party, so that they may throw the biggest rocks. This can only be good for the nation.
At the same time, we can look at our opponent’s party organization with awe. It was brilliant. There are so many lessons we can learn from it, and commit ourselves to a return to a party organization where we actually ask lower ranks what they think, and give them a real opportunity to contribute and commit, as the Obama organization so obviously has. They are not going away now, having tasted the sweetness of real victory, so we have no choice.
Will we come together as a nation? I doubt it, not yet. It seems to me that we have never been more divided than we are today. The policies of President Obama, as he has explained them, are anathema to many of us, myself most definitely included. Yet to the extent that he operates within the bounds of the Constitution, we must support him in anyway we can as we watch his administration play out. This is an essential component to any democracy, a component that has been lacking for decades in our country. After the debate is over and the vote is taken, the minority throws what support it can behind the majority for the good of the whole. We give their programs a chance to develop, to work or not work, until the time when they may be fairly criticized and the debate begun anew. I will encourage my own party to do just that, even as I work to help rebuild it, and expel the factions that are, in my decidedly biased opinion, responsible for its defeat.
Lou,
I’m curious, what would be a description of a type of “faction” that is “responsible for [the] defeat” of the Party?
It would all depend on which “faction” you were in now wouldn’t it? But let me say that too many factions does not a party make. What disturbs me most is the lack of process at the lower levels. I believe if we bring discussion, debate, resolution and the vote back to the county executive committees we will arrive at a much clearer picture of what we want to be as a party.
Lou,
Why not just join the Constitution Party? I checked out their platform and it struck me as one that might (?) appeal to you…
I do like the Constitution party, but you know, Mark I wore a Nixon button back in the fourth grade when he was running against JFK. I had my first Manhattan at a Republican fundraiser when I was fourteen. Republican woman have been berry berry good to ME throughout the years, and I don’t want to let them down now. I am the parliamentarian of the Republican Liberty Caucus, what we like to call the “Republican” wing of the Republican party, and now that the moderates have thoroughly screwed it up, I was wondering if we might have it back, please.
Besides, I expect any day now the N.R.A. will be changing its name to the National Republican Army, and by Golly, I sure would like to be part of the political wing, you betcha.
Lou,
You and I have discussed this before and, while you are not an anarcho-capitalist such as myself, I have always wondered why you don’t join- like I have- the Libertarian Party.
I can’t understand why you continue to defend the indefensible. The Republican Party (if it ever did) does not stand, neither in principle nor practice, for the right to life, liberty, and private property. Isn’t it time to move on?
I don’t see any reasonable compatibility between the tenets of the Constitution Party and–what I understand to be–the basic theory of libertarianism.
I agree. Only, I am not sure Lou is not a political libertarian.
Gosh, all this attention, it must be the new tie.
Like Aaron, I wish there were absolutely no Government.
Especially this morning. But I just can’t see my way clear.
So, I prefer a very strong local and state government, and a weak federal government. A non-interventionist foreign policy, heavily focused on free trade with other nations. A really big stick held unobtrusively behind my back.
Hence I like the U.S. Constitution, and would do whatever I could to bring the country strictly back under its rule. This is not to say I don’t mind amendments. This is what I am about now, and intend to see it happen, or die trying.
I still have hopes that the Republican Party can be set to rights, especially now that it is bent over in the corner there, holding its groin…
Lou,
Is your preference for “no government” (or the near complete deferment to “local” government) built on the same reasoning as Dominionists, Reconstructionists or people like Paul Weyrich, i.e. they seem to desire a complete weakening of the government institutions (institutions which have become “morally corrupt” due to the loss of the “culture war”) in order to replace public institutions with their own private institutions?
Or is it motivated by classical libertarian principles like Aaron appears to endorse?
Lou,
It is not that I merely “wish” there were no government (though, I do wish that), rather, I find that government is, (1) morally unjustifiable, and, (2) pragmatically unnecessary- counterproductive even. But we will leave this argument for another time…
I find many of your sentiments appealing, Lou, but I can’t legitimate (even though I have tried) any governmental entity, to include the state and local flavors.
Perhaps I was wrong about your libertarian leanings…
As many of our conversations have concluded over the years Aaron “The best form of government is a monarchy, and the worst form of government is a monarchy.” I think you desire a kingship, as you well deserve.That poses quite a juxtaposition, you would deem yourself unnessisary wouldn’t you. I agree with Lou. We the people need to be “We the People” and support our president, as long as he supports our constitution.
I am looking to secure only a small area, say Duval County or someplace like it. I would prefer Westchester County, but I can’t afford to move back, and Mrs. Rose wouldn’t go.
Now I have certain opinions on how things should be done in my county, but I know that I don’t know it all, and I am sure that others in my county do not either. I definitely know that people in D.C. do not know. So I think the best idea is for my neighbors and I to discuss, in an orderly fashion how things should be, and once we decide, to delegate responsibility for different matters to those people in the county who seem to have a talent for them.
In this way I can be sure that I will be able to move about freely in my range without having go about with a company of ugly armed men. Instead all men, and women, and children can move about freely and without fear. This makes it easier to get things done for the good, like having e-lectric lighting and getting the trash removed.
As for matters relating to the whole state of Florida, I know that the fellows up there are as big a bunch of idiots as the good ol’ boys down here, myself included. One need only ask their spouses. What to do?
Well I think the best thing to do is for my neighbors and I to discuss what should be done about state matters, in an orderly fashion and after we reach a consensus by vote, to delegate a few men and women to represent us up at the state house. Their job would be to carry our opinions and desires and to eloquently present them. Our opinions you understand not their own, at least most of the time.
Now, about the nation. If I learned anything these past few years, it is that Harvard and Yale seem to be schools for the mentally challenged. Not criticizing here, you understand, none of the Ivy league seems to measure up, but when you take a close look you see that 99% of the people on the face of the earth are no better. Here and there you will meet a Reagan or a Ghandhi or a Belushi, but the rest are mostly second rate. I am certainly willing to include myself in that group, and you too. How then shall we run the nation?
I think the best thing to do is for my neighbors and I to discuss what should be done, and to send a few men and women to represent primarily our views , and very occasionally their own, to Congress. Then we should find the biggest stuffed shirt we can find and elect her Senator, but make sure that our party representatives, elected by us from among our neighbors, have their foot so far up that Senator’s ass that she never would dream of making a move on her own without consulting everyone she could in her own state, including her chauffeur.
The solution is Democracy, the Democratic Republic, and as educated an electorate as we can provide. For the past fifty years we have really fallen down on the job when it comes to the educated part especially educating people about exactly how an Democratic Republic works.
We have abdicated our debating and decision making responsibilities to an political elite that supposed “knows better”. This has to stop now. It is time to reassert our rights to democratic process at the lowest levels, and with a strong resolve decide that there will be hell to pay if our local elected representatives, partly leaders, and congressmen are not responsive to it.
Lincoln was quoting Matthew 12:25: “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand”.
There is great danger for a country to be as diametrically opposed as we have been for the past few decades. Add to this the recent financial pressures and the possibility of collapse is increased. We have to learn to discuss and talk to each other, and find common ground, with our neighbor first, and then in the legislature, or armed conflict is likely to result. Certainly if we cannot agree on policy, we can agree on a democratic process. We can agree that no one has all the answers. We can agree to discuss and debate and vote, and for a time to support the majority to see if there ideas work. On non-negotiable issues, the right to life, the right to free speech, the right to personal defense, the right to privacy and integrity of our persons, the right to property and the fruits of our labor, about these we must continually share our ideas and feelings, dispassionately if possible, passionately if we must. But we must do so in a spirit of respect for the other no matter how flawed we both may be.
It’s hard to see how Reagan can avoid the qualification of “mentally challenged”. If we’re looking to an ideal, we should look at Thomas Jefferson.
I have serious qualms with the characterization that the “political elite” that governs this country bases their authority on the supposition that it “knows better”. Last I checked, the Republican Party (of Ronald Reagan, GWB, Tom DeLay, Jim Bunning, Tom Coburn, Jim DeMint, Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann, etc.) which has been in charge for a majority of the last 28 years, EXPLICITLY bases its authority to govern on the shamelessly folksy, ignorant, anti-intellectual, dogmatic traditionalism of the “common man” (or the “real Americans” as the current phraseology goes) and not on any “elite” base of “knowledge”.
For that matter, if one were to be governed at all (and I know you prefer not to be–and I am partially sympathetic), wouldn’t one want to be governed by those more knowledgeable than oneself? And if the higher institutions of the “Ivy League” do not legitimate themselves epistemically (admittedly there are problems with legacy admissions), then who does? If you don’t trust a Harvard man (or Princeton man, or Yale man, etc.), then what criteria do you use to grant epistemic authority (and who gets it)?
That’s OK about Reagan, Mark. I only included Ghandhi to be polite, I am glad we both seem to agree about Belushi. I do not grant epistemic authority at all. I prefer servants of the people ruled by the people. A House that is constantly reigned in by constituents, Senators that are constantly held in check by state legislators (the reason we should repeal the 17th amendment) a President held in check by the Congress, and a Supreme Court held in check by having to adhere to a literal interpretation of the Constitution and the law.
There are none more knowledgeable than myself when it comes to deciding how things shall run in my county, or how my country should be governed, only people with different opinions. It is not difficult to do these things, this is politics we are talking about not medicine, not sailing ships or actual military tactics.
The only thing that is required is the ablity to read and write and listen, to one’s constituents, and to each other and oh yes, to be a person of honor and character. To sincerely want to put the country and the citizen first, before power and money.
Here and there we may need specialists, but not as legislators, any more than we need specialists as journalists, or poets.