Here’s what I think.... The elections of 1980 and 1984 were actually what they call “deviating elections.” I believe that people (human beings, not Democrats or Republicans) actually favor the typical Democratic, moralistic sociological perspective (people’s theoretical operation). People also tend naturally to be afraid of change or the unknown or “unmet” in general, which creates a natural conservatism (people’s practical operation). Ronald Reagan was very human and yet conservative at the same time, subtly progressive in many ways but nothing “too” risky, and had the Republican/conservative level of organization behind him (a valid preference) that soothes people’s fears of losing control, and not “having enough.”
Reagan was not a Republican like Nixon was a Republican, or even like the Bushes were Republicans. I suspect that has something to do with why Bush Sr. wasn’t reelected to a 2nd term; and the only reason Bush Jr. was reelected was because of that inherent fear of change and a lack of solid evidence that Kerry could do anything notably different, much less better.
It explains the howling over President Obama’s policy implementations to date, even though a quick look back at history shows enormous similarities between his and FDR’s first 100 days in office, which were successful enough and popular enough overall to get him reelected another three times after that.
This shows how right James Madison was in Federalist #10 about the whims of the masses. They (the masses) are generally possessed of good intentions, but filled with fears and there-derived passions that necessitate the need for those smarter, calmer, and more courageous to hold positions of authority. The heads of the governing must always be up, as the heads of the governed are almost always down.
01 July 2009
21 June 2009
I call it a "cheer-ku"
Pride, Pride, needs a guide
Nashville doesn't think outside
Our cause nullified
Nashville doesn't think outside
Our cause nullified
07 May 2009
06 May 2009
Argument
Argument is good for the soul; or at least a little good, old-fashioned debate can be. And perhaps not even good for the soul, necessarily, but definitely good for the thought structure. "Oh no," you might say, "conflict makes me so uncomfortable." Me, too, gives me the hives. Then why seek out an argument? Well, to find out you're right, of course. Or wrong.
You must test your beliefs, your views (or at least be open to having them tested for you), to know if they're worth having, or, for that matter, to know if they really are your beliefs. Argument--sincere, respectful argument--is the light to which you hold up a belief, like you hold up a piece of glass to check for flaws. It's scrutiny invited and welcomed by those who know to place less value on "belief" than on "truth" of the kind which transcends experience, points of view, and opinions; and by those wise enough to know how much they don't know, and what wonderful opportunities such a position has to offer.
If your belief holds up against argument, not only just holds up, really, but deepens, hardens to judgment, and is able to genuinely defeat the criticisms and challenges laid out in its opposition, then it becomes more and more likely that it is, in fact, the truth. At the very least, it becomes a more comfortable belief, with the hope of someday being accepted as truth, an outside creation delivered into your perspective by grace and your willingness and existing independently of any "belief" whatsoever.
Such a profound gift, to be truly appreciated, warrants being clarified, questioned, and refined, worn the way you wear the plaid, flannel shirt that belonged to your grandfather, until the elbows are threadbare but always holding, and the soft, perfectly weathered fabric feels indistinguishable from your own skin. It is of you and for you. Whatever nugget you're privileged to uncover, as beneficial as it might be to others who seek your direction, is never to be used as a weapon, nor should it be expected to serve as the dial in anyone's moral compass but your own.
You must test your beliefs, your views (or at least be open to having them tested for you), to know if they're worth having, or, for that matter, to know if they really are your beliefs. Argument--sincere, respectful argument--is the light to which you hold up a belief, like you hold up a piece of glass to check for flaws. It's scrutiny invited and welcomed by those who know to place less value on "belief" than on "truth" of the kind which transcends experience, points of view, and opinions; and by those wise enough to know how much they don't know, and what wonderful opportunities such a position has to offer.
If your belief holds up against argument, not only just holds up, really, but deepens, hardens to judgment, and is able to genuinely defeat the criticisms and challenges laid out in its opposition, then it becomes more and more likely that it is, in fact, the truth. At the very least, it becomes a more comfortable belief, with the hope of someday being accepted as truth, an outside creation delivered into your perspective by grace and your willingness and existing independently of any "belief" whatsoever.
Such a profound gift, to be truly appreciated, warrants being clarified, questioned, and refined, worn the way you wear the plaid, flannel shirt that belonged to your grandfather, until the elbows are threadbare but always holding, and the soft, perfectly weathered fabric feels indistinguishable from your own skin. It is of you and for you. Whatever nugget you're privileged to uncover, as beneficial as it might be to others who seek your direction, is never to be used as a weapon, nor should it be expected to serve as the dial in anyone's moral compass but your own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)