MITCHETHEKID EXPLAINS IT ALL
A daring post from a Liberal commenter both here and at Blogs4Victory. This should be any Progressive’s first read this morning:
Thanks for mentioning our conversations Cluster. I appreciate it. I think that Amazona is correct in saying that social issues should not be the focus of any government, let alone one based upon conservative precepts. To take that statement to its logical conclusion, we all should be libertarian, as long as we do not devolve into anarchy. Unfortunately this is not the case. There are many, to many IMO, that are obsessed with social issues and use the government and it’s law making and law enforcing power to enact both restrictions and allowances. I am not a constitutional expert. I have a DAR manual that I look at from time to time but mostly for a point of clarification. I agree that it is a brilliantly written document and that the authors had enough forethought and enlightenment to be cognizant of the future. But it is also a product of it’s time, written by human beings who were every bit as complicated and flawed and brilliant and tragic as anyone living today. The essence of all words, as a conveyance of thinking, is metaphorical. (A word itself.) And as such, the words are subject to interpretation. An argument can be made that the “intent” that Amazona mentioned, is nothing more than learned guessing. (Emphasis on ned in learned.) One of the functions of the Supreme Court, is to interpret the meaning of the language that comprises the Constitution, by way of a shared consensus of opinion between a quorum of justices.
But in a representative government, if a social issue is a concern, then it does become subject to legislation. This has been a fact throughout human history. We do not live in a vacuum (no pun intended towards those who doubt my aviator skills) and in 2013 there are over 300 million people who live in the US. In 1776 there were ~ 2.5 and were primarily agrarian.
I think that conservative principals are the best choice where the issue(s) are economic in nature. But I do not disparage a degreed economist who happens to have a more fundamental understanding of the dynamics of a multi-trillion economy and how it interacts not only with those that have a dollar in their pocket, but now amongst the entire planet as well.
As I see it, it is not the educational system that is to blame, or the inherent bias that all people and businesses possess that is the root of the problems conservatism is experiencing, it is the behavior, the claims and the reporting of it. A few examples exist on this blog alone. Retired Spook going on about transformation. Society, culture and politics are fluid, not static.Please provide some specific examples Retired Spook, of how our country is suffering from the progressive nature of time and the changing attitudes of the population. There are very few examples that my feeble brain can come up with that verify your conviction that an uber left even exists, let alone paint with such broad strokes this “intense dislike of how America was founded.” Just how was it founded? Not why, but how. And why do you stereotype? Not all “liberals” are America hating. In fact, most people desire a better America, not a worse one.
Amazona’s use of inflammatory adjectives as a method of demeaning and undermining alternative points of view. And her obsession with spelling, grammar and punctuation. (I write the way I speak, commas substituting for pauses.)
I won’t even address Neo. There isn’t a better representative for the fanatical, fringe extreme that gives conservatives a bad reputation than he. Conservatism isn’t the problem. It’s conservatives.
I am a supporter of smaller government. I do not think excessive regulation(s) are a good thing. I think local control is superior to national but I also recognize the duplicity that currently exists on the right, how traditional conservatism has been eviscerated by a pandering to a certain type of uninformed and fearful individual and how tribalism has been exploited to further the monetary goals of others. This is the human condition. This is what Machiavelli often referred to and encouraged. I think that for conservatism to make a resurgence, it has to go through a metamorphosis. Unfortunately for those currently experiencing this change, it is a difficult process and it is perfectly understandable to want to blame those that don’t subscribe to the ideology, whom are not fixated with blaming the “media” or contemporary popular culture for their poor and declining image. There is a difference between cooperation and capitulation. This demarcation applies to all sides of the political grid. Self examination is a positive. A refusal to accept the need to change is not. And this applies to everyone on both a personal level and as a member of a group.
OK. I think I will slither back into my hole now.
Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!
Cavalor Epþiþ, Esquire, O.B.R.E., CS, O.D.A.J.[1er], O.Q.H.[Journ.], D.S.V.J., J.F.
The Dis Brimstone-Daily Pitchfork
206 Low Lux Negro 2 AS