It would be extremely difficult to find any reasonable political commentator that would disagree that the divide between the Republican and Democratic Parties has never been wider than it is today. And there are as many ideas of why that is as there are commentators. One undeniable cause is the media’s appetite for sensational sound bites. Watching a Democrat and a Republican talking about cooperating on a piece of legislation is boring and isn’t going to make it on CNN or FOXNEWS. But have one call the other a crook or un-American and now we’re talking ratings. And that didn’t use to be true folks. Back before the networks put their news departments under the entertainment departments management we got a much rawer and detailed delivery of news, ratings didn’t even come into it.
But the media’s role is limited. They may have the power to choose what news to report, but they still have the limitation of having to report only what actually happens. So as long as there are politicians willing to give them what they want, they’ll eat it up. And it’s been the irresponsible use of words by elected officials in D.C. and state capitals that bears the brunt of the blame for the vast rift that exists between the parties today. I believe that how an elected representative or a person that has aspirations to that end behaves with the choice of their words requires a higher level of care. As a private citizen, it’s fine to speak or write as passionately as one wants. But elected officials are supposed to have the ability to speak for ALL those they represent, not just their party.
Understanding that campaigns are indeed a time to showcase the differences between political approaches to governance, It cannot go so far as it has lately. People running for office need to realize they have a higher calling. Leave the extreme talk to the Rush Limbaughs and the James Carvilles of the world. Elected officials have to remember that after the dust of a campaign clears, they have a country to manage. Even this commie liberal understands that the best governing happens when the two sides work to find common ground. And the way campaign rhetoric has been cranked up of late has made that more and more difficult to do.
But the rift between Left and Right exists among the people as well, not just the hard core politicos like myself. And the blame for this I put on... (my extreme Right wing friends will love this)... the president. But before you start your “you’d blame Bush if aliens showed up” rant. I think Bill Clinton was just as divisive, if not more so than our current White House resident. The president has the power to guide the mood of the country. So when you have presidents who have an “it’s us against them” attitude, it’s reflected in the mood of the people. We haven’t had a president that understood that simple fact since Ronald Reagan. Despite the fact that I totally disagreed with his policies, I have to give the guy his due. His ability to make the country feel united was undeniable. And I believe it went a very long way towards healing the wounds of Vietnam and Watergate. Reagan understood how important it is to constantly remind us that we are Americans first.
Political differences have been with us as long as there have been governments. Those in and of them selves cannot be blamed for the current rift. No, it’s been the irresponsible behavior of our elected officials and most presidents lately that has fueled this political civil war. So when you go to the polls next year ask yourself. Does this person understand they are being sent to represent ALL the people, or are they a partisan ideologue with an immovable agenda?
*********************
Devin Barber, Politics Correspondent
Devin’s column, “Left Of The Right” published weekly to Gather Essentials: Politics is a Blue Collar Democrats take on current political news.
Devin was raised by proud Roosevelt Democrats. Being the son of parents counted among the throng of Americans displaced by the Great Depression has given Devin a deep rooted passion for causes dealing with the poor and the working class.
You can find all of Devin’s columns at http://gather.com/leftoftheright
You can keep up with Devin’s postings and his Gather activity by joining his Gather network. Just click here: http://kiwina58.gather.com and then select the orange “Connect” button on the left-hand side of the page.
You can find Devin and other Political Correspondents, plus celebrity content and plenty of other politics experts at Politics.gather.com.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 172
Very good article, Devin. I don't blame media. The media is only giving people what they want. When people stop wanting sensationalism, the media will change.
Please tell me how Reagan provided a better centrist atmosphere.
Case in point: Robert Novak's claim the other day that he received information from the Clinton campaign about another candidate that the campaign denies ever having given him. This is blatant abuse of journalistic privilege.
It is hard to imagine how they can turn deaf ears to our cries, and our demands, without batting an eye, call for peace and then ignore the issues, well except for the usual "platform" stands, and they have done that for so long, (I am sure from listening to them till I am sick, they have memorized that rhetoric from another year,)that the usual, tax, Social Security, Health Care etc. is thrown out there, re-phrased, then they fight like wild animals and call each other out for a Donnybrook at the slighest sign a reporter may be around, and they go for the Gusto!" Look how I fight for you America!." Talk about role models! However, the Dem's do have to fight, the other side has forgotten how to read, and how to speak as adults, and most of all consider what is NOW important to us. They treat us just as we tell our kids, "Because I said so!" Then they go on their way. Ellen B
Nice job...now just sit back and watch the neo-cons attack!
I saw a campaign ad by Mitt Romney implying that the recent sex scandals that have involved prominent Republicans are an example of "Republicans acting like Democrats". I liked Mitt until then!
I think the absolutely most partisan and offensive event is and will probably remain the "swift boating" of John Kerry. My father was a decorated veteran of WWII and the idea that a bunch of people decide that they have the right to pass judgement on who deserved their medals and who didn't is outrageous.
there is a muttering groundswell fo discontent that I HOPE gets enough press to actually cause indigestion in the 'ruling class'..
AARP, Business Roundtable, Service Employees Union (SEIU), and National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) are engaging the American people, businesses, non-profit organizations, and elected officials in finding bi-partisan solutions to ensure affordable, quality health care and long-term financial security – for all of us. The need for health and financial security is something we all share, not just for ourselves, but for future generations. It is the promise of America.
Your quite right about the elected officials sharing a large part of the blame too. Speaking with passion on a subject is expected, but it has gone to another level now..and it's definitely NOT a higher one!
In a sense you beat me to the punch. My article is still in the works. The main difference is the issue you have raised is but one example of the if the kind of moral leadership we should be looking for in candidates at all levels of government, it is however the most important one.
Finally, something I agree with... Thank you Devin for admitting the simple fact that Reagan and conservatives value America, unlike liberals...
Was I transported to some bizzaro world alternate universe while I was sleeping last night?
I found out that I wasn't when Ron came along and siad it's completely the fault of the "ultra conservatives" that the nation is divided. Ne completely dismisses the fact that there are "ultra leftists" who have done a great deal as well to create divisiveness and anomisty. He then ices the cake by comparing Reagan to Hitler. I guess it's never to early in the morning for rank stupidity.
As a socially and fiscally conservative Republican I would never blame the left for there being a divide in this nation as Ron so simplistically blamed conservatives. Logic dictates that there must be TWO sides opposing each other to have a divide. therefore we can not blame on side or the other. If we are to be completely objective in placing blame we must say that the radical elements on both sides of the political spectrum are to blame for escalating the rhetoric that has led to greater and greater divisivensess.
The underlying premise of Devin's article it would seem is that divisiveness, of any degree, is a bad thing. I do not agree with that. There will always be people with strong differing convictions who fight for what they believe in. So the idea that we will all just join hands one day and sin Kum bay ya is a useless notion.
I also think that while whomever is in office, be it Rep or Dem, has some influence on the culture and mood of the nation, they actually have far less influence than extremists on both sides. I thhink people on the right like the fundamentalist whackjob christians who remind us every two seconds that god hates fags and we're all going to hell and people on the left like the scumbag antiwar protestors blocking the military shipments in Olympia last week do more to create divisveness than the president. It's important for all us those in between these two extremes to not get cuaght up in either of these radical spheres of thought which do not represent mainstream America.
Just like a fascist republibot. Hey moron, that's not what he meant. You are doing exactly what Devin is talking about. "I'm right, and you're wrong, idiot" "liberals hate America" leave it to the partisan hacks. People like you believe (I see through your writings) that anyone that disagree with you is un American. That "friend" is un American. I can disagree with you, and still believe you love America, but not you, huh?
I love this country enough that "I served", did you. Why aren't you in Iraq or Afghanistan. I did my time, I'm too old now, how about you ?
http://ww.unc.edu/~mason/hand.html
"I think Bill Clinton was just as divisive, if not more so than our current White House resident"
I have no idea how the two could even be compared on divisiveness.
I have never in my life seen anything like the current Administration.
It takes division and multiplies it.
In a word NO!
We people are polarized for a reason and that is how the politicians conduct themselves.
Now I am not a "liberal" and I have no way of knowing why people are polarized towards the Democratic party.
But I know why I am polarized against it!
It is the Democratic party's willingness to win at all costs attitude. I used to vote for candidates depending upon their position on the issues. The last Democrat I voted for was Adam Smith of Washington state back in the 90's I haven't voted for a Democrat since.
This one issue, this one Democrat party tactic which led me to never vote for a Democrat again I fully admit is a petty one, but for me it was it was important.
The discussion was about the funding of the federal school lunch program, a program that we all know is to provide nutritious meals for the lower income children in our society, the republicans had suggested a 4.(something) % increase in the program and the Democrats came out in mass decrying the Republicans plan, they were on the news, they were on the talk shows. How could these terrible heartless Republicans deny the least of our society in this way.
But what I found out after I sympathized with the democratic call to help the needy in our society was that they had actually requested less for that program yet they were using the poor as a tool against the Republicans nothing more! 3
The Democrats had even less compassion for the lower income children in our society than the Republicans.
Just an example in what was lacking in the "first black President's" agenda.
How about the military. they didn't exactly prosper under Clinton.
Also the prosperity the rest of us enjoyed was more in part due to the .com boom driving the economy more so than anything clinton did.
Clinton's was a sexual deviant who lied about his perversions. He also cut miltary spending, signed NAFTA, and failed to take aggressive action against islamic facism when the opportunities presented themselves. I'd say many these things are more than justifiable reasons for many Americans to consider him divisive.
Don't forget Clintons ill advised pardons of convicted felons, puerto rican terrorists, and chinese spies. Somehow, I would have thought he would have been considered devisive (as in Clinton and the rest of the world -vs- America and democracy). But somehow liberals are able to look past these small discrepencies.
Clinton's divisiveness came from his disengenuous attempt at health care reform, the devastating welfare reform act and of course NAFTA. He thought he was being clever by championing Republican issues, but he only succeeded in ticking everybody off.
According to the Department of health and Human Services the act helped 4.7 million American get off welfare and become self sufficient within three years of it's enactment.
Clinton will never be able to live NAFTA down and yes he did use the pardon as a tool to repay his political cronies for favors they had done for him.
" As a socially and fiscally conservative Republican I would never blame the left for there being a divide in this nation as Ron so simplistically blamed conservatives. Logic dictates that there must be TWO sides opposing each other to have a divide. therefore we can not blame on side or the other. If we are to be completely objective in placing blame we must say that the radical elements on both sides of the political spectrum are to blame for escalating the rhetoric that has led to greater and greater divisivensess. "
I feel compelled to comment on that ... I would assume that in general, the side of the conservatives that you admit to being on, generally contain the more "hawkish", as compared to the "doves" on the Liberal "Peacenik" side ... also, like the Lions/Lambs ?
Be that so, and I do believe it is, which side do you think would be the first to complain about the 'other' side ??? Which side best serves the admonitions of the Spirit of Love ???
If you answer that HONESTLY, I think that it will be shown that the laws of nature hold true, that the "stillness" of peace will last until some outside "force" causes a disturbance ... that then, for every "action" there will be an equal but opposite "reaction" ... which will continue until a conscious move is made to restore the equilibrium (or all such 'energy' is cut off). Circumstantial evidence would suggest that it is NOT the Liberal that would destroy the peace, on the contrary, it would be the Hawks and the Lions, the conservatives who are but a little tighter focused (narrow minded ?) on the laws and their limits ... usually such having been created by 'them' in the first place as protection from those they claim to be their enemies ... most often pointing at those 'damn liberals' ...
Get the picture ? I bet you deny it, the way of the most egotistical, denial. I hope not though. It is GOOD to have the conservative viewpoint of willing warrior to defend the 'cause' ... but no more so than to have the liberal that would seek peace ... it is the blending of the "two" diverse differences into a cooperating union seeking a common goal that creates a "synergy" where each "wins".
Of course I fully applaud you for recognising it is a two way street and blame should be shared, and middle ground cooperation should be sought ... but please folks, let us recognise the deeper truth of what really goes on ... we all know that most people are in a more neutral on all such polarization and that it is usually the most fringe elements that are doing all of the complaining and finger pointing ... but when you get right down to it, it stands to reason that the instigation of some things are "natural" to one side more than another ... IMnsHO.
Peace is better than anything when it is wanted by "all" involved.
///I would assume that in general, the side of the conservatives that you admit to being on, generally contain the more "hawkish", as compared to the "doves" on the Liberal "Peacenik" side ... also, like the Lions/Lambs ?///
Please consider that when you label conservatives "hawkish" or liberals "doves" you are playing with stereotypes built upon stereotypes. I am confused as to how you think conservatives are the ones complaining about liberals. If you understood history, you would realize that liberalism (at least within a democratic state) is relatively new, and the movement has spent much of the last 20 years or so trying to change conservative laws and social standards. Things like abortion, homosexual marriage, hate crimes, government dependence, etc...
These issues were not "dividing" until liberals decided they were something to fight about... The point is that liberals upset the social balance, and now conservatives are fighting back to preserve social morality... It is not the other way around...
Are liberals more, or less, against violence when they violently protest against a justified war? Justified meaning the freeing of millions of people against a brutal tyrant? Or the liberating of a people against a fascist government?
///Circumstantial evidence would suggest that it is NOT the Liberal that would destroy the peace, on the contrary, it would be the Hawks and the Lions, the conservatives who are but a little tighter focused (narrow minded ?) on the laws and their limits ...///
Jerry, are you kidding? So because conservatives created laws to protect society that now some ingorant liberal thinks needs to be changed, it is the conseratives fault for disagreeing? Oh, that makes perfect sense...
If you can't understand the ability of a conservative to disgree with your emotional reason for changing something in society, that proves you are close-minded. Conservative evangelicals created this great country, and now you are here to inform us that conservatives are "close-minded" and somehow, divisive because they disgree with the "next big thing"!
The fact is that liberals (i.e. environmentalists, pacifists, socialists, communists, etc.) grab onto different social fads and ride them out until they are dead... then they jump to the next big thing. There is no critical thinking, no problem solving, no compassionate consideration of others, just popular "ideas"...
Lets think about this... Who wrote the constitution and many of our laws?... Who abolished slavery? Who championed civil rights? Who caused the fall of a tyranical Russian Empire and helped create new democracies in its wake? Who has now overthrown two evil middle eastern governments and created democracies?
And what have liberals been doing the entire time?.... Complaining!
Welfare reform is a disaster for Devin because it encouraged people to become self-sufficant. His view needs everone to become dependent on the government.
I think it says a lot about people so quick to attack those of us who stick up for the poor and those who have no voice. I want to do good things like argue for living wages, universal health care, and for more money for education and I'm told I'm un-American for wanting these things. Why? Because they don't want to pay for it. Ask them, is education important? Of course it is will be the answer. But spend more money on it? Hell no, that's MY money and ain't nobody gonna tell me what to do with MY money. That's it? That's you Right wingers reason for short changing something as crucial as the education of our children?
I'm sorry, but I cannot fathom this level of self absorbtion. You guys on the extreme Right really creep me out.
///I want to do good things like argue for living wages, universal health care, and for more money for education and I'm told I'm un-American for wanting these things.///
No Devin, you told you are un-American because you expect democratic citizens to rally around you in a quest to make this country socialist. This country is capitalistic, democratic, and free because of a limited federal government. What you want is to create a huge federal government where everyone is dependent on it. That is why you are un-American. The founding fathers wanted limited government, that is why they created state government with more autonomy. What you are looking for isn't on this continent..
///But spend more money on it? Hell no, that's MY money and ain't nobody gonna tell me what to do with MY money.///
Devin, this argument is old. Evangelical Conservatives donate way more money to community causes than any other consituency. If they are so selfish, why would they do that?
There is a differnce between donating money to a good cause, and having your money taken by a bloated bureaucracy to be wasted by people who can't run organizations efficiently. Nothing in the government is done efficiently, NOTHING! Why do you live in this fairy tale world?
Spartan:
///If Bill Clinton is a sexual deviant that means 99% of the male population are too.///
Ummh, I don't think 99% of men cheat on their wifes, then lie about it to the nation under oath.
///Politicians rarely do ANYTHING for the working class American. Republicans NEVER do. Yet, they keep getting elected by dangling "Family Values" issues in front of people's faces while they have their hands in your pockets robbing you blind. ///
Funny, eveytime a Republican gets into office, the middle class seems to get more money back from taxes, while everytime a democrat is in office, taxes seem to go up. What was your point again?
I have never heard being unfaithful to one's spouse described as sexual deviance. The 99% may also included the BJ. Myself, I don't consider any sexual act by consenting adults as deviant, even even if they are acts in which I would not engage.
It's truly amazing how far off the mark you are in your evaluation of what "I" want. So... I want a socialist bloated Federal government huh?
In my articles when I call for fairer wages, I've argued that it will require a change in the attitude of those at the top regarding those upon whose backs they acquired their wealth. The only role government would have would be through partnering and tax "breaks" for employers who did a better job of raising the bottom tier of wage earners to the level of a living wage.
And you can argue against universal health care all you want, but the fact is that the U.S. is 26th in health careand dropping and all 25 of the countries that have better health care have some form of non-profit universal health care. And it WILL require a fairly radical shift in the control of health care to the government. But the wise among us realize this single change in our country will profoundly change the economic dynamic for the better.
And yes I do want to see more money spent on education. But I want to see a lot less money spent on things like the record pork barrel spending that was the legacy of the recently Republican controlled congress. I do think taxes on the wealthy should be higher if for no other reason that pay the damn debt down. But I also believe our government could be spending our money a lot smarter that they have. Your assertian that the government can't do anything right is a bunch of neocon bullnoise my friend. That's my biggest beef with you, you're such a guppy when it comes to neocon soundbites.
///And you can argue against universal health care all you want, but the fact is that the U.S. is 26th in health careand dropping and all 25 of the countries that have better health care have some form of non-profit universal health care.///
Who ranked these health care systems anyway? Oh, thats right, the UN... a bunch of socialists who don't like the US anyway.
You know what is crazy about those rankings? It is all based on socialist style criteria, like how many people have health care in the country, or the range of health care, or the afforability of health care.... none of it is about the quality of health care, which, by the way, is the best in the US. They never tell you that the US is #1 in customer statisfaction. Isn't that interesting...
///And yes I do want to see more money spent on education. But I want to see a lot less money spent on things like the record pork barrel spending that was the legacy of the recently Republican controlled congress.///
What about a Woodstock Museum? 1 million dollars in taxes for that? What about liberals who cut defense spending in a time of war in order to fund global warming research? Does that sound like fiscal responsibility? You can say that you want more responsible spending Devin, but the fact is that democrats will not and have not delivered.
Do you know that Democrats tried to pass a bill earlier this year that would have made it impossible for pork barrel spending bills to be debated on the house floor? Lucky for us the Republicans stopped it... Did you know they repealed the Republican legislation that set guidelines to ensure debate on pork barrel projects occured? Do you even care?
Give me a break devin. Your a socialist, and you may feel good about wanting money for education, or money for health care, or money for poor people, but the fact is that the government is not always the answer...
Devin I believe you've touched on a point that's a pet of mine. The ill informed voter is basically disenfranchised even though he casts a vote. The idea of a Democracy is to make an informed vote on government. It therefore behooves government to make all information on any political subject available by any means within the power of the government. This was addressed in the Fairness Doctrine, established in the 1920's which was thrown out under Reagan and thwarted by Republicans ever since. It is not the system that is at fault; it is the attempt to make the system unaccountable to the people.
I believe informed voting and ready access to all impartial and intelligent sides to a political issue would restore the true intent of self government. It is basic Constitutional principal. The Dems have been attempting to reinstate the Doctrine in some form and Bush has promised to veto it. America would save a lot of money and many lives and would prove to all peoples in lands under autocratic control that the American Constitutional system WORKS. That demostration and knowledge is a greater weapon than any thousand nukes, or armies or air craft carriers. And it would silence the extragavence of political hacks. Rush and Bill might have to get real jobs.
Have to respond to the idiotic whitewashing of Reagan.
Reagan's folksy manner was the best guise for the bitter hatred he sowed between Americans.
His harping on the mythical "Welfare Queen" and his racist schtick (used only in the south) about the "strapping buck buying t-bones with food stamps" were only a part of his use of hate-filled code.
Although Reagan apoliogists are now stepping all over themselves to try and provide another context for his villainy, there is no denying that Reagan went to Philadelphia, MS where Civil Rights workers were murdered, and vowed to stand for "States Rights.
The recent release of correspondance shows that the very wording of this "vow" was discussed by Republican leaders in MS as a sure-fire way to attract disaffected white men who were still smarting over de-segregation.
As for Reagan, a typical politician in that he claimed to be getting the government off the backs of the people ... and they fell for it in thinking along the lines of less IRS interference in their lives (as intended) while what he was "really" doing was stripping the OSHA protections from the average worker so Big Business could make higher profits.(at the expense of it's workers protections and the general public on issues such as pollution etc).
It seems to me that none of the 'who knows how many now' Presidential candidates understand the basic premise of co operation. They are all very Partisan in their comments and speeches.
As for the Healthcare issue Isaac H.:
You know what is crazy about those rankings? It is all based on socialist style criteria, like how many people have health care in the country, or the range of health care, or the afforability of health care.... none of it is about the quality of health care, which, by the way, is the best in the US
It's based on facts like Infant Mortality rates of which the U.S. ranks 35th!
It also should interest you to know that our Health Care is so wonderful that several insurance companies would rather pay the cost of sending patients to India for surgical procedures because the total cost, including travel expenses, is still less than what it would cost to have the procedure done in a U.S. hospital and the quality of care is better too!
Then there's this blatant falsehood: Conservative evangelicals created this great country ... Hello! The founding fathers were the furthest thing from "Conservative Evangelicals" you could get without stepping into paganism!
They may have been Deist but they were not Evangelicals!
You're right about Reagan. His borrow and spend policy turned me to the left for the first time in my life, but he was a great leader, much like Kennedy, in my opinion. They not only appealed personally to many Americans, they were highly popular throughout the world, and that made us feel good, collectively.
It also made the differences we might have had with their policies seem less important in the light of their world leadership stature, and I believe that this impacts on the point you are making here.
The situation today - from the standpoint of leadership and stature - couldn't be more different. Nor could the positions of the right and left wings be any further apart.
///Conservative evangelicals created this great country ... Hello! The founding fathers were the furthest thing from "Conservative Evangelicals" you could get without stepping into paganism!
They may have been Deist but they were not Evangelicals!///
That is simply a lie that you probably learned in our great government run public school system. Most of the founding fathers writings have clear evangelical themes and many quoted the Bible in them, and yes a few were deists, but nonetheless they all beleived in limited government and conservative ideals...
//It's based on facts like Infant Mortality rates of which the U.S. ranks 35th!///
Yeah, and I think Cuba is right there as well, right? Im sure these things are REAL accurate...
The fact is that if or when the government takes over our healthcare system, resources will be scarce and the government will end up rationing out our health care....Then you will be paying to fly to india just to escape our health care system like those people who are coming to America from England or Canada...
Tell me, does waiting 6 to 12 months to get treated for cancer sound good to you?
Tom B:
//The short answer is, of course, no. The extreme right that controls our institutions will never, ever give up it's war on progressive values///
I love it! Liberals decide morality is useless and somehow conservatives are the ones waging war? Besides the fact that "progressive values" is an oxymoron, what institutions exactly are controlled by conservatives? Are you talking about the liberal school system? or the liberal media? Or liberal hollywood? I would love to know...
Jerry Kays:
You are the epitome of a close minded liberal. Your comment that I somehow am the problem shows that you are no more "open-minded" than Devin. You hop onto Devin's articles because you love to hear yourself think, through the words of Devin, which is exaclty why all of you liberals love to slap each other on the backs.
Sam C:
//The Dems have been attempting to reinstate the Doctrine in some form and Bush has promised to veto it.///
Right, you mean the "lets give illegal aliens and anyone else who will vote democrat the right to vote" bill? Look, the reason democrats want to make it easy for everyone to vote is because they want to make it easy to commit fraud. Republicans want to prevent fraud by requiring photo ID's for voting, but somehow the democrats are against it. What does that tell you?
You need a photo id to get into high school dances, to drive, to purchase anything on a credit card, to come in and out of the country, to get a job, and to do many other things... but somehow democrats don't think its fair to require it for voting!!!! Why won't you people open you eyes?
First of all you're right about conservatives. We will never cave and accept your "progressive values," because as far as we're concerned your values suck. We should change our entire beliefe system to make you and your hippy friends happy? Don't hold your breath.
How about this instead? Why don't you and all your far left brethren give up your war on traditional mainstream American values? how does that sound?
As far as the right controlling institutions...what institutions are you referring to? The last time I checked the mainstream media was a shill for far left talking points and highly sympathetic to your so called progressive values. Also our colleges and universities have devolved into nothing but leftist indoctrination camps where leftist moonbats like Ward Churchill spew their disinformation and anti American propaganda while stifling any independent speech or thought that does not conform to the leftist view of the world and ridiculing the person offering that sentiment.
Why don't you take a vacation from planet moonbat and come down here to earth with the rest of us and just the discussion Tom B?
Isaac,
First, you are not allowed to use the phrase "limited government", because you have no idea what that means. Your conservative buddies in politics have brainwashed you into forgetting all about governmental controls, restrictions, laws and legislation put forth by conservatives to keep minorities, women, indians, the poor, the ederly and anyone who isn't a WASP away from the American Dream. This is the same conservatives who now are calling for LIMITED GOVERNMENT? Hmmm...you mean if its limited to service your need for spreading zenophobia.
Second, as far as your "conservative ideals", I only refer to the above comment again because liberal legislation is to allow for free capital for ALL people, liberal viewpoints are to enlighten ALL people, liberal ideas are to save the planet for ALL living creatures.
Your so-called "conservative ideals" are exactly what you reference to; an atiquated, racist, sexist, greed filled platform that has no room and shows no compassion for those who hold a different view, have a different skin color, wear a dress or yarmulke or have no job.
As Colonel Jessup from A FEW GOOD MEN said, "I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. "
//It's based on facts like Infant Mortality rates of which the U.S. ranks 35th!///
Yeah, and I think Cuba is right there as well, right? Im sure these things are REAL accurate...
You have closed your mind so totally you don't even recognise the truth when the facts are laid out in front of your nose. You are the epitome of all that is wrong in the current political climate in this country. You are unwilling to objectively examine the reality that we live in right now.
I work in your oh so wonderful health care industry. I see the injustice and the blatant hypocricy espoused by those who rail against any kind of universal health care coverage every day! You talk about the wonderful U.S. health care system but that system is only available in it's fullest to the very wealthy. The rest of the people in this country end up bankrupting themselves to try and pay for basic health care.
People who have worked hard and contributed to this country either fiscally or with active service in the military are left with little or no health care coverage while the politicians who create but won't even fight their own wars, are given a free ride to the end of their lives.
When the same health insurance that the elected representatives in Congress and the Senate is made available to all legal U.S. residents then you can safely claim how wonderful the healthcare system is in this country!
As for your comment here: That is simply a lie that you probably learned in our great government run public school system.
No, I was NOT educated in the U.S. public school system. I gleaned my information about the founding fathers from their own words that are published and part of the public domain for all to read. Perhaps you should actually read what they themselves wrote!
"I want to do good things like argue for living wages, universal health care, and for more money for education and I'm told I'm un-American for wanting these things. Why? Because they don't want to pay for it."
Speaking only for myself, Devin, that's not why I'm "against these things" as you put it. I'm against centralizing those things under the control of the federal government. That's what's un-American -- at least un-American from the standpoint of what the Founding Fathers envisioned for us. It was that way until FDR and his Keynesian cohorts had to muck up the system and swerve us towards socialism.
Affordable healthcare, quality education, any of the other life-issues you want to talk about are best managed by the people closest to them ... the individuals. Self-reliance, personal responsibility, judicious decision-making on a personal level is what determines a persons success; not a government program. Emergency assistance ... sure, I can support that. But, most federal government programs that you've described lead to dependence on the government ... and that's not freedom, and that's not what the country was founded to be.
How did that privatization work out for our military?
Blackwater USA? I'm sure our nation's military is real happy with private military contractors making more money than them.
I guess those people taking advantage of that free money just can't afford to pay for their child's private education so they have to lean on the government to give them money. Hmmm
Should we keep some, get rid of others? Hmmm..How to control all the diversity?
How about the airlines?
What about broadcasting?
Not military, Dougie ... they worked for the State Department providing security. Nice try though.
"How about private schools taking school voucher money away from public schools?"
Why are you against poor parents having the ability to choose the quality of schools for their children that the "rich" people have, Dougo? Careful, your elitism is showing.
"Wait a minute, Tom, don't get the President just yet. Maybe we should consider this a second. Dismissed, Tom. Maybe, and I'm just spit balling here, maybe, we have a responsibility as officers to EDUCATE AMERICAN CHILDREN. Maybe we as officers have a responsibility to this country to see to it that the men and women charged with its security are trained professionals. Yes, I'm certain I remember reading that somewhere once. And now I'm thinking,Col. Markinson, that your suggestion of transferring THE EDUCATION OF AMERICAN CHILDREN TO PRIVATELY RUN ORGANIZATIONS, while expeditious and certainly painless, might not be, in a matter of speaking, the American way. Santiago stays where he is. We're gonna train the lad!"
Elective services, let the individual pay for it.
"How about the airlines?"
Already private, thank you.
"What about broadcasting?
Likewise.
Uhh...I think that was my point. Privately run organizations doing the same job our government does. Using our money to do the same work. Redistributing our money to yet another capital scheme. How long before these contractors bid on military work that is provided for already, taking jobs away from our Army, Navy, Air Force or Marines. Or even the Coast Guard?
Already private, thank you. - David B.
Fully private airlines are subject to a great deal of government regulation for economic, political, and safety concerns. For instance, the government often intervenes to halt airline labor actions in order to protect the free flow of people, communications, and goods between different regions without compromising safety.
"What about broadcasting?
Likewise - David B.
SEE ABOVE
(Man, do I LOVE that movie!)
One problem with Nathan's analysis, however.
Voucher's are meeting that so-called federal responsibility you claim is there to educate our children. (I would dispute that it is, indeed, a federal responsibility ... but I'll get back to that, in another article perhaps.)
Blackwater, and the other security contractors, weren't/aren't there as professional military ... they were/are security guards for the State Department facilities and personnel. Yes, the Marines normally provide that function. However, the Marines over there are a little tied up at the moment, in case you haven't heard. Security guards, D ... not military. Come on, say it with me ... "Rent-a-Cops" with automatic weapons.
And in some cases, evolves into national or international principle. Education and health may deserve to fall into these categories.
Even with privatization, they are likely to evolve into governmentally regulated national health and education systems anyway.
Hmmm..sounds familiar. Oh yeah, that sounds like welfare and unemployment except for the rich.
Not stealing, Doug. Redirecting away from the NEA and letting the parents ... poor and low income parents, Doug ... to choose the best quality schools for their children. It's called competition. Perhaps you've heard of it?
Happy Thanksgiving David and everyone.
Some times when I read one of pieces, I am moved to comment. By the time I make it through the comment thread, I have generally gotten so disgusted from the knee-jerk name-calling that I reconsider. This is no exception.
This is also why the Limbaugh/Bill O/Coulters are still around and screeching - they exhaust anyone who wants to have a reasonable discussion by their insistence on invective.
As always, though, the article was interesting. Thanks for writing.
I think the rift you are speaking about occurred primarily with Reagan. At least by my memory of things, this was when the Republicans stopped just having different beliefs and different goals or even different methods and seemed to start believing their function needed to be to overthrow what America had turned into.
You can take that back farther to Franklin Roosevelt, one of the most popular Presidents in history which set us, I believe with good reason, on the tax and redistribution direction we have gone. In fact right wing elements at that time tried to form a coup and overthrow Roosevelt in order to force a fascist like government where our titans of industry would run the country rather than elected officials. It was said that George Bush's Grandfather as part of this attempt, as well as Henry Ford, the Duponts and others. The key evidene was provided by a great American hero, Smedley Butler to the McCormack Dickstein Committee in 1934.
The rift I think of is the rift of these elite very rich very powerful people who seem to assume such superiority of ability and fear of losing their money and power to democractic excess, the fear of communism that it has motivated a whole huge industry that has run for years inside the US that consists of think tanks, propaganda mills and funded by large corporations, particularly defense contractors that have bought and control virtually all our journalistic media, electronic or print media.
The difference is there is no acknowledgement of this by the Democrats because to exist they have to be a part of it. When the perception of reality becomes impossible and all there is to focus on are a million little stories and opinions it is no small wonder that democracy becomes all but impossible. The goal of these crypto-Republicans is to undo the idea that the government exists to serve or take care of anyone or anything but big business. Sadly even this warped point of view is a fantasy because as capital has taken over it is notoriously un-nationalistic which has wreaked havoc over the biggest democracy in the world reducing it to a big consumer which ships its money off to tyrannies, and dilutes its political power and principles by becoming cozy at high levels with dictators and corruption.
Today, they're all basically gentlemen by comparison. I'm with Rick McGirr on this one that political parties have never been more similar. Very few of them have real convictions on the issues and rely on the latest opinion polls, their writers and advisers to tell them what position they should take.
David, Blackwater, and the rise of military contractors, if looked at with the same Constitutionally critical eye would be seen as a private army, and unConstitutional at the least and possible a threat to the country. This binge of privitization which seems to be the only thing that Donald Rumsfeld gave much thought to as Defense Secretary is one of the things I hope is reversed dismantled ASAP after a new administration of any flavor comes into power.
Also in terms of the outsourcing of law enforcement, the idea that private contractors can be given the power to sort through our private information collected by the government and that this information will not find its way to other uses is insane. One example is Choicepoint's giving names of felons to the Bush administration to allow them to remove anyone they wanted to from the voter roles based on some facts, ludicrous as these facts were.
The technology that is ubiquitous now is so far advanced past what the average American understands, let alone can grasp the implications of that it could literally be able to provide a totalitarian government with enough infrormation to subvert this country's government in a matter of days. An example would be to look at the stream of data from just the Gather website and how much it tells an observer about yourself. One may think that using an alias might throw the government off the track, but people have unique signatures in almost anything they do that can compared over different sites, versions of passwords, typos, word frequencies, vocabularies, common phrases and IP addresses. Another reason for all this yawning chasm is that some get it, and some have no idea.
Or, Bruce, it could be because the state governments are closer to the people, and vice versa. It's easier to tracker what their state and city elected representatives is doing, and to let them know how you feel about it, than it is with their federal representatives.
--------------------------------------
"But the majority favored a strong centralized government."
Devin Barber, Nov 21, 2007, 1:12pm EST
But, they didn't put that into the Constitution, Devin. If it's not in Article I - III, the federal government doesn't have Constitutional authority to do it.
///No, I was NOT educated in the U.S. public school system. I gleaned my information about the founding fathers from their own words that are published and part of the public domain for all to read. Perhaps you should actually read what they themselves wrote! ///
Of the 55 men who signed the declaration of independence. 29 were Anglicans, 18 were calvinists, 2 were methodists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Roman Catholic, and 1 was an open deist. SO explain again why these mean were not Christians?
One of the first official act of the Continental Congress in 1777 was to open in a word of Christian prayer, which ended in "...the merit of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior, Amen." Explain again how that means they were "almost pagans"?
ALSO,
James Madison stated that "Religion is the basis of government....We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our politial institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self government, upon the capacity of each one of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God" June 20th, 1785
George Washington's Daughter stated: "If you question Washington's faith, you may as well question whether or not he was a patriot."
Washington himself stated "You do well to wish to learn our arts and way of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ... Congress will do everything they can to assist you in this wise intention"
The list goes on and on...
How can you honestly insist that they were not Christians?