It cannot be too often repeated that all real democracy is an attempt (like that of a jolly hostess) to bring the shy people out. For every practical purpose of a political state, for every practical purpose of a tea-party, he that baseth himself must be exalted. At a tea-party it is equally obvious that he that exalteth himself must be abased, if possible without bodily violence. Now people talk of democracy as being coarse and turbulent; it is a self-evident error in mere history. Aristocracy is the thing that is always coarse and turbulent; for it means appealing to the self-confident people. Democracy means appealing to the diffident people. Democracy means getting those people to vote who would never have the cheek to govern; and (according to Christian ethics) the precise people who ought to govern are the people who have not the cheek to do it.I thought this was very good, especially in opposition to Representative Mike Doyle (D-PA) (Pittsburgh area), who is quoted as having said inside a Democratic Party Caucus on Capitol Hill:
“We have negotiated with terrorists. This small group of terrorists have made it impossible to spend any money.Do we think Representative Doyle has anger management issues? You can read more at Politico.
And, the Vice President, Joseph Biden, responded with:
They have acted like terrorists.That, and his comment earlier in the day that Republican leaders "had guns to their heads" as they tried to negotiation.
I thought we were supposed to tone down this heated rhetoric after the tragedy in Tucson, where a Federal Judge was killed by a demented shooter and a US Representative was gravely wounded.
Hat tip to the InstaPundit.
Regards — Cliff
17 comments:
So you'll be following this one up with a review of the Republicans' employment of the film clip from The Town, where Ben Afleck appeals to his sociopathic friend for some violent help by saying, "I need your help. I can't tell you what it is. You can never ask me about it later. We're gonna hurt some people."? (To which the sociopath replies, "Whose car we takin'?")
This sort of partisan whinging and finger-pointing, even in the aftermath of what would otherwise be a peaceable compromise, is the exact essence of everything that is wrong with party politics.
You disappoint me to feel compelled to join the childishness.
The "childishness" is the delta between liberals and conservative...socialists and free men.
Respectfully submitted......
Before we argue about their behavior, can we at least settle that they are not an organic outgrowth of American populist outrage. The Tea Party is part and parcel, an element of the GOP. Whatever "Hurray for Me! Dems" that hang their sorry hats with these bullies are Dems in the sense that they cannot admit to themselves that they are sellouts to thier corporate feudal masters. Thus, they are not Dems, they are corporate feudal bootlickers.
I begrudge the "win" for the Tea Party bullies. They gave the GOP leadership a blackeye. So, hurray for them.
Neal, I take it you like to ride around in cars wearing hockey masks and beating people with baseball bats?
The hypocrisy from BOTH sides is suffocating.
I admit, my reaction was more emotional than intellectual. I am so very, very, very tired of the finger pointing and the hateful vituperation. I don't know that it is class warfare, the complete anathema of what America stand for (I think), or just self absorbed hatred for anyone who doesn't want what one or another person wants. I watch the monkeys in the DC zoo.....and I can hardly believe that anyone would elect any of them....such mongers of political narrowness, even those who claim that they are "bipartisan" and "a team player." The whole tragicomedy is enough to make one want to vomit....and as a matter of apology....the whole putrid mess makes me sick that I allow myself to degrade my humanity and integrity by being sucked into the fray.
I believe that in our frenzy to promote our "freedom" we are in the process of destroying that very thing we claim to cherish.
To Kad and Jack, I actually DON'T think of the Tea Party as a wholly owned subsidiary of the GOP. That Michele Bachmann started a "Tea Party Caucus" doesn't change that.
It may be that one or the other of the two main parties is always in danger of going away, but at this time it does look like the Republican Party is the one most likely to become shards.
As for the Ben Afleck movie, I haven't seen either the movie or the whole clip and since it was put out by Party Apparatchik's it didn't seem to represent the same level of vitriol.
So, let me be on record as saying the clip from the Ben Afleck movie in question was offensive to me at several levels. That said, it wasn't from the principles.
And, this kerfuffle revolves around the use of the term terrorism. Terrorism is a form of political intercourse in which one side wishes to impose it's will by so hurting the other side that they turn into cowards and surrender to the other side, even if the losers accept that there will be more pain and slaughter.
Accusing the Tea Party of terrorism is an attempt to delegitimize the members and force them out of the Public Square. That Public Square needs to be open to all.
Even Prof Bill Ayers deserves the right to put forward his ideas, as long as he does not resort to terrorism. As long-time readers of this blog might recall, I am of the opinion that Prof Ayers was actively encouraging the terrorists who killed Dr Bobby Fassnacht with a VBIED. At some level it worked, since the widow fled from Madison to Denmark, along with the kids. And best I can tell, Dr Ayers is unapologetic about it.
To wrap up, "terrorism" is a word to be avoided in domestic discourse. Those who use it should be called out.
Regards — Cliff
ADDED
New York Times Columnist insults Muslims.
Hat tip to Ann Althouse.
But, then in the comments we have this: "Well if you define jihad in the liberal PC way of "struggle for right", yeah Tea Party Republicans are waging jihad."
Regards — Cliff
The problem I have with parsing this discussion by a single specific word, and discounting everything else, even imagery that fits the definition in every way but the literal, is that I could run you clips of righties lobbing Hitler accusations at the left and we could then start comparing and contrasting whether "Nazi" or "Terrorist" is a more evil appellation, and still get nowhere.
People embracing the term "Tea Party" have said sufficiently bad about the left that dodging their co-option of the term by disavowing them is totally ridiculous. A Democrat could just as reasonably argue that Joe Biden doesn't speak for them, and they would not be wrong.
In this thread, you are asking for it to be one way for you, and the other way for people with whom you disagree. This isn't reasonable.
The rhetoric, regardless of the use of one word or another, from BOTH sides, (and all three sides if you count people who count themselves as "Tea Party"), is reprehensible and indefensible. I would suggest you are are complicit in the entire mess by repeating even a small, one-sided portion of it. It is, after all, such that compels the others to retort in an ever-escalating spiral of ad hominem nonsense.
I am a citizen, so I am complicit. There are no innocent adults.
Parties are likely not going away, and sometimes even exist in informal ways in areas that are supposed to be non-partisan.
Terrorist just happens to be a trigger for me.
Regards — Cliff
I am with Cliff on this one. There is a responsibility that comes with citizenship and that is to have a position on matters that affect OUR society. I would much prefer a citizenry that is passionate in its individual beliefs as opposed to a sanguine body of continuous contrition and compromise.
There is debate...and there is ad hominem attack. It seems to be in vogue today that honest disagreement is immediately classified as a personal attack, I suppose in an effort to stifle disagreeable positions. After all, it IS an effective means of silencing someone. Take the issue of race for instance. If one says something and it is termed by someone else as racist, the options are to appear racist by persisting or to shut up in hopes that the label won't stick...and face it....in post modern America...NOBODY wants to even appear racist.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with wildly divergent views expressed by raucous argument, with perhaps some occasional use of mild expletives or other adjectives/modifiers thrown in for dramatic effect.
The American political history is replete with extremes of emotion AND of action....
And yet....America is strong....
When it comes to having it one's way...sometimes you are the eagle....and others..you are the statue....it is what it is.....
All true enough, but still not answering the charge that repeating ad hominem attacks, even if to denounce them, not only does nothing to diminish them, it actually, by widening their distribution, abets a repeated cycle of them.
Someone has to choose to be a grown-up.
Someone once advised avoiding arguments with idiots, lest a bystander have trouble telling the difference. I should think this advice would serve everyone in Washington DC well.
I suspect that adulthood will have to begin with the grass roots. The Swamp has irretrievably infected those folks who we sent into it to clean it up.
I often wonder what the outcome would be if the American people...aka..."We The People"...could use the "magic" of the Web to actually vote on Federal and state issues...rather than leaving it to proxies. Obama keeps claiming that "America is telling us...blah, blah, blah..."....but are they? Maybe...but I do wonder.
Neal, America rarely speaks with one voice. Dec. 8, 1941 & Sept. 12, 2001 are exceptions that come to mind. Pols do tend to forget this when trying to convince the "persuadables" that their position is true.
However, there are positions on which we can all agree. "America must be strong." Such a statement is likely to get 100% support.
Now define "strong." We get killed arguing degrees.
Not to slight anyone else, but Jack has a good point re speaking with one voice.
Regards — Cliff
Oh I very much agree with Jack's point!! I am just saying I wonder what the folks in the weeds REALLY are saying...fully expecting a fairly diverse set of responses.....but certainly much more real than "polls" or "pols" proclamations. Folks crow about "majority rules" as being the hallowed principle of our society....so why not see what the REAL majority is saying. Would be so much fun......and I would think.....both interesting AND surprising.
I have taken the strength of our system not to be that "majority rules", but, rather, that our entire system of government and laws is designed to ensure that the minority always remains respected and protected. It's why they (in the best of times, anyway, and the worst, speaking of 1941), work WITH the majority, and not against it. The bonus of that counter-intuitive proposition is that our diversity and unity become our greatest strength.
Unfortunately, party politics right now stand in outright defiance of this, and threaten to bring the whole thing down. I would not, however, even so, subject our government to the whims of the populist sentiment. I believe the founders had a brilliant idea when they envisioned our six-year-term Senate as a deliberative body to offset the hotter-headed-ness of our two-year term House. What we need is to return to our roots of electing people to represent *US* first, foremost and always, and not their political party. Right now that part of our system is broken, and it's our own fault for continuing to prop up partisanship.
We need to break the cycle by refusing to elect party-aligned politicians, even while they may remain nominally ascribed to one or another.
Yep!!!!!
Post a Comment