"Those Mean-Spirited Liberals?" -- A Rose By Any Other Name - Part 2
Yesterday, my commentary about the inability of the rightwing to take what they give and frankly, the ignorant dismissal of legitimate concerns, was so controversial that it created a flurry on the pre-eminent Netscape News front page.
Interestingly, not even 12 hours into its news cycle having been by far the top story of the day, it disappeared from the entire Netscape system. By no means is this an indictment of the good people at Netscape, known for their objectivity and democratic publishing method, but it draws amazing question to the cause. Is it possible a hacker has more control over the thinking of America than honest journalists?
Nevertheless, let's look a little deeper into the divide between the free thinking liberals, the traditionalist conservatives and the fascist Neocons. Name-calling, yes, unfair, no... by any definition held to a standard of actions over words.
Ever since Ronald Reagan stole the hearts of Americans with his broad rhetoric in the early 80s, the "thunder on the right" as it were, there has been a huge fissure between those of either side of the political spectrum, to the point that names have overcast a common love of America.
For Neocons to call those who don't bow to their pseudo-Christian fascism, "un-American" is unforgivable and will cause legitimate anger on both sides of the aisle for many years. This polarity may very well paralyze both sides from doing what they both agree is correct.
It is so unfair for anyone in the middle to be labeled a "liberal" though the word certainly connotes no natural insult, as anyone who knows the origin of the word realizes, "liberal" means free. And for anyone on the opposite end of politics to call true "conservatives", "Nazis" is doing no good for our nation either, as a "conservative" is one who is careful about change and respects the limits between government and the private citizen, hopefully watching the pocketbook, while protecting those less fortunate.
Neither of these perspectives abandons the true spirit of America. Sadly, the myopic neither know nor appreciate the real meanings of either in the worldwide "real politic".
It was assumed before the election of Bill Clinton that one could successfully combine the two, but sure enough Clinton did. He managed to maintain a heart while protecting the bottom line. Somehow, he sparked a new belief that free thinking and free enterprise could work side by side.
This infuriated a small but powerful elite in America, again on both sides of the aisle. Believe me when I say Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton never occupied the same philosophical space. Interestingly, the George Bush of pre-Reagan fame had more in common with Clinton than most people would like to admit and that is why they have become such good friends since their opposition, much like Carter and Ford.
Who could blame the senior Bush for distancing himself from his rogue, anti-intellectual son, "W"? The only things they have in common is their last name and a love for Barbara. No doubt scandal clouded the true message of both George Senior and Bill Clinton. In Clinton's case it was a scandal of private matters and in Bush's case, he had inherited the legacy of a bumbling puppet. Despite Reagan's style and legitimate commitment to conservatism, it was he who let in the likes of people like Rumsfeld and Cheney, possibly the most evil men to hit the Whitehouse in US history.
Of course, we remember well the days when things did get done in Congress and the words, "liberal" and "conservative" were just necessary balancing points of a thriving "marketplace of ideas."
If only the parties can purge their enemies within. If only they can remember their common goals and respect their differences. If only they could encourage the electorate to read a book from time to time instead of listening to and watching the idiot-boxes that AM radio and television have become.
When the historical Cane killed Abel do you think they were compelled to violence and hatred by labels, words? Most likely, as they must have both loved the same land. Hopefully, Christians will again remember the teachings of their Christ, and those without the conviction of religion will look into their hearts and find what used to be a common decency. Only then can they come together and make America what it once was, a great voice for freedom and love.
Part 1 - "Let them eat cake"
3 comments:
Sorry, but I think you've got too much of a mean-spirited liberal slant on this for it to be considered objective. The references to Rumsfeld and Cheney being two of the most evil men to get into the White House, for instance. I believe similar statements were made about a certain Mr. McNamara, a Kennedy/Johnson creation. I'm sure such ill-considered labelling has been used throughout the history of American politics by one side or another. For you to perpetuate it in your blog does propose a solution or encourage civility, but merely perpetuates the problem.
As for reading a book, a significant percentage of the caring, thoughful, patriotic citizens of this country do - and are derided for it. The book is called the Bible. Right now our goverment is doing everything it can to purge and criminalize references to that book. Seems mean-spirited to me, and it's not the conservatives or 'Neocons' doing it...so who does that leave?
Words, labels and thoughts did not drive Cain to murder Abel. Sin did, plain and simple. Not inciteful rhetoric from a brother. Cain defied God, which He does not tolerate, and Cain so wallowed in his misery that he allowed envy and jealousy, Satan's tools, to overwhelm him and he murdered.
Which leads us to the historic teachings of the historic Christ. He did not tolerate sin; He purged it. He drove the moneychangers from the temple with a whip and destroyed their carts, lamenting that they had turned a house of prayer into a den of thieves. We need to do the same for our once-Christian nation today: purge it of sin, restore the true foundations of our government. Only then will we have reason and civility again.
"I think Not, What about You"
Brad Woodliff
How rare a voice is heard in this land that calls to heal and take a stand. Is it wrong to have a different view, I don't know, until you do,learning to understand! Does it hurt to be discovered, as one who was not well informed, just as one is caught without raincoat by a forecasted driving storm?
We have all turned into animals; and not by the protocols of the wild. For they have reason for what they do. No pride as we have to bear. So we do things by a notion which appeals to our thoughts of how it should be of that which we care. Those who cross that, very wary in the way they must go.
For reason is never in season when the emotions are the mark. The end is quite often what we do not want,
painful and stark.
We didn't want it this way in unison we sing, forgetting it is our own ways & thoughts brought it about, even its final diasterously poisoned sting.
So be careful when you disagree, let it be with understanding and not the sudden jerk of the knee.
For many in the world and politics too, make many a rule by the means of an ignorant hasty fool. Which, in truth, we all see, could never ever do.Unless this benefit alone, is your stew.
But, after it is all said and done, they declare that which is not to be that which is true. I think not, what about you.
Brad Woodliff's funny prosy poem of the world according to debate today. 510 205-1737
"I think Not, What about You"
Brad Woodliff
How rare a voice is heard in this land that calls to heal and take a stand. Is it wrong to have a different view, I don't know, until you do,learning to understand! Does it hurt to be discovered, as one who was not well informed, just as one is caught without raincoat by a forecasted driving storm?
We have all turned into animals; and not by the protocols of the wild. For they have reason for what they do. No pride as we have to bear. So we do things by a notion which appeals to our thoughts of how it should be of that which we care. Those who cross that, very wary in the way they must go.
For reason is never in season when the emotions are the mark. The end is quite often what we do not want,
painful and stark.
We didn't want it this way in unison we sing, forgetting it is our own ways & thoughts brought it about, even its final diasterously poisoned sting.
So be careful when you disagree, let it be with understanding and not the sudden jerk of the knee.
For many in the world and politics too, make many a rule by the means of an ignorant hasty fool. Which, in truth, we all see, could never ever do.Unless this benefit alone, is your stew.
But, after it is all said and done, they declare that which is not to be that which is true. I think not, what about you.
Brad Woodliff's funny prosy poem of the world according to debate today. 510 205-1737
Post a Comment