As times are probably high for political/moral frustrations toward America, I genuinely suggest you read "Ideas Have Consequences" by Richard Weaver. It outlines man and civilization and how he destroys it. It is prophetic in its claims. When reading you would be hard pressed to believe it was written in 1948.
The fight is being waged on all fronts, and the most insidious idea employed to break down society is an undefined equalitarianism. That this concept does not make sense even in the most elementary applications has proved no deterrent to its spread, and we shall have something to say later on about modern man's growing incapacity for logic. An American political writer of the last century, confronted with the statement that all men are created free and equal, asked whether it would not be more accurate to say that no man was ever created free and no two men ever created equal. Such hardheadedness would today be mistaken for frivolity. Thomas Jefferson, after his long apostleship to radicalism, made it the labor of his old age to create an educational system which would be a means of sorting out according to gifts and attainments.
Such equalitarianism is harmful because it always presents itself as a redress of injustice, whereas in truth it is the very opposite. I would mention here the fact, obvious to any candid observer, that "equality" is found most often in the mouths of those engaged in artful self-promotion. These secretly cherish the ladder to high designs but find that they can mount the lower rungs more easily by making use of the catchword. We do not necessarily grudge them their rise, but the concept they foster is fatal to the harmony of the world.
The comity of peoples in groups large or small rests not upon this chimerical notion of equality but upon fraternity, a concept which long antedates it in history because it goes immeasurably deeper in human sentiment. The ancient feeling of brotherhood carries obligations of which equality knows nothing. It calls for respect and protection, for brotherhood is status in family, and family is by nature hierarchical. It demands patience with little brother, and it may sternly exact duty of big brother. It places people in a network of sentiment, not of rights-that hortus siccus of modern vainglory.
Equality is a disorganizing concept in so far as human relationships mean order. It is order without a design; it attempts a meaningless and profitless regimentation of what has been ordered from time immemorial by the scheme of things. No society can rightly offer less than equality before the law; but there can be no equality of condition between youth and age or between the sexes; there cannot be equality even between friends. The rule is that each shall act where he is strong; the assignment of identical roles produces first confusion and then alienation, as we have increasing opportunity to observe. Not only is this disorganizing heresy busily confounding the most natural social groupings, it is also creating a reservoir of poisonous envy. How much of the frustration of the modern world proceeds from starting with the assumption that all are equal, finding that this cannot be so, and then having to realize that one can no longer fall back on the bond of fraternity!
It is generally assumed that the erasing of all distinctions will usher in the reign of pure democracy. But the inability of pure democracy to stand for something intelligible leaves it merely a verbal deception. If it promises equality before the law, it does no more than empires and monarchies have done and cannot use this as a ground to assert superiority. If it promises equality of condition, it promises injustice, because one law for the ox and the lion is tyranny. Pressure from the consumer instinct usually compels it to promise the latter. When it was found that equality before the law has no effect on inequalities of ability and achievement, humanitarians concluded that they had been tricked into asking only part of their just claim. The claim to political equality was then supplemented by the demand for economic democracy, which was to give substance to the ideal of the levelers. Nothing but a despotism could enforce anything so unrealistic, and this explains why modern governments dedicated to this program have become, under one guise and another, despotic.
For anyone interested the intro. And the first two chapters are available online:
If philosophy isn't your thing, skip the intro.
This is my first time stepping into the political forum here, but I thought that I would give it a try.
It just seemed like the republican party was too distracted to realize that they didn't have much to choose from. It was like they went from Romney, to Palin, to somebody else, before returning to Romney, who always had this feel of being the best of the worst. That got them off to a bad start.
While Romney has a successful resume, the person he began to portray was not the person history documented him as being and that was just too wide of an opening that he left.
Where I felt confidence in Romney is where he was going to make significant strides in lowering the national debt. However, I just felt like he was going to have to sacrifice too many hands to do it and I didn't feel like I was in a personal position to survive the bleeding.
Obama's strategy was to salvage as many as possible and I happened to be one of those who benefited from that strategy. If it weren't for his efforts to hold off many of the foreclosures in the country, in part, to give time for several of the mortgage assistance programs to help out, I would have lost my home. If it weren't for the unemployment extension, I may have defaulted on several student loans. That extension gave me the time that I needed to find a job. Now, I'm working two.
As a result, I think his strategy also resonated with many others who were in similar situations.
Romney's strategy, in my opinion, could have been successful in the long-term, but there was too much doubt as to how many casualties there would be along the way. I just couldn't see how he was going to do a better job of decreasing the national debt than Obama has done, yet also do a better job of providing more jobs than Obama would do within the next four years. I just didn't see a plan that I could be confident in.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2
Just as Bush had to deal with What occurred during his tenure(9/11!!!!) and Policy that was leftover from the previous term, as does Obama. Despite knowind about these tax cuts Obama did absolutely NOTHING to cut spending, and in truth, increased it with dramatic flair. Estimates of the effect of such cuts are simply that as well, and it is not known for fact that revenue would have even been increased had the tax cuts were cancelled, which Obama CHOSE not to do.
For my money, the reason Romney lost is because of the portrayed craziness of his party in the media. From Palin to Bachmann to Akin, these last few years and months have been awash with Republicans preaching about rape, pregnancy and God. After awhile, that grates on people. Obama had his work cut out for him this election, but Mitt's own party did Mitt no favors. I don't trust politicians in general, but I have come to find some of these modern Republican leaders downright repulsive.
I am excited about Obama's victory, as well as those of several others last night, because of the social turning point they represent in our country. There were several liberal women who defeated conservative men. We elected our first openly gay politician. My home state, Maryland, ratified gay marriage. Our president does not show the DISDAIN for women, the poor and minorities that I sense from Republicans (leaders, sometimes voters).
Frankly, I would feel sorry for a country that elected a leader that said, when he thought the cameras were off, that he doesn't care about half the country.