How Republicans Blew It

[shagdrum]

This article is a prime example of a lack of understanding of the world views involved. The author may have a dim understanding of the roots of the left wing point of view, but those roots are mostly taken as dogma by him and beyond being questioned. His entire article is then written from that perspective.

It only even sounds remotely reasonable to those ignorant of the various world views in play here. In fact, the article plays off that ignorance and serves as a propaganda piece to marginalize the conservative point of view.

 

[shagdrum]

i never said you do. i said you whine of sigs and avatars. this thread is proof.
once again, you are dishonest. but we know of your lies and deciet.
you don't want HONEST discussion, you just want what agrees with you.

Here is what you quoted from me in post #101:

Difference is, we don't whine about someone injecting politics and ideology into a debate while having those sig's and avatars...​

And here is your response:

yes you do. this thread is a case in point.​

Now, who is the liar?

 

[Calabrio]

"How Republicans Blew It."
The Republicans failed to prevent Obamacare from being passed simply because the Democrats have over whelming control of 2 of the branches of the government, and they are aggressively packing the 3rd.

The Republicans "blew it" by failing to represent the constitutional conservative principles that were expected from them resulting in their losses in 2006 and 2008.

They blew it by embracing the concept of "compromise" when dealing with radical policy. When one group supports constitutional values and the other supports statism, there is no "compromise." That's simply incremental-ism.

And the Republicans blew it because they haven't explained both the pragmatic value and importance of personal and economic liberty, but the philosophical and historic necessity of it as well.

The constitution limits the power of the federal government because, they recognized as we all should, that government is naturally inclined to continue to expand and take liberty from it's citizens. It's human nature.

Remember, the Democrats have expressed this repeatedly. This healthcare bill is only the FIRST STEP. The starter house. The trojan horse.

 

[fossten]

Somebody translate this into English.

He's saying rugged individualism no longer works in a world moving towards security through healthcare as an economic model and republicans running on tax cuts will not be able to deliver long term due to demographics.

So since Obama ran on tax cuts, are you saying a) he lied or b) that it didn't work in getting him elected?

 

[fossten]

The "quest for economic security" is an exceedingly dangerous illusion that can and will destroy a civil society. It is ultimately the goal of security from economic concerns; something that is not possible in the real world. When polices are acted to provide that for a society, society suffers and, in the long term is torn apart. That is because those policies make the perfect the enemy of the good and throw out the (proven to work) good in order to work toward the (unproven and based on elitist postulations) perfect.

This article has is bass ackwards. "Rugged individualism" is really the only system that is ultimately sustainable in the long term.

The article is also exceedingly economically ignorant. Viewing increased taxes as somehow "inevitable" under the utterly foolish assumption that tax revenue would go up; ignoring the fact that people's behavior changes in response to tax increases, ultimately leading to a loss of revenue. Static vs. Dynamic economic analysis.

You would do well to glean insight from authors possessing some degree of economic knowledge, unlike this author.

You should read The Road To Serfdom.

In fact, frankly, your big problems seems to be that your primary source of information is simply news stories. When it comes to politics that isn't enough. If you don't understand the worldviews behind it, you have no point of reference and only ultimately cannot judge these things except from an exceedingly ignorant and ultimately irrational point of view.

Hume famously said "reason is the slave if the passions". With out an understanding of the various philosophical points of view here, that is all you are left with judging a position by what seems the most pragmatice and the most emotionally appealing. However, any point is pragmatic, given certain philosophical assumptions. So it comes down to who can get their message out there the best and make it appeal the most to emotion; not on actual reason and objective thought. The only way to fix that is to gain an understanding of the different philosophical points of view involved.

Cal has recommended the Federalist Papers, which are invaluable. As he has said, reading and understanding them is better then a 4 year degree.

I would also add Thomas Sowell's A Conflict of Visions to that list. It is an objective, scholarly (yet readable) presentation of a unique, but very accurate, dichotomy of world views drawn between what he calls the "constrained" vision and the "unconstrained" vision.

The Road To Serfdom is also invaluable in understanding why certain policies kill productivity, are not economically sustainable, are incompatible with the rule of law and ultimately open the door for tyranny.

04SCTLS, I've said this before, but you should read Atlas Shrugged as well.

 

[foxpaws]

Hume famously said "reason is the slave if the passions". With out an understanding of the various philosophical points of view here, that is all you are left with judging a position by what seems the most pragmatice and the most emotionally appealing. However, any point is pragmatic, given certain philosophical assumptions. So it comes down to who can get their message out there the best and make it appeal the most to emotion; not on actual reason and objective thought. The only way to fix that is to gain an understanding of the different philosophical points of view involved.

Hume's quote was:

“Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them”​

When I first read this in Treatise of Human Nature I took it to mean that reason's role in guiding actions is limited to its ability in fulling a desire, a 'passion'. That we reason ourselves into doing what emotionally we want to do anyway. You obviously saw that differently shag...

But, since we have mixed religion in this thread - Hume has one of my very favorite quotes regarding religion...

"The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one."​

But, since everyone is adding to your reading list '04 - I would look at Robert Dahl's Preface to Democratic Theory as an interesting look at purely American politics - sort of a rebuttal to Madison actually. It is an interesting look at why has the constitution lasted this long - that perhaps our social checks and balances are what really hold the country together, and not the institutionalized ones.

"To assume that this country has remained democratic because of its constitution seems to me an obvious reversal of the relation; it is much more plausible to suppose that the constitution has remained because our society is essentially democratic."​

But there is also this point about double peaked preferences and why an equal double peak has a tendency to end up in discourse (civil war). The parallels he draws have an almost eerie correlation to current times.

 

[Calabrio]

But, since we have mixed religion in this thread - Hume has one of my very favorite quotes regarding religion...

"The Christian religion not only was at first attended with miracles, but even at this day cannot be believed by any reasonable person without one."​

And what do you take from that quote?
Why is that one of your favorite quotes regarding religion.

 

[foxpaws]

And what do you take from that quote?
Why is that one of your favorite quotes regarding religion.

That reason cannot convince us of God. That you are moved by faith (which is the 2nd 'miracle' in the quote - the miracle of faith), and that is what gives you the ability to grasp something which is beyond human experience.

That is why it is one of my favorite quotes - it builds on Hume's reason/passion quote and incorporates it into something that touches me on a very personal level.

 

[shagdrum]

You do know Hume was an Atheist, right?

 

[shagdrum]

"To assume that this country has remained democratic because of its constitution seems to me an obvious reversal of the relation; it is much more plausible to suppose that the constitution has remained because our society is essentially democratic."​

A Constitutional republic is not a democracy. In fact, the injection of democracy has lead to our Constitution being slowly chipped away at.

 

[fossten]

Those who have been educated with soundbytes and mainstream media think that 'democracy' is the path that made America great.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Limited government is what made America great.

Now that government is massive, America will not be great.

 

[shagdrum]

Those who have been educated with soundbytes and mainstream media think that 'democracy' is the path that made America great.

You just nailed the big problem right there; political ignorance.

Far too many people only get their understanding of politics from newspapers, television and pop culture. they don't understand how that all stems from philosophy or even have an understanding of the philosophical viewpoints behind it. As they say, if you don't believe something, you'll buy anything.

Then in comes left wing rhetoric eschewing all philosophy and simply presenting their ideas as pragmatic in emotionally appealing tones; something that any ideology can and does do. The only difference is that, despite the fact that this is a center-right nation, liberal rhetoric has for generations dominated due a monopoly in the media and Hollywood. There is also the appeal of their rhetoric and ideas which actually turns a vices (greed, vindictiveness, envy, etc.) into a political virtue (social justice).

Another interesting corollary of your point is that foxpaws "recommended reading" is based in at least ignorance if not an outright attempt to deceive and mislead as to the nature of our government. Far from actually educating someone, it seems to promote disinformation and muddy the waters.

Foxpaws; always the propagandist.