ARTelevision

It seems to me, respect for our history, processes, and the means of election requires more support and respect for the people who hold office than we seem willing to sustain.

That is what erodes our system.
Many people have insufficient confidence in the process.
That is our failing.

This applies to the citizens of all the governments of members who post here - and, not coincidentally - as a cross-section of our membership reveals that we are citizens of the most highly evolved and progressive of the world's nations.

I see the heavy bashing that our systems of government receive and I see the heavy doses of disrespect heaped upon elected officials. It is very seldon noted as such and seldom is it pointed out as a major problem in itself.

Any human endeavor stumbles under the weight of so much negative criticism. The very old and very tired shibboleth - of criticism being the way that governments are held responsible to their citizenries is so overused as an excuse to carry on the constant campaign of cheap shots, diatribes, and general tone of pompous and self-righteous indignation that issues from most "political debate" - is disheartening and unconvincing because it is so unconstructive.

I know many have forged iron-clad identities based on these behaviors and they are not justifiable - given the unprecedented historical progress governments have made toward achieving excellence.

I wonder if anyone else agrees with this?
I wonder if this will be just another opportunity to continue to justify the partisan bashfest? My hope is that this can be a positive thread in this problematically negative Forum.

__________________
create evolution

Ustwo

I don't think anything can change.

What you have is a difference of core beliefs, and with core beliefs you can find no compromise.

I believe in the power of the individual to succeed or fail, and want them to have the right to do so on their own merit, unfettered by the chains of mediocrity so often imposed by government. I have a realistic view of human nature and know that good intentions mean nothing without results. People like me have tried to compromise and its never enough, they always want more. I’ve come to the conclusion that compromise is futile, they must be defeated, we have given enough and its time to start taking back.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

ubertuber

I agree with you Art, and thanks for putting it out there.

I hear what you are saying. But, this doesn't preclude respect. Different ideas can coexist. My girlfriend and I are in some ways radically different in our political and social thinking. It is taking a lot of conscious effort to CHOOSE to remember that the existance of a differing opinion does not necessitate an attack on it or even trying to help the other person "come around".


I agree with you on these points as well, but I think the attitude should be one of persuasion not conflict. I prefer to think of convincing rather than defeating. I think this is where Art is coming from - that this Forum, as part of the TFP and in support of the TFP's ideals, can be a place where idealogies can compete and interact, but in a spirit of communication not degradation. Anything less would not be worthy of the server that hosts us.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Ustwo

I have converted many liberals but its a long and slow process. Liberalism is a seductive ideology and it can take some people many years to see its failures to understand why it fails and corrupts the human spirit. They must be willing to accept logic into their arguments over emotions, and know that just because something sounds good, it does not make it so once implemented. Until they reach this point, discourse is meaningless. Added those who are drawn to this board are not the moderates or undecided, but those with a cause and strong feelings towards it. When an individual does appear with a question about the political creeds, the board members swarm over them, like missionaries to an unsaved soul, each giving sermons from their book of political faith.

After the newcomer leaves in abject terror, and I continue posting in the tradition of Sisyphus.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Superbelt

The primary points of what you have said Ustwo

* Liberalism needs converted from, cause, liberals really are savages.

* Liberalism is inherently wrong, and those who identify as such are corrupted in spirit and can't use logic. It always fails, regardless of the fact that liberalism is the sole reason womens suffrage and the civil rights act/movement and the New Deal existed(as three high profile examples). As well as the irony of you having the first truly progressive (which is just another word for liberal) President as your avatar. I don't think Old Bully would like to hear you trash his philosophical brethren.

* You can't talk to a liberal, liberals are thick headed and rutted in an ideology. Mostly because liberals are emotional. (just like women)

* You try to compromise and come to a solution but the liberals always want more so you are forced to hand the liberals their asses on a platter.

* Finally, we should find the liberals leaders, kill them and convert their followers to Conservatism.

Ok, I think that about sums up your two posts. Points covering your last post first, then your first post last.
Now tell me, does it embarass you at all for someone to point our your partisan self agrandizing self in a thread where the Originator says:
All you do for two of the threads four posts is bash liberals for being liberal.

Ustwo, you never post in the tradition of Sisyphus. Narcissus is your forebear.


_______
To ART, I will disagree with one point of yours
Anything that was deliberately enumerated in the Constitution such as the right to address grievances, which is a nice way of saying argue and criticise decisions you don't like, says to me that the Framers thought it an important right. And I think they would be upset to hear Americans today think it is a right that goes too far.

Criticism is the most powerful way the common man can help to induce change in a nation. Lawmakers can use positive, constructive discussion, but for the average american a cacophany of voices brings change much faster.

ARTelevision

Superbelt, thanks.
Here's what I think about your final point:
I do comprehend the essence of the idea of constructive criticism being helpful to an evolving process. I see a difference developing, however, when it becomes a refuge for scoundrels, and even more commonly when it is really a token for powerlessness.

You know how constant complaining can be the easiset and least productive way to improve a situation? That's a lot of what I see happening. I think that constructive engagement in a political process is the way to go - not complaining.

It is a slow row to hoe. Progress through constructive engagement takes some strategy and it takes starting at the bottom - doing grass roots political work. Things like that can - in the long run - change processes. Complaining couched as constructive criticism is transprently empty.

__________________
create evolution