Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

"How to fix politics" opinion piece

breamfisherbreamfisher Senior MemberPosts: 13,493 Senior Member
I do think that we, as Americans, have learned to value ourselves over our country. Not all mind you, but a sizeable portion. When I was in Civics classes, this was viewed as a detriment to societal constructs. While the country should not supersede all aspects of the individual, self-sacrifice for a better society should be expected, according to what I was taught both in the curriculum and by my parents. Self-denial for the betterment of the whole was expected and encouraged as a way to get things done. You were also encouraged to talk with others to try and find an understanding and build an agreement. We don't do that anymore. I understand that the Democrats of today aren't the Democrats of the 80s, but I'll let you in on a secret: neither are the Republicans.

I think this is also why so many volunteer organizations are having a hard time getting qualified individuals to help out, and wind up relying on a diminishing volunteer base.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/12/opinion/how-to-fix-politics.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fdavid-brooks&_r=1
Overkill is underrated.

Replies

  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,493 Senior Member
    And I'm pretty sure I agree with you. Things are only going to get increasingly fractured.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    "For men shall become lovers of their own selves ...."

    This ain't a secret, this isn't fixable. It is what it is.

    OK I'm not going to argue with what's been said, seeing is half of me believes it. Here's the deal from my perspective: The leadership of the left in my view is unprincipled. They will do whatever to achieve their goals. That's not to say that the masses on the left are all unprincipled, well not at heart anyway. But they have been led astray by the leadership.

    On the other side of the coin, the leadership on the right is principled. They are hard headed and stand by what they THINK is right at most any cost. Hence, in this political event, the 2016 presidential election, the right is about to self destruct because we hold to our principles so hard that we can't see whether we're right or wrong in our tactics. You can see by our arguments here that neither side of the Trump Cruz argument is willing to give. On the left, I predict that when the smoke clears they will for the most part get in lock step and bowl over us. Those principled enough to have a solid opinion ain't changing it easily.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,995 Senior Member
    Back in the 60s when I took 9th grade Civics things were a lot different. Legal Immigration had strict standards, no drug addicts/homosexuals/Commies and they had to have something to make a contribution to our nation to apply and get accepted. Of course we had refugees and Cubans who escaped Fidel, mostly very good folk.

    To get a HS diploma in FLA one semester of a Americanism vs Communism had to be taken and passed, no if and or buts..............never forget that book and its cover with a quote from J Edger Hoover and a pic of the Berlin Wall.........talked about Engles/Marx/Lennon..."dictatorship of the proletariat" and all that. Usually taken in your Senior year or maybe Junior if offered.


    We were taught good citizenship, Duty, Honor and Country ethics, not necessarily bound by law, but the right thing to do. That seems to mostly have gone by the wayside last few decades.
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • JeeperJeeper Senior Member Posts: 2,954 Senior Member
    BC, that's because nowadays somebody would find that "offensive". >.<

    Luis
    Wielding the Hammer of Thor first requires you to lift and carry the Hammer of Thor. - Bigslug
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 8,249 Senior Member
    Well, I think the societal experiments have been tried, and have generally failed:
    I do think that we, as Americans, have learned to value ourselves over our country.

    What, really, does a country - any country - do for any individual but protect them from the ravages of other countries? Often this protection comes at the expense of being subject to the ravages of those who manage to climb to the top of the power structure.
    When I was in Civics classes, this was viewed as a detriment to societal constructs. While the country should not supersede all aspects of the individual, self-sacrifice for a better society should be expected, according to what I was taught both in the curriculum and by my parents. Self-denial for the betterment of the whole was expected and encouraged as a way to get things done.

    The question then become one of "what do you consider 'betterment'?' How much do we each have to chafe under the visions of other, and how much of our own vision do we have to sacrifice? Just how many am I expected to take for this "team" of yours? We're WAY past one.
    You were also encouraged to talk with others to try and find an understanding and build an agreement. We don't do that anymore.

    I think this is also why so many volunteer organizations are having a hard time getting qualified individuals to help out, and wind up relying on a diminishing volunteer base.

    At the base level, if you can't eat or produce food with it, have sex with it, or gain shelter from it, you are in competition with it. THAT is probably the understanding we are coming to as a nation - that solving the problems of others is not terribly likely to solve yours, and may well advance them.

    So how to "fix politics"?

    1. Encourage couples to have 0-1 kids by offering major perks for doing so, and stiff penalties for not.

    2. Over the next 3-4 generations, get the global population down from the current 7,000,000,000 to something more like 500,000,000.

    By that time, we'll hopefully be at the point where all we know of our "neighbor" is that we see from the smoke on the horizon that he starts his cooking fires at a certain time of day. THEN we'll have ROOM for differences of opinion.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    Big Chief wrote: »
    Back in the 60s when I took 9th grade Civics things were a lot different. Legal Immigration had strict standards, no drug addicts/homosexuals/Commies and they had to have something to make a contribution to our nation to apply and get accepted. Of course we had refugees and Cubans who escaped Fidel, mostly very good folk.

    To get a HS diploma in FLA one semester of a Americanism vs Communism had to be taken and passed, no if and or buts..............never forget that book and its cover with a quote from J Edger Hoover and a pic of the Berlin Wall.........talked about Engles/Marx/Lennon..."dictatorship of the proletariat" and all that. Usually taken in your Senior year or maybe Junior if offered.


    We were taught good citizenship, Duty, Honor and Country ethics, not necessarily bound by law, but the right thing to do. That seems to mostly have gone by the wayside last few decades.

    See that blackened word up there ^? Back when Chief and I were youngsters you couldn't be or it was very unpopular for you to be, a commie and any language you used that hinted at the overthrow of the government could get you in Deep Doo Doo! The First Amendment didn't extend to subversive activity and language. That all disappeared somewhere down the line. Now the The First Amendment is a free for all. The reason the Second Amendment hasn't deteriorated in its meaning or changed is because of people like us that safe guard it. So maybe we should include all of the bill of rights in our Association. Change the name from NRA to NBoR Defenders Association. Something like that, because it all ties in together, especially the first Two Amendments. One gets weak if the other fails. Just some food for thought. Hope this isn't getting too far off topic.

    Edited to Add:
    Wait. On second thought maybe that's a bad Idea. i don't want the 2A to get lost in the mix and become diluted. But we still need an organization that keeps the meaning of all the bill of rights.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,628 Senior Member
    cpj wrote: »
    "For men shall become lovers of their own selves ...."

    This ain't a secret, this isn't fixable. It is what it is.

    We call those folks "death-wish conservatives." You know, the ones who would rather see a Democrat elected than work for, contribute to, or even just vote for a less than perfect Republican.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,493 Senior Member
    From the article.

    "Once politics becomes your ethnic and moral identity, it becomes impossible to compromise, because compromise becomes dishonor. If you put politics at the center of identity, you end up asking the state to eclipse every social authority but itself. Presidential campaigns become these gargantuan two-year national rituals that swallow everything else in national life."

    Some of y'all are working to prove the author right.
    Overkill is underrated.
  • wildgenewildgene Senior Member Posts: 1,036 Senior Member
    ...funny word, "compromise", if you look @ speeches from post-WWI thru even the '80's it had a very negative connotation. Late '70's & on it became a catch phrase, even an indoctrination, "We must compromise". I'm certainly not against working together for a better result, but so far all I've seen is that each "compromise" has been followed by a demand for another "compromise", @ least based in my experience in land/ wildlife management. Each time a compromise was reached, whether it be timber, grizzly bears, wolves, etc., as soon as the agreement was in place demands for another "compromise" began...
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,798 Senior Member
    It's all about history, and believing that the future can be improved from learning about past mistakes. We don't teach history very well, now, and we don't honor those who have given up personal gain for service to a greater good. The generations that are alive, today, are the first ones that are not dedicated to improving the future for their children. They pay lip service to the idea, but mainly they just want to play with their stuff. The nation has swung over to being a majority of takers, where it was once givers.

    The only thing that will cure what is wrong is hard times...very hard times. That will come, and it is our children and grandchildren who will bear most of the pain from it.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,640 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    OK I'm not going to argue with what's been said, seeing is half of me believes it. Here's the deal from my perspective: The leadership of the left in my view is unprincipled. They will do whatever to achieve their goals. That's not to say that the masses on the left are all unprincipled, well not at heart anyway. But they have been led astray by the leadership.

    On the other side of the coin, the leadership on the right is principled. They are hard headed and stand by what they THINK is right at most any cost. Hence, in this political event, the 2016 presidential election, the right is about to self destruct because we hold to our principles so hard that we can't see whether we're right or wrong in our tactics. You can see by our arguments here that neither side of the Trump Cruz argument is willing to give. On the left, I predict that when the smoke clears they will for the most part get in lock step and bowl over us. Those principled enough to have a solid opinion ain't changing it easily.

    I largely agree - but will add that the Left has "principles" as well. Obama is a "True Believer" of a sort we've never seen before. Both sides are full of them, which is a large reason I don't like either. I don't think I care for "principles" in general - I prefer ethics; which are lacking in both major parties. *shrug* I wish I knew the answer...
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,428 Senior Member
    A former slave got it right about 150 years ago:

    quote-a-man-s-rights-rest-in-three-boxes-the-ballot-box-the-jury-box-and-the-cartridge-box-frederick-douglass-60-75-82.jpg

    It seems the ballot box and the jury box aren't much of an option anymore!
    Jerry
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,395 Senior Member
    "How to fix politics"...........hmmmm. How about elevating ALL Politicians to Statesman (or Stateswoman) status.

    Statesman: n. A Statesman is a Politician that has been dead for at least ten years.

    Works for me! :tooth:
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    I largely agree - but will add that the Left has "principles" as well. Obama is a "True Believer" of a sort we've never seen before. Both sides are full of them, which is a large reason I don't like either. I don't think I care for "principles" in general - I prefer ethics; which are lacking in both major parties. *shrug* I wish I knew the answer...

    OK how about using the term "Principled Ethics" or better, ethically principled?
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    Well there was an old Clint Eastwood Movie that bore the name for the cure or fix for politics. I think it was called "HANG EM' HIGH."
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Well there was an old Clint Eastwood Movie that bore the name for the cure or fix for politics. I think it was called "HANG EM' HIGH."

    Or was that "Short Ropes and Tall Trees ?" :tooth:
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • zorbazorba Senior Member Posts: 23,640 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Well there was an old Clint Eastwood Movie that bore the name for the cure or fix for politics. I think it was called "HANG EM' HIGH."

    +1
    -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"

    "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,394 Senior Member
    zorba wrote: »
    I largely agree - but will add that the Left has "principles" as well. Obama is a "True Believer" of a sort we've never seen before. Both sides are full of them, which is a large reason I don't like either. I don't think I care for "principles" in general - I prefer ethics; which are lacking in both major parties. *shrug* I wish I knew the answer...

    Yes we've seen it before but not anybody we thought were American. But then again, the jury is still out on that too! I mean we aren't sure he's even really American.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement