tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24766932.post2928314294377447083..comments2023-02-17T14:59:05.164ZComments on The Jacksonian Party: The Modern Jacksonian - Chapter 6 - The Limits of Our CreationA Jacksonianhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07607888697879327120noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24766932.post-13473425443742933472007-05-13T16:05:00.000Z2007-05-13T16:05:00.000ZDear Lady Hawk,My thanks! I am glad you got somet...Dear Lady Hawk,<BR/><BR/>My thanks! I am glad you got something from it, and you may want to try out Michael Oren's book Power, Faith and Fantasy... it does a good job on the Middle East for what America has seen there, and it was the description of the Wilson era policy there and reactions to it that made connections to the same philosophy going on to this day.<BR/><BR/>Now as to the questions... which I am far from the best to answer them...<BR/><BR/>Why don't we have a better class of candidate choices?<BR/><BR/>We don't have better candidate choices because we, via our Representatives (generically speaking) have disallowed free-play of ideas in the political realm in the US. The two party dichotomy *without* a third party that has minoritarian, but firm affiliation has meant that the co-opting of programmatic results of such organizations into the main parties has not carried the underlying structure that brought them to the forefront with them. Socialism, in particular, but also the 19th century Progressivist movement, offered what they thought were good *ends* but their route to getting them was not also picked up. Some of that is just co-opting a 'good idea' to gain marginally more popularity on the part of the two parties, but the shearing of the underlying ideals that made those ends, meant that there was no good fit of those ends to existing government. The Progressivists were able to get Amendments into the Constitution to make government run more efficiently, but they missed the point of democratic government having to be inefficient to represent a multitude of thoughts that are the People.<BR/><BR/>The Federal side of this made things worse by setting the size of the House of Representatives to be 'manageable' when the Founders had clearly envisioned just the opposite: a raucous place where there was maximum interplay of ideas and the Senate would serve as a buffer to them.<BR/><BR/>We lack diversity of outlook because the Citizen serving their Nation has been grossly limited to the Armed Forces and the small sliver that could actually get into politics. Part of the 1:30k Amendment is to reverse that, make the House a true place for the voice of the People, and remove it as a political sanctuary to a mere *job* of serving one's fellow Citizens and the Nation.<BR/><BR/>We limit the diversity at that end by raising the barrier to entry so that only the rich, well connected or rabble-rousers can get *any say*. That is NOT what the House was meant to be. The two parties raise further barrier to entry by dominating the States due to that Federal connectivity, and make third party entrance very, very difficult by requiring broad base support for minoritarian positions.<BR/><BR/>Shearing off the ability to have Citizen representation and have a basis for minority platform that can be heard we then get the slow movement to a bipolar political view and outlook. That has not helped this Nation even while making Government 'manageable' and 'efficient' it is no longer vital and reflecting the People. At this point I see the 'debates' between the two parties as so disconnected from the People, that they no longer know how to define the "center" between them because it is not between them, but someplace else they cannot define.<BR/><BR/>My in vitro argument is, of course, reductio ad absurdum on that point, but it is the full extension of that conception of 'life begins at fertilization'. We are heading into an era where helping to ameliorate or abate some genetic defects via pre-natal care will not only be possible but common. The 'debate' has made it difficult to put forth that common ground as basis for working out a compromise as it has wasted time, energy, emotions and put a fracture into the Nation where none need be. The States are Sovereign for determining Citizenship at birth and giving it proper and full definition. It is Common Law that holds for 'birthright citizenship' not Federal law as Congress is not given that power. When I hear about things like 'anchor babies', all I can say is: the States have compelling reason to define Citizenship as child born of two Citizens within their State. The States also have the right to demand proper creation of laws within their domains so as to not give a dual Due Process view that is currently in place with regards to gestation and abortion. Throw in a buffer zone of a week or so for reasonable developmental differences and ensuring sanctity of being a Citizen and offer full Due Process to those reaching such maturity. As technology gets better, that window moves *down* in the gestation cycle. If we come to understand how new life grows, develops, matures and gestates then we come to understand how to sustain it better. That could have been done decades ago and we would have a society that upholds the sanctity of life by understanding it and appreciating it better than we do now. For all that we have heard and all the money spent, even a fraction of that put towards that goal with a long term ultimate objective slowly changes social viewpoint on the procedure.<BR/><BR/>That is a completely utilitarian view not based on religious outlook, but on attempting to understand what it means to be a Citizen and support Citizenship from beginning to end. I don't get hot and bothered over the moral question for society, but the ethics of it for oneself and how one fits in society is extremely troubling as *neither* side wishes to address it. That demeans life in whole, not just sanctity at the beginning, but our finding place and understanding it as Citizens within society.<BR/><BR/>On Wilsonianism - The an wanted the US to be isolated from WWI and ran on that platform. He wanted some lovely set of international bodies to oversee things. He wanted just Nations to reflect the ethnic diversity of the Middle East. <BR/><BR/>He would *not* commit to war fully.<BR/><BR/>We are left with the bad aspects of the things he wanted because of that. The excuses used to do *nothing* now are heard on Right and Left as further excuses to *do nothing*. The Ottoman Empire and the Middle East are the proof of the vacuity of those ideals... we are left with unjust international institutions, unjust Nations in the Middle East, and deeper threat of loss of liberty not only there but globally because of that.<BR/><BR/>The price, then, to step into war exhausted Europe and the Middle East would have been high, but the US was left with a million man Army in Europe *alone* with plenty of food and war material there... something tells me that Roosevelt and the others knew the strength of America better than the Isolationists did. Supporting ethnic alignment of people to Nations, Nationalism, education, justice and freedom of worship... all of those could be done with the US as *full partner* to Britain and France. We would have committed fully to 'fight for democracy'. We did not... and the last echoes of Isolation now ring from the Left that will not stand for democracy and freedom and they will not recognize that the world is too small for Isolationism.<BR/><BR/>It is a tough world out there.<BR/><BR/>Best we remember we are Free People and address it. For it has addressed us in the only form it understands: death and tyranny.A Jacksonianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07607888697879327120noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24766932.post-5656867645748022302007-05-13T15:25:00.000Z2007-05-13T15:25:00.000ZDear Mr. Ajax:Your articles increase my IQ by 50 p...Dear Mr. Ajax:<BR/>Your articles increase my IQ by 50 points! What a terrific intellect you have. Although voters (and jurors) truly make wrong choices, please explain your view on why we do not have a better calibre of candidate choices to choose from. I was mesmorized by your Constitutional arguments against murder of citizens in vitro, and your theory on the history of transnational progressivism. I plan to research President Wilson to learn more about what you said.<BR/>Thank you.Lady Hawkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10482518753089014708noreply@blogger.com