Garrison Keillor on Republicans

[thebullet]

Shereads said:

Nader is not running on the Green Party ticket this time, bullet. It was a Green Party former supporter who started the web site, Ralphdontrun.com.

Sorry if I gave the impression that I thought that, Shereads. In our neck of the woods we are dealing with Greens who still claim there is no difference between Kerry and Bush. They intend to vote for 'someone else', probably Nadar, as a means of showing how independent and intellectual they are. Of course any sane person understands that any vote that isn't for Kerry is a vote for Bush, just as it was in 2000.

I know that the national Green party is starting to recognize the importance of defeating Bush, even to the extent of not running Green candidates in swing states.

Nadar is running on his own, either because his ego has taken over his psyche, or because he has been converted to the Dark Side and is a closet Conservative.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

"Men must be governed"

 

[GingerV]

Amicus, I don't know you. But I wanted to thank you for the trip back to my childhood, you reminded me of the parts of Heinlien I've since grown out of. I miss the days when I believed that men were inherently good, and the frontier must've been a place of opportunity and justice. I haven't grown so cynical that I think mankind is evil, I just think that we're capable of justifying acts of shocking selfishness by braying about individual rights. Governerment, like any other bunch of people, is no better nor any worse than the individuals who make it up. It doesn't spontaneously generate problems. Those problems come from human nature, they're still there in individuals.

You did say one thing that really stuck in my craw though (hang on, do women technically have a craw? What the hell IS a craw? Nevermind...back to point), I will tell you that I would never sell my child into slavery, either literal or economic. I am not, however, ignorant, tired, desperate, or hungry. I am not faced with Sophie's choice. If you believe that no parent would ever force their child into labor or slavery, you are ignorant of both history and current events. I don't believe that, so I can't believe you meant what you said. But I see that you have to purport to, in order to maintain a consistent argument. But that's the problem, if the premise requires the impossible be true....sometimes you just have to bite the bullet and accept that the premise ain't all you'd hoped it could be.

**************

On another point, I'm a little puzzled. I understand that the Democrats aren't all they could be. But when faced with a choice between a greater and lesser evil, why on EARTH would anyone advocate letting the greater one win by default? I advocate third, fourth and fifth parties. I vote green in local elections, where they have a hope in hell of both getting elected and ACCOMPLISHING something while they're there. I think campaign finance reform is the one thing that both parties fear and that we most need...and that it's going to have to come from grass roots organizations. But I also think that failing to vote GBII out of office because the other guy doesn't live up to all your expectations is cutting your nose off to spite your face, and I just don't get it.

The president plays with live ammo, I absolutely want the lesser of the two evils in the job.

My 4cents,

G

 

[amicus]

GingerV....

Thank you...yes Heinlein is perhaps my favorite science fiction writer, namely for "Time enough to Love" I think was the title, many years ago...that I read it...Lazarus Long? was that the main character? Would be a pleasure to read that again.

Perhaps I did not clarify that I indeed know there is evil in the world. It is not that I ignore it to make a point, it is that I accept the evil inhuman acts of men as exceptions, not the rule.

It is also true that I do not fully understand the nature of evil. What makes a person commit inhumanities against other men.

One can understand the conflict or morality and hunger, desperation as explored by Victor Hugo, in Les Miserables, but why people steal, cheat, lie, the real underlying reasons have always been a mystery to me.

I am not fond of the Repbulican party, nor Mr. Bush. I am uneasy about the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Faith Based initiatives and a host of legislation that this President is responsible for.

However, John Kerry is a democrat, a very left leaning democrat. A major historical role of Democrats is to divert funds from the military to social programs favored by democrats.

This weakens the nation and tempts foreign interests to apply pressure in other parts of the world. I think it is essential that this nation continue an aggressive, preemptive stature in the conflict with world terrorists. I do not think the democrats would do that. I think they would turn to the United Nations and to the European Coalition and be rendered ineffective.

There is also the matter of Constitutional imperatives. Democrats from the time of Franklin Roosevelt (and before) appoint Supreme Court Justices that lean toward social manipulation by a loose interpretation of the Constitution.

We live by law. The Constitution is a document that 'limits' what government can do.

The basic intent of the framers of that constitution intended for a limited government, one that protected the soveignty of the nation and the basic innate rights of the people.

The framers did not foresee that document being corrupted to allow government to manage, regulate and control the lives of the citizens by laws and legislation.

Your Green party affilitation is and indication to me, that you wish government to play a more active role in society, to provide environmental protection, healthcare and a host of other programs that are in conflict with the intent of our founding documents.

Freedom from government oppression was a new thing in the world in the 16th century when this nation was born. This people has struggled to maintain that freedom, that individual freedom against those who would impose a more powerful government.

I sense we are about to fail and that the soul of this nation is drifting to an European styled social democracy and that saddens me.

The concept of individual freedom is so rare in world politics and so fragile here at home that I truly am concerned it will pass whith a whimper and not a bang.

anyways.....thank you....

amicus...

 

[GingerV]

Racing through now, I'll respond properly later. I just wanted to let you know that it WAS Lazarus Long, and "Time Enough for Love" was precisely the book you put me in mind of. If you're running out to get it, you might also want to lay hand on "The Past Through Tommorow." As I think Laz puts in his first appearance in H's short stories (although the better informed fans might correct me). In any case, they also capture H's romanticism. One of the problems with the worlds H creates, as my father pointed out to me oh so long ago, is that they require that most people play the long game. That they realize that what's in their best interest in the short term ISN'T in the long term. History doesn't show that to be a common understanding.

I should correct you, though. I'm not a Green. I sympathize with them, but I'm too pragmatic to be a true believer. I'm a democrat, which I'm sure will impress you no more .

I want to ask (of everyone really) if you have to understand the nature of evil in order to find ways to oppose it. I've always had a sneaking suspicion that an evil act is one that arises from unfettered self-interest or (occasionally) a damaged mind/brain, but that doesn't matter. Wherever it comes from, it does exist. And it seems to crop up in those places where the rules don't exist or aren't applied. I don't think man's natural state, therefore, is all sweetness and light.

G

 

[Colleen Thomas]

**************

On another point, I'm a little puzzled. I understand that the Democrats aren't all they could be. But when faced with a choice between a greater and lesser evil, why on EARTH would anyone advocate letting the greater one win by default? I advocate third, fourth and fifth parties. I vote green in local elections, where they have a hope in hell of both getting elected and ACCOMPLISHING something while they're there. I think campaign finance reform is the one thing that both parties fear and that we most need...and that it's going to have to come from grass roots organizations. But I also think that failing to vote GBII out of office because the other guy doesn't live up to all your expectations is cutting your nose off to spite your face, and I just don't get it.

The president plays with live ammo, I absolutely want the lesser of the two evils in the job.

My 4cents,

G

Voting for the lesser of two evils is of course preferable. It goes without saying you have to establish your party is the lesser of the two.

So, to a southerner who was raised owning and using guns, hunting with his dad & brothers, enjoying the outdoor life. Explain how the party of gun control is clearly the lesser of two evils.

To a midwesterner, raised on some very conservative and fundamental beliefs about marriage, explain how the party of gays is the lesser of two evils.

Etc. etc. ad infnitum.

People have differnet concerns. People have diferent priorities. GWB has been very good to members of his core. He is pushing attacks on Roe v Wade. He gave them a tax break, not as big as the one the big guys got, but a tax break none the less. Gun control is weaker, I heard he might even refuse to renew the assault weapons ban, etc. He is playing to his crowd very nicely.

Just because your concerns make it obvious that one is the lesser of two evils, it's sheer folly to assume that appraisal is universal.

Southerners, whose finanacial concerns probably lie much closer to the Democrats position, have been wooed away from the Dems based on social concerns. No party is likely to represent all of your concerns, and thus you hang your hat on those most deeply held and closest to you.

In an election where you feel the majority is voting for the lesser of two evils, it behooves you to demonstrate you are the lesser. I don't see that the democrats have done much different than they did in 2000 to demonstrate that.

To many they remain the party of special interests, minorities, higher taxes, weaker defense, etc.etc. I don't see that they have done much, if anything to try and change that perception. When you use that perception as a base, I can't really see where you can say, they are clearly the lesser of two evils.

-Colly

 

[GingerV]

Woah woah woah! I confess, I was taking a shortcut and addressing...dang, I can't even remember, was it cantdog? I'll go back and reference properly if it matters to anyone...the assertion that there was little real difference between the parties, so it didn't matter who won. I wanted to make the point that a little difference can matter. You're 110% right, I utterly failed to make the case that it mattered most in the direction that my sympathies obviously lie. I didn't even try. I put it out there as an assertion, and that was sloppy. I did it because that seemed to be the way the thread was leaning and it saved me time to assume my audience was confined. I appologise, and will take my spanking with good grace.

But, having said that, and obviously opened a big ole can of worms...I'm a little stuck. I don't know if I should just leave it there or if you (Colly by name, as the principle responder and any other readers who feel I marginalized them in 300 or so words and didn't bother to tell me so) want me to respond point by point. Hmmm....nope, it's bad grace to argue the point when appologizing.

I'll just say that I agree completely when you say

Voting for the lesser of two evils is of course preferable. It goes without saying you have to establish your party is the lesser of the two.

and

Just because your concerns make it obvious that one is the lesser of two evils, it's sheer folly to assume that appraisal is universal.

The only thing I offer in my defense is that while I'm guilty of the first...I am much too well aware that the second is true. The degree to which the country is evenly polarized baffles me, but I'm well aware of it .

What's left is to ask whether you prefer your appologies to come with chocolates or flowers...and let you know that I'm dying to talk with you about your other assertions, but will let you pick the time and place .

G

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Woah woah woah! I confess, I was taking a shortcut and addressing...dang, I can't even remember, was it cantdog? I'll go back and reference properly if it matters to anyone...the assertion that there was little real difference between the parties, so it didn't matter who won. I wanted to make the point that a little difference can matter. You're 110% right, I utterly failed to make the case that it mattered most in the direction that my sympathies obviously lie. I didn't even try. I put it out there as an assertion, and that was sloppy. I did it because that seemed to be the way the thread was leaning and it saved me time to assume my audience was confined. I appologise, and will take my spanking with good grace.

But, having said that, and obviously opened a big ole can of worms...I'm a little stuck. I don't know if I should just leave it there or if you (Colly by name, as the principle responder and any other readers who feel I marginalized them in 300 or so words and didn't bother to tell me so) want me to respond point by point. Hmmm....nope, it's bad grace to argue the point when appologizing.

I'll just say that I agree completely when you say



and



The only thing I offer in my defense is that while I'm guilty of the first...I am much too well aware that the second is true. The degree to which the country is evenly polarized baffles me, but I'm well aware of it .

What's left is to ask whether you prefer your appologies to come with chocolates or flowers...and let you know that I'm dying to talk with you about your other assertions, but will let you pick the time and place .

G

I honestly don't believe your post requires any apology whatsoever. Points in a discussion come from the free flow of ideas and for every point you raise I can raise an argument and vice versa.

If apologies were required for raising points and furthering the discussion we would get nowhere fast.

Cantdog's position is not so much there is no difference in the parties as it is that both are in the pockets of the large commercial concerns who donate to their election campaigns I think. By that reasoning, corporate america is pulling the strings, no matter which man is in the white house and while he has freedom to persue his agenda on issues the big dollar boys could care less about, he is at heart a slave to their dollars when issues they do care about come up.

He is not saying there is no difference, so much as saying Democrat or Republican, the same invisible hand is guiding them along when issues the dollar boys care about come up.

I don't presume to speak for him, and have perhaps misread what he said, but the gist of his post came through to me as, vote for whom you want, the same bunch of rich folks control them both.

-Colly