[Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers

Joe Campbell philosopher.joe at gmail.com
Sun Sep 2 11:34:25 PDT 2012 

Good advice!

On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> My advice?  Vote for the candidate you think is best and let the politicos
> in Washington worry about their own strategies.
>
> Paul
>
> On 09/02/2012 11:02 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>>
>> I admit that if I could get EVERYONE to vote for a third party
>> candidate it would send a message to Washington. But if only SOME of
>> the people vote for that candidate, what message gets sent? What
>> message did we send to Washington when Ralph Nader ran as a third
>> party candidate against Bush and Gore? The message was that Bush WON
>> the election, paving the way for the rising of the deficit, more wars
>> than I can count, the worst recession in recent history, etc. This is
>> the baggage that Obama was handed, the same baggage that Romney is now
>> trying to stick to Obama. It seems like a nice idea but you'd have a
>> hard time convincing me that we'd be worse off if those free thinkers
>> had voted for Gore instead of Nader. The Bush-Gore-Nader election is a
>> perfect example of how dangerous a third party candidate vote can be.
>>
>> But I'm not really trying to tell you who to vote for; just explaining
>> why I won't vote your way.
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 10:37 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> THAT is a great measure of how broken this system is.  You want to send a
>>> message to Washington?  Get everyone you know to vote for a third party
>>> candidate.  It doesn't matter who.  If those numbers are large enough to
>>> start messing up their math, they will take notice.  If it truly doesn't
>>> matter whether Romney wins or Obama does, and if you are at all unhappy
>>> with
>>> this idea, then the next logical thing to do is to vote for somebody
>>> else.
>>>
>>> Paul
>>>
>>> On 09/02/2012 10:23 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I don't see much of a difference between this and not voting at all.
>>>>
>>>> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> That would be true if those were our only two choices.  I don't know if
>>>>> any
>>>>> 3rd party candidates will make the ballot in Idaho, but you can always
>>>>> write
>>>>> somebody in.  I'm still thinking of writing in Ron Paul, since he's the
>>>>> only
>>>>> guy out there that even makes noise about this kind of stuff, but I'll
>>>>> also
>>>>> be looking into 3rd party candidates as well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Paul
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 09/02/2012 07:51 AM, Joe Campbell wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How can "Obama is just like all the other politicians" or "It doesn't
>>>>>> matter who is President since he has no control over the military" be
>>>>>> a reason for NOT voting for Obama rather than some other guy? You go
>>>>>> into a restaurant and there are two tables. The hostess asks you if
>>>>>> you want to sit in table A or table B. You say: "Well table A is just
>>>>>> like table B, so I don't want to sit there." Makes no sense.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, if both tables are equally bad you might not want to sit at
>>>>>> either. But in this case eventually you'll be sitting at one of the
>>>>>> tables. They are both the same in one respect (evil foreign policy)
>>>>>> but one is considerably better in another respect (one has an evil
>>>>>> domestic policy as well).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't like the fact that my presidential choices are often choosing
>>>>>> between the lesser of two evils but given that this one is ...
>>>>>> Personally, I wouldn't be comforted by not voting, by saying "I'm not
>>>>>> the one who elected that guy," especially given that our country is
>>>>>> structured such that it doesn't matter who's in charge. There is
>>>>>> something wrong with the US foreign policy and like it or not we're
>>>>>> all implicated in that wrongness in some small way for letting it get
>>>>>> this bad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The big problem with our political system is that we want someone who
>>>>>> is perfect, no spots on their record. But no one who is an eligible
>>>>>> presidential candidate -- over 45 (practically speaking) and rich --
>>>>>> is going to be perfect. What we get are folks who look perfect because
>>>>>> they've been careful their whole lives to be deceptive and seem good,
>>>>>> and honest, and socially conscious while all the time being selfish,
>>>>>> and egotistical, and power hungry. A lot like divorce lawyers, so our
>>>>>> presidency is hardly the only part of our society where this
>>>>>> phenomenon exists.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm with Sunil on this topic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> With Obama getting no traction on getting out of either front (Iraq
>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>> Afghanistan), with his willingness to go into Libya (at least with
>>>>>>> air
>>>>>>> support), with his inability to get Gitmo closed down and those
>>>>>>> incarcerated
>>>>>>> to stand a real trial, and with his willingness to run the
>>>>>>> assassination-by-drone program, I can come up with only two possible
>>>>>>> conclusions about Obama:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1.  Obama is just like any other politician, he jumped on the
>>>>>>> "change"
>>>>>>> bandwagon and has turned out to be cut from the same cloth as
>>>>>>> everyone
>>>>>>> else.
>>>>>>> He talks a good game, but has no intention of actually doing what he
>>>>>>> says.
>>>>>>> This is my basic assumption.  It's a horrible thing, especially since
>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>> fell
>>>>>>> for his "change" and "see, I'm not like Bush" lies.  But it's better
>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>> this possibility:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2.  The Office of the President has for all intents and purposes lost
>>>>>>> control of this nation's military.  Basically, those in control are
>>>>>>> so
>>>>>>> powerful that a sitting President will bow to their will despite
>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>> ideological differences.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let's hope it's only the first one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 09/01/2012 05:59 PM, Sunil Ramalingam wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Joe,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I agree with you on the first half of your argument. Given his
>>>>>>> willingness
>>>>>>> to cave in to the Republicans (well, is it caving, or does he believe
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> what he does?) as well as his willingness to put Social Security and
>>>>>>> Medicare on the table, I don't agree with the second half of your
>>>>>>> argument.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But for me, by continuing the Bush foreign policy he forfeits my
>>>>>>> support,
>>>>>>> meaningless as that is. I think people who are against that foreign
>>>>>>> policy
>>>>>>> need to say "I will not vote for anyone who does this." Without that
>>>>>>> message, the policies will continue. I don't expect better from the
>>>>>>> Republicans on this point, but I do expect better from the guy who
>>>>>>> promised
>>>>>>> change. I think we are fools to reward him for spitting in our faces.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And it's bigger than just the foreign policy issue. Cusack and Turley
>>>>>>> also
>>>>>>> talk about the meaning of the decision to let the torturers walk, and
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> assassination policy. The latter is an unconstitutional power grab.
>>>>>>> Bush
>>>>>>> went to town violating the Constitution, and Obama is doing the same.
>>>>>>> Do
>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>> think the next president will be any different? We're on the road to
>>>>>>> hell
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>> we don't say 'No.'
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> People who think the Constitution and it's balance of power and due
>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>> are important are not supporting those values if they vote for Obama.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sunil
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 15:34:37 -0700
>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers
>>>>>>>> From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>>>>>>>> To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
>>>>>>>> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My argument is more like this: Romney and Obama are the same when it
>>>>>>>> comes to foreign policy but Obama is better when it comes to the
>>>>>>>> policies within our borders. Joe
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Sunil Ramalingam
>>>>>>>> <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Joe,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I understand a lot of people say that as they continue to support
>>>>>>>>> Obama,
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> this is ultimately their position:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 'I don't care about atrocities he commits outside our borders, as
>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>> as I
>>>>>>>>> can support his policies within our borders.'
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I can't go along with that any more. I'm not pretending Romney will
>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>>> better on foreign policy, but he can't get much worse.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Sunil
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Date: Sat, 1 Sep 2012 14:52:54 -0700
>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers
>>>>>>>>>> From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> To: sunilramalingam at hotmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It is a tough decision. I agree with you that Obama was no better
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> many respects than Bush, not wrt military involvement at least.
>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>> fear that if a Republican gets elected there will be a rollback of
>>>>>>>>>> abortion rights and other rights. Joe
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 2:35 PM, Sunil Ramalingam
>>>>>>>>>> <sunilramalingam at hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 'Party loyalty is blind...and deaf and dumb...and cruel.'
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm about half way through this interview of Jonathan Turley by
>>>>>>>>>>> John
>>>>>>>>>>> Cusack,
>>>>>>>>>>> looking at Obama's repugnant foreign policy:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11264-john-cusack-and-jonathan-turley-on-obamas-constitution
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> A s long as we support the people implementing these policies,
>>>>>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>>>>> on. I'm not voting for Obama again, because of this.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sunil
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: betsyd at turbonet.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 10:57:13 -0700
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] FW: Party of Strivers
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Betsy Dickow [mailto:betsyd at turbonet.com]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 10:57 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: 'Joe Campbell'
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: RE: [Vision2020] Party of Strivers
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> And most of the poor will be poor through not fault of their
>>>>>>>>>>>> own...how
>>>>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>>>>> people are working hard and often overtime at the University of
>>>>>>>>>>>> Idaho
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> not making ends meet...many many many. And here it's no
>>>>>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Wall Street corporate model...administrators win big and
>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone
>>>>>>>>>>>> else
>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>> peon, working for peanuts.
>>>>>>>>>>>> This is democracy? No, this is the will of a few billionaires
>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> Republican Party...Get your head out of the sand and stop
>>>>>>>>>>>> thinking
>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>> terms
>>>>>>>>>>>> of party loyalty.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Party loyalty is blind...and deaf and dumb...and cruel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>> From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Behalf Of Joe Campbell
>>>>>>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 10:46 AM
>>>>>>>>>>>> To: lfalen
>>>>>>>>>>>> Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Party of Strivers
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> How is Ayn Rand's philosophy basically correct? Do you think the
>>>>>>>>>>>> poor
>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>> lazy? Do you disagree that some people have a bad lot and
>>>>>>>>>>>> without
>>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>>> kind
>>>>>>>>>>>> of outside assistance, they are unlikely to realize the American
>>>>>>>>>>>> dream?
>>>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>>> so, then Rand is just plain wrong. Tweaking her view to allow
>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>> compassion
>>>>>>>>>>>> is in this case equivalent to rejecting her view. That is what
>>>>>>>>>>>> separates
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rand's philosophy from the kind of view that Brooks is
>>>>>>>>>>>> suggesting.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Brooks'
>>>>>>>>>>>> offers a much better, more realistic take on humanity, as I see
>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Joe
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:18 AM, lfalen <lfalen at turbonet.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am not a big fan of David Brooks, but this is not a bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>> article.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rice also. I have some problems with Ayn Rand. Her philosophy is
>>>>>>>>>>>> basicly
>>>>>>>>>>>> correct, but it need s to be tempered by some compassion, which
>>>>>>>>>>>> she
>>>>>>>>>>>> seems
>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> lack.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Roger
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original message-----
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Art Deco art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 03:51:28 -0700
>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Subject: [Vision2020] Party of Strivers
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=ww
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> w.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1=34aeaaa2/80e4ddbc&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787508c_nyt5&ad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> =BOSW_120x60_June13_NoText&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ec
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> om%2Fbeastsofthesouthernwild>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> August 30, 2012
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Party of Strivers By DAVID
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> BROOKS<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/opinion/editorialsandoped/oped/c
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> olumnists/davidbrooks/index.html>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> America was built by materialistic and sometimes superficial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> strivers. It was built by pioneers who voluntarily subjected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> themselves to stone-age conditions on the frontier fired by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dreams
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> riches. It was built by immigrants who crammed themselves into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hellish tenements because they thought it would lead, for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> children, to big houses, big cars and big lives.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> America has always been defined by this ferocious commercial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> energy,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this zealotry for self-transformation, which leads its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> citizens
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vacation less, work longer, consume more and invent more.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Many Americans, and many foreign observers, are ambivalent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offended by this driving material ambition. Read "The Great
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Gatsby."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Read D.H. Lawrence on Benjamin Franklin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But today's Republican Party unabashedly celebrates this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ambition
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition of success. Speaker after speaker at the convention
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tampa, Fla., celebrated the striver, who started small,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> struggled
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hard, looked within and became wealthy. Speaker after speaker
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argued
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that this ideal of success is under assault by Democrats who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> look
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> down on strivers, who undermine self-reliance with government
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependency, who smother ambition under regulations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Republicans promised to get government out of the way. Reduce
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> burden of debt. Offer Americans an open field and a fair
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> chance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> let their ambition run.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you believe, as I do, that American institutions are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hitting
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> creaky middle age, then you have a lot of time for this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> argument.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you believe that there has been a hardening of the national
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arteries
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> caused by a labyrinthine tax code, an unsustainable Medicare
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> program
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and a suicidal addiction to deficits, then you appreciate this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> streamlining agenda, even if you don't buy into the whole Ayn
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rand-influenced gospel of wealth.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On the one hand, you see the Republicans taking the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> initiative,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> offering rejuvenating reform. On the other hand, you see an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exhausted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Democratic Party, which says: We don't have an agenda, but we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't like theirs. Given these options, the choice is pretty
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there is a flaw in the vision the Republicans offered in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Tampa.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It is contained in its rampant hyperindividualism. Speaker
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaker celebrated the solitary and heroic individual. There
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> almost no talk of community and compassionate conservatism.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> certainly no conservatism as Edmund Burke understood it, in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> individuals are embedded in webs of customs, traditions,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> habits
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> governing institutions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today's Republicans strongly believe that individuals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own fates. In a Pew Research Center
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poll<http://www.people-press.org/2012/06/04/partisan-polarization-sur
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ges-in-bush-obama-years/>, for example, 57 percent of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Republicans
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe people are poor because they don't work hard. Only 28
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> percent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe people are poor because of circumstances beyond their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> control. These Republicans believe that if only government
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> gets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the way, then people's innate qualities will enable them to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flourish.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> But there's a problem. I see what the G.O.P. is offering the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> engineering major from Purdue or the business major from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Arizona
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> State. The party is offering skilled people the freedom to run
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> race. I don't see what the party is offering the waitress with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> two
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> kids, or the warehouse worker whose wages have stagnated for a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decade, or the factory worker whose skills are now obsolete.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The fact is our destinies are shaped by social forces much
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the current G.O.P. is willing to admit. The skills that enable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to flourish are not innate but constructed by circumstances.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Government does not always undermine initiative. Some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> government
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> programs, like the G.I. Bill, inflame ambition. Others depress
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What matters is not whether a program is public or private but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> effect
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> on character.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today's Republicans, who see every government program as a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> step
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the road to serfdom, are often blind to that. They celebrate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> race
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to success but don't know how to give everyone access to that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> race.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The wisest speech departed from the prevailing story line. It
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delivered by Condoleezza Rice. It echoed an older, less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> libertarian
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservatism, which harkens back to Washington, Tocqueville
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lincoln. The powerful words in her speech were not "I" and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "me"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heroic individual They were "we" and "us" - citizens who
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emerge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of and exist as participants in a great national project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rice celebrated material striving but also larger national
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> goals
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the long national struggle to extend benefits and mobilize all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> human
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> potential. She subtly emphasized how our individual destinies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dependent upon the social fabric and upon public institutions
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> schools, just laws and our mission in the world. She put less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> emphasis on commerce and more on citizenship.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Today's Republican Party may be able to perform useful tasks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> current hyperindividualistic mentality. But its commercial
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> soul
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too narrow. It won't be a worthy governing party until it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> treads
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> course Lincoln trod: starting with individual ambition but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ascending
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to a larger vision and creating a national environment that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> arouses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ambition and nurtures success.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> art.deco.studios at gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet, serving
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet, serving the
>>>>>>>>>>>> communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>>>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>>>>>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>>>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>>>>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>>>>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>>>>> http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>>>>> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>     List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>>>>     serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>>>                   http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>>>              mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>>>     List services made available by First Step Internet,
>>>>>>>     serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>>>>>>>                   http://www.fsr.net
>>>>>>>              mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
>>>>>>> =======================================================
>>>>>
>>>>>
>

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list