Would Ronald Reagan admonish today’s so-called “conservatives” with “There you go again”?
I supported and voted for John Anderson in 1980 because I saw him as a real Republican who was concerned with “res publica” (public things). Rather than have a laundry list of “ills of what was wrong” he concerned himself with balancing issues.
Unfortunately the Republican Party has devolved into a blame machine in which Democrats can do no right.
If the Republicans were real conservatives, wouldn’t they be all in favor of considering many ideas rather than be in lockstep on one set of ideas?
If they were real conservatives, wouldn’t they read the Constitution very carefully instead of corrupting it to fit their own ideas?
If they were real conservatives, wouldn’t they heed Washington’s advice in his farewell address to avoid factions?
Once upon a time the Senate was called the “greatest deliberative body in the world. Now it has a Majority of one who obstructs any legislation that he doesn’t like.
Showing posts with label Farewell Address. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Farewell Address. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 01, 2019
Saturday, October 20, 2018
Politics: don’t do as I do, do as say
See comments to https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/20/opinion/sunday/nafta-mexico-trump-ambassador.html.
Many “conservatives” complain about “liberals” attacking Trump and the Republicans. Have they forgotten their obstruction of many of Obama’s initiatives and the false claims about his birth?
After years of obstruction of Obama’s appointees, why are they in such a rush to appoint judges?
It seems to me that many “conservatives” only want to conserve their power. They completely ignore the Constitution, Washington’s Farewell Address (foreign entanglements), Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (government of the people, by the people, and for the people), and Eisenhower’s Farewell Address (military-industrial complex).
What would we call a party that considered these important thoughts in their own governance of our country?
Many “conservatives” complain about “liberals” attacking Trump and the Republicans. Have they forgotten their obstruction of many of Obama’s initiatives and the false claims about his birth?
After years of obstruction of Obama’s appointees, why are they in such a rush to appoint judges?
It seems to me that many “conservatives” only want to conserve their power. They completely ignore the Constitution, Washington’s Farewell Address (foreign entanglements), Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address (government of the people, by the people, and for the people), and Eisenhower’s Farewell Address (military-industrial complex).
What would we call a party that considered these important thoughts in their own governance of our country?
Monday, January 01, 2018
Edmund Burke and Sarah Palin thinking alike?
“The occupation of an hair-dresser, or of a working tallow chandler, cannot be a matter of honor to any person–to say nothing of a number of other more servile employments. Such description of men ought no to suffer oppression from the state; but the state suffers oppression, if such as they, either individually or collectively, are permitted to rule.”
Quoted in The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin, Corey Robin
I can’t see how he can equate a thinker like Edmund Burke to a clueless person like Sarah Palin.
The above quote is taken very much out of context. Burke was commenting on the French Revolution where everything was torn down to start anew. Burke's comments were often directed at Thomas Paine who thought each generation should start governance from scratch. Burke was very much for change in the context of continuity. People should keep what works and fix what is no longer working. To do so, you can't just take people off the street and expect them to understand what changes should be made and how.
I gave up reading The Reactionary Mind after that quote.
I do recommend Edmund Burke: The First Conservative by Jesse Norman and The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Left and Right by Yuval Levin. Both have a more nuanced understanding of "conservatives" and "liberals". Although Levin describes himself as a conservative, he gives fair hearing to both Burke and Paine.
Ironically, both Paine and Burke favored the American Revolution. However, the United States was founded on a Burkean conservatism. The French revolutionaries imprisoned Paine for about a year and the French Revolution fell to a military government under Napoleon Bonaparte.
Unfortunately, I don't think there are any Burkean conservatives in the U.S. government, unless they are Democrats. The only thing conservative about Republicans is conserving their own power and that of large corporations.
Ironically, our first conservative wrote a well-thought treatise on how to govern and what dangers to watch out for. Current "conservatives" not only ignore the lessons in George Washington's Farewell Address, but they don't even attend its annual reading in the Senate!!
Quoted in The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin, Corey Robin
I can’t see how he can equate a thinker like Edmund Burke to a clueless person like Sarah Palin.
The above quote is taken very much out of context. Burke was commenting on the French Revolution where everything was torn down to start anew. Burke's comments were often directed at Thomas Paine who thought each generation should start governance from scratch. Burke was very much for change in the context of continuity. People should keep what works and fix what is no longer working. To do so, you can't just take people off the street and expect them to understand what changes should be made and how.
I gave up reading The Reactionary Mind after that quote.
I do recommend Edmund Burke: The First Conservative by Jesse Norman and The Great Debate: Edmund Burke, Thomas Paine, and the Birth of Left and Right by Yuval Levin. Both have a more nuanced understanding of "conservatives" and "liberals". Although Levin describes himself as a conservative, he gives fair hearing to both Burke and Paine.
Ironically, both Paine and Burke favored the American Revolution. However, the United States was founded on a Burkean conservatism. The French revolutionaries imprisoned Paine for about a year and the French Revolution fell to a military government under Napoleon Bonaparte.
Unfortunately, I don't think there are any Burkean conservatives in the U.S. government, unless they are Democrats. The only thing conservative about Republicans is conserving their own power and that of large corporations.
Ironically, our first conservative wrote a well-thought treatise on how to govern and what dangers to watch out for. Current "conservatives" not only ignore the lessons in George Washington's Farewell Address, but they don't even attend its annual reading in the Senate!!
Friday, December 01, 2017
Some words to pass on to your Senators
Given the rush to pass a budget, please pass the following to your Senators. They had it read in January and probably ignored it the next day.
“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations under whatever plausible character with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency.They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
- George Washington, "Farewell Address"
“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations under whatever plausible character with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle and of fatal tendency.They serve to organize faction; to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common councils and modified by mutual interests. However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”
- George Washington, "Farewell Address"
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
Real conservatives don’t use “liberal” as a pejorative
Probably the last real conservative on the national stage was Dwight Eisenhower. In his farewell address he did not use either liberal or conservative. See http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html.
The most famous assertion he made was his warning about the “military-industrial complex”:
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
Just like Washington’s “Farewell Address”, so-called “conservatives” completely ignore the advice of two of the most prominent, believable, and thoughtful conservatives.
I hope you can take the time to read Eisenhower’s farewell address. If you do, you may agree that Eisenhower was among the last of the true conservatives. In Minnesota they were rejected by the Republican Party as RINOs (Republican in name only).
Although John B. Anderson was a bit quixotic and supported some radical candidates, like Ralph Nader, I consider him more a true Republican than almost any other prominent Republican. i think Rep. Bill Frenzel and Governor Arne Carlson represent true conservatives. Arne Carlson still blogs at http://govarnecarlson.blogspot.com.
The most famous assertion he made was his warning about the “military-industrial complex”:
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.”
Just like Washington’s “Farewell Address”, so-called “conservatives” completely ignore the advice of two of the most prominent, believable, and thoughtful conservatives.
I hope you can take the time to read Eisenhower’s farewell address. If you do, you may agree that Eisenhower was among the last of the true conservatives. In Minnesota they were rejected by the Republican Party as RINOs (Republican in name only).
Although John B. Anderson was a bit quixotic and supported some radical candidates, like Ralph Nader, I consider him more a true Republican than almost any other prominent Republican. i think Rep. Bill Frenzel and Governor Arne Carlson represent true conservatives. Arne Carlson still blogs at http://govarnecarlson.blogspot.com.
Monday, August 07, 2017
North Korea and Washington’s Farewell Address
"The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest." - George Washington, "Farewell Address" The U.S. Senate has one of its members read this every year. Do most of them stay away or sleep through it?
Posted to http://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/04/opinion/north-korea-nuclear-program-trump.html?comments#permid=23130284.
Posted to http://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/04/opinion/north-korea-nuclear-program-trump.html?comments#permid=23130284.
Thursday, July 06, 2017
Playing the right game with North Korea
Maybe the best solution is to send a Korean-speaking envoy who plays jang-gi (a strategy board game). Such an envoy could probably get a better dialogue going with Kim Jong-un in a week than a year of huffing and puffing from Washington. Many in Washington would think this a fool's errand, but I think George Washington would definitely approve (see "Farewell Address", https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21/pdf/GPO-CDOC-106sdoc21.pdf).
Comment to “Kim Jong-un is not a freakish buffoon”, David C. Kang, New York Times, 2017-07-05
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/opinion/kim-jong-un-north-korea-sanctions.html?comments#permid=23152988
Comment to “Kim Jong-un is not a freakish buffoon”, David C. Kang, New York Times, 2017-07-05
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/05/opinion/kim-jong-un-north-korea-sanctions.html?comments#permid=23152988
Tuesday, June 06, 2017
Hypocritic oath and an ignored reading
"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
U.S. Constitution, Article VI
Somehow, we have a Congress that gave an oath to the Koch brothers and made sure they passed the religious anti-tax test of Grover Norquist.
Every year the Senate has a public reading of George Washington’s “Farewell Address” and the next day they ignore what he wrote. Maybe many of them stayed away during the reading or slept through it.
"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all; religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
"In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim."
Who has the U.S. become beholden to either as a friend or as an enemy: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, North Korea, Cuba .
U.S. Constitution, Article VI
Somehow, we have a Congress that gave an oath to the Koch brothers and made sure they passed the religious anti-tax test of Grover Norquist.
Every year the Senate has a public reading of George Washington’s “Farewell Address” and the next day they ignore what he wrote. Maybe many of them stayed away during the reading or slept through it.
"Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all; religion and morality enjoin this conduct, and can it be that good policy does not equally enjoin it? It will be worthy of a free, enlightened, and, at no distant period, a great nation, to give to mankind the magnanimous and too novel example of a people always guided by an exalted justice and benevolence. Who can doubt that in the course of time and things the fruits of such a plan would richly repay any temporary advantages which might be lost by a steady adherence to it? Can it be, that Providence has not connected the permanent felicity of a nation with its virtue? The experiment, at least, is recommended by every sentiment which ennobles human nature. Alas! is it rendered impossible by its vices?
"In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest. Antipathy in one nation against another disposes each more readily to offer insult and injury, to lay hold of slight causes of umbrage, and to be haughty and intractable when accidental or trifling occasions of dispute occur. Hence frequent collisions, obstinate, envenomed, and bloody contests. The nation, prompted by ill will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times, it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations has been the victim."
Who has the U.S. become beholden to either as a friend or as an enemy: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran, North Korea, Cuba .
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
When the World Is Led by a Child
Comment to New York Times article by David Brooks (note: Brooks is considered a conservative)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/opinion/trump-classified-data.html?comments#permid=22518785
George Washington warned about the abject support of Trump by the Republicans:
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.”
Every year on Washington's birthday, a member of the Senate reads Washington's "Farewell Address". And every year the Senate ignores his advice by dividing itself along party lines. We now see almost lockstep support of Trump by Republicans and lockstep opposition to Trump by Democrats.
Maybe someday the the voters will grow up and elect grown-ups to political office.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/15/opinion/trump-classified-data.html?comments#permid=22518785
George Washington warned about the abject support of Trump by the Republicans:
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.”
Every year on Washington's birthday, a member of the Senate reads Washington's "Farewell Address". And every year the Senate ignores his advice by dividing itself along party lines. We now see almost lockstep support of Trump by Republicans and lockstep opposition to Trump by Democrats.
Maybe someday the the voters will grow up and elect grown-ups to political office.
Monday, February 27, 2017
One thing leads to another
I received an email from the Toronto Globe and Mail offering an introductory $1.99/week offer. This is because I am a casual non-paying user. I sent the following to feedback:
Thanks for your persistence in trying to get me to subscribe, but I am "overwhelmed" by the New York Times and two Minnesota dailies.
I only went to the Globe and Mail to point out to some relatives in Bradford how much news they were missing by watching TV news.
I learned about the Muslim father who didn't want his children in music classes because music was "haram". Then I saw Zarqa Nawaz's commentary.
Oh, she's the creator of "Little Mosque on the Prairie". I saw some episodes long ago. Now we have watched five seasons and will watch the final season in a few weeks.
I also looked up military bands in Islamic countries. The Saudi Arabian band played "The Star Spangled Banner" for Pres. Obama. I also found a picture of Iranian trombonists marching past Pres. Ahmadinejad. If music was haram these countries would be the first to abolish military bands.
Thanks for publishing the Globe and Mail. I just wish I had the time to read it as much as I do the New York Times.
End of Globe and Mail letter
That led me to look up Ahmadinejad, former president of Iran, and I found that he wrote a letter to Donald Trump. See http://www.politico.eu/article/iran-former-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-donald-trump/
That in turn led me to
http://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-bans-iran-profits-migration-muslim-ban-isil-terrorism-foreign-policy-middle-east/
When will we ever learn? It seems OK for the U.S. to meddle in other countries and have military operations wherever we please, but if other countries have military exercises in the seas near their border, the U.S. howls aggression.
Poor George Washington, spinning in his grave whenever his “Farewell Address” is read in the U.S. Senate, and then the Senate and others do exactly the opposite of his advice.
"Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other."
Thanks for your persistence in trying to get me to subscribe, but I am "overwhelmed" by the New York Times and two Minnesota dailies.
I only went to the Globe and Mail to point out to some relatives in Bradford how much news they were missing by watching TV news.
I learned about the Muslim father who didn't want his children in music classes because music was "haram". Then I saw Zarqa Nawaz's commentary.
Oh, she's the creator of "Little Mosque on the Prairie". I saw some episodes long ago. Now we have watched five seasons and will watch the final season in a few weeks.
I also looked up military bands in Islamic countries. The Saudi Arabian band played "The Star Spangled Banner" for Pres. Obama. I also found a picture of Iranian trombonists marching past Pres. Ahmadinejad. If music was haram these countries would be the first to abolish military bands.
Thanks for publishing the Globe and Mail. I just wish I had the time to read it as much as I do the New York Times.
End of Globe and Mail letter
That led me to look up Ahmadinejad, former president of Iran, and I found that he wrote a letter to Donald Trump. See http://www.politico.eu/article/iran-former-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-donald-trump/
That in turn led me to
http://www.politico.eu/article/donald-trump-bans-iran-profits-migration-muslim-ban-isil-terrorism-foreign-policy-middle-east/
When will we ever learn? It seems OK for the U.S. to meddle in other countries and have military operations wherever we please, but if other countries have military exercises in the seas near their border, the U.S. howls aggression.
Poor George Washington, spinning in his grave whenever his “Farewell Address” is read in the U.S. Senate, and then the Senate and others do exactly the opposite of his advice.
"Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other."
Saturday, February 11, 2017
Did George Washington warn us about Donald Trump?
When I posted “Does U.S. Senate follow advice it honors?” I didn’t explicitly connect Washington’s warning about one department (branch) of the government encroaching on another: "The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.”
Trump seems to already have a lock-step Congress and will soon have a lock-step Supreme Court. If we are lucky, Neil Gorsuch will be another Earl Warren!
Trump seems to already have a lock-step Congress and will soon have a lock-step Supreme Court. If we are lucky, Neil Gorsuch will be another Earl Warren!
Friday, April 29, 2016
Advice to Bernie Sanders
I sent $25 to the Bernie Sanders campaign a few weeks ago, and now I am bombarded with requests for money and volunteer calling. I decided that the campaign could use my "advice" more. So, I sent the following to info@BernieSanders.com in response to the message: "I will be with Bernie as long as he is willing to fight". I wonder if any of it will percolate up to the great man.
Bernie has a whole arsenal to use: the actual contents of documents that the billionaires and their lackeys misrepresent.
Adam Smith only used "free market" once, and that was the wool merchants kept the price of wool down by legislative means.
Adam Smith said that "This order of men is not to be trusted..." These were those who lived by profit.
Adam Smith's invisible hand really is a variation of the law of unintended consequences. He did not state that either man succeeded, only that the outcomes did not necessarily match their intentions.
The billionaires ignore much of the constitution. What part of Congress having the power to "regulate commerce" among the states don't they understand? Isn't sending pollution to another state commerce among the states?
What part of "no religious test" don't they understand?
In his "Farewell Address" George Washington warned about foreign entanglements and admonished his reader to pay their taxes.
If you can find an expert on the Federalist Papers, he or she can give you lots of ideas to counter the selfish who have no sense of community.
I can't find my reference, but a true free market is
Many buyers and sellers,
Both buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market,
Both buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision,
There are no externalities.
Finally, avoid any questioning of the personal integrity. Providing honest definitions of their pronouncements should do quite well for "hoisting them on their own petards."
For other ideas, see mdmagree.blogspot.com.
I didn’t mention that he should also remind the Republicans of the warning given by the last great Republican President: Dwight David Eisenhower; the military-industrial complex. Now Ike’s party as been taken over by the military-industrial complex.
Bernie has a whole arsenal to use: the actual contents of documents that the billionaires and their lackeys misrepresent.
Adam Smith only used "free market" once, and that was the wool merchants kept the price of wool down by legislative means.
Adam Smith said that "This order of men is not to be trusted..." These were those who lived by profit.
Adam Smith's invisible hand really is a variation of the law of unintended consequences. He did not state that either man succeeded, only that the outcomes did not necessarily match their intentions.
The billionaires ignore much of the constitution. What part of Congress having the power to "regulate commerce" among the states don't they understand? Isn't sending pollution to another state commerce among the states?
What part of "no religious test" don't they understand?
In his "Farewell Address" George Washington warned about foreign entanglements and admonished his reader to pay their taxes.
If you can find an expert on the Federalist Papers, he or she can give you lots of ideas to counter the selfish who have no sense of community.
I can't find my reference, but a true free market is
Many buyers and sellers,
Both buyers and sellers are free to enter and leave the market,
Both buyers and sellers have all the information they need to make a decision,
There are no externalities.
Finally, avoid any questioning of the personal integrity. Providing honest definitions of their pronouncements should do quite well for "hoisting them on their own petards."
For other ideas, see mdmagree.blogspot.com.
I didn’t mention that he should also remind the Republicans of the warning given by the last great Republican President: Dwight David Eisenhower; the military-industrial complex. Now Ike’s party as been taken over by the military-industrial complex.
Wednesday, September 16, 2015
Religion and morality
George Washington wrote in his Farewell Address that one cannot have morality without religion.
I disagree.
You don't need a god to make you ethical,
But the "wrong" god can make you unethical.
Throughout history, people have killed other because their "god" justified it.
We have ISIS killing those who don't believe as they do, and we had Torquemada of the Spanish inquisition torturing and killing those who would not believe as he did.
I disagree.
You don't need a god to make you ethical,
But the "wrong" god can make you unethical.
Throughout history, people have killed other because their "god" justified it.
We have ISIS killing those who don't believe as they do, and we had Torquemada of the Spanish inquisition torturing and killing those who would not believe as he did.
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Foreign policy foreign to Founders
What would George Washington think of the foreign relations of our Presidents for the last 100 years? Or even two hundred years?
Consider what George Washington wrote in his “Farewell Address”:
“Hence likewise they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”
Poor George probably spun in his grave when Madeleine Albright said, “What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?”
“…the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party … opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”
How often does the influence of Israel hamper U.S. policy in the Middle East? Sometimes the Democrats and Republicans both work overtime to show how great their support of Israel is.
“Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.”
Japan and Vietnam have forgiven the U.S. for the damage done to them. I wonder when the U.S. will get around to forgiving Cuba and Iran for the minor damage done to it.
“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”
I wonder if George Washington would appreciate being called “the leader of the free world”?
“Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?”
George Washington really would really disapprove of the hundreds of U.S. bases around the world.
“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world—so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy)—I repeat it therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”
Would George Washington approve of the U.S. staying in NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
“But if I may even flatter myself that [these counsels] may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good, that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism—this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated.”
Unfortunately, faction arose strongly shortly after Washington left office – Jefferson and Adams became strong political opponents. Fortunately, they did become friends later in life.
Both Jefferson and Madison waged war on the Barbary Pirates who demanded tribute to not attack U.S. ships in the Mediterranean and ransom for captured sailors. These were wars with limited objectives that ended with treaties favorable to the United States.
On the other hand Madison’s war with Great Britain was called just that by those opposed to it – “Mr. Madison’s War”. The opposition was particularly strong in New England where many merchants continued to trade with Britain.
One of the first major expansions of U.S. influence was the Monroe Doctrine to curb any influence by European powers over the newly independent countries of Latin America.
“The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.”
How often did the U.S. interfere with “the free and independent condition” of these countries? George Washington’s “foreign intrigue” certainly was practiced in Latin America by many of his successors.
The very faction that Washington warned against, one section of the country against another, led to the Civil War.
And on and on it went, war after war. Some required U.S. involvement; many didn’t. Some of the latter were called “wars of choice” by critics.
Those who signed the Constitution and promoted it knew that circumstances and the Constitution would change, but would they approve of all the changes?
Consider what George Washington wrote in his “Farewell Address”:
“Hence likewise they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”
Poor George probably spun in his grave when Madeleine Albright said, “What's the point of having this superb military that you're always talking about if we can't use it?”
“…the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party … opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”
How often does the influence of Israel hamper U.S. policy in the Middle East? Sometimes the Democrats and Republicans both work overtime to show how great their support of Israel is.
“Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots, who may resist the intrigues of the favorite, are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people to surrender their interests.”
Japan and Vietnam have forgiven the U.S. for the damage done to them. I wonder when the U.S. will get around to forgiving Cuba and Iran for the minor damage done to it.
“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”
I wonder if George Washington would appreciate being called “the leader of the free world”?
“Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor, or caprice?”
George Washington really would really disapprove of the hundreds of U.S. bases around the world.
“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world—so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it, for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy)—I repeat it therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. Taking care always to keep ourselves, by suitable establishments, on a respectably defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.”
Would George Washington approve of the U.S. staying in NATO after the collapse of the Soviet Union?
“But if I may even flatter myself that [these counsels] may be productive of some partial benefit, some occasional good, that they may now and then recur to moderate the fury of party spirit, to warn against the mischiefs of foreign intrigue, to guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism—this hope will be a full recompense for the solicitude for your welfare by which they have been dictated.”
Unfortunately, faction arose strongly shortly after Washington left office – Jefferson and Adams became strong political opponents. Fortunately, they did become friends later in life.
Both Jefferson and Madison waged war on the Barbary Pirates who demanded tribute to not attack U.S. ships in the Mediterranean and ransom for captured sailors. These were wars with limited objectives that ended with treaties favorable to the United States.
On the other hand Madison’s war with Great Britain was called just that by those opposed to it – “Mr. Madison’s War”. The opposition was particularly strong in New England where many merchants continued to trade with Britain.
One of the first major expansions of U.S. influence was the Monroe Doctrine to curb any influence by European powers over the newly independent countries of Latin America.
“The occasion has been judged proper for asserting, as a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.”
How often did the U.S. interfere with “the free and independent condition” of these countries? George Washington’s “foreign intrigue” certainly was practiced in Latin America by many of his successors.
The very faction that Washington warned against, one section of the country against another, led to the Civil War.
And on and on it went, war after war. Some required U.S. involvement; many didn’t. Some of the latter were called “wars of choice” by critics.
Those who signed the Constitution and promoted it knew that circumstances and the Constitution would change, but would they approve of all the changes?
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
Syria: Let's you and him fight
Why is it that Arab states that don't like Syria and some of its actions want others to resolve the problem? See "Arab League Endorses International Action", David D. Kirkpatrick, New York Times, 2013-09-01?
Saudi Arabia and Egypt are far stronger militarily than Syria. Could it be that they don't want to be seen as Arab against Arab? Turkey is also stronger militarily than Syria. Could it be that Turkey doesn't want to be seen as Muslim against Muslim? Or would they rather have a Western power deal with Syria so that if things go wrong then they can blame the outsider?
The U.S. has provided billions of dollars in military sales or aid to several military powers in the Middle East, including "the latest air-to-air missiles and precision-guided air-to-ground missiles" - "U.S. Militarization of the Middle East", Seema Luthra, Fellowship of Reconcilation. If Saudi Arabia is so concerned about Syria, couldn't it take out whatever targets in Syria that it chooses? After all, Saudi Arabia's military budget is about 20 times that of Syria.
The attitude of too many in the U.S., that we are a super-power that can police the world, has gotten out of hand. Too many people believe that we can solve their problems and we are too willing to appear that we can.
George Washington warned us over two hundred years ago: "The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest." - Farewell Address
Saudi Arabia and Egypt are far stronger militarily than Syria. Could it be that they don't want to be seen as Arab against Arab? Turkey is also stronger militarily than Syria. Could it be that Turkey doesn't want to be seen as Muslim against Muslim? Or would they rather have a Western power deal with Syria so that if things go wrong then they can blame the outsider?
The U.S. has provided billions of dollars in military sales or aid to several military powers in the Middle East, including "the latest air-to-air missiles and precision-guided air-to-ground missiles" - "U.S. Militarization of the Middle East", Seema Luthra, Fellowship of Reconcilation. If Saudi Arabia is so concerned about Syria, couldn't it take out whatever targets in Syria that it chooses? After all, Saudi Arabia's military budget is about 20 times that of Syria.
The attitude of too many in the U.S., that we are a super-power that can police the world, has gotten out of hand. Too many people believe that we can solve their problems and we are too willing to appear that we can.
George Washington warned us over two hundred years ago: "The Nation, which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest." - Farewell Address
Sunday, March 03, 2013
Coleen Rowley, Iraq War, and good quotes
I sent a note to Coleen Rowley about her op-ed column "Ten Years After Iraq" in today's Star Tribune. I included a couple of the relevant quotes from Washington's "Farewell Address. I also went to one of her web pages that included several relevant quotes. Note that some of them are from well-known Republicans or conservatives like Theodore Roosevelt and Margaret Chase Smith.
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Reminders from George Washington
Tomorrow, if tradition is followed, a U. S. Senator will read George Washington's "Farewell Address". Correction: the reading is scheduled for 2:00 p.m. Monday, 2013-02-25. .Jeanne Shaheen, D-NH, read it last year, and so a Republican Senator will read it this year. Click here for more about this tradition.
No matter the party of whomever reads it, from Congresses past and current actions, I feel that Congress, and many others, politicians or not, ignore some very important parts of Washington's address. Click here for the full text from the Library of Congress.
Here are some of my selections that I feel we as a nation have ignored:
"Hence likewise they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. "
"To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute."
"The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government pre-supposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government."
"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."
[The spirit of party] "serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.'
To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant…"
"…permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."
No matter the party of whomever reads it, from Congresses past and current actions, I feel that Congress, and many others, politicians or not, ignore some very important parts of Washington's address. Click here for the full text from the Library of Congress.
Here are some of my selections that I feel we as a nation have ignored:
"Hence likewise they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments, which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. "
"To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliances, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute."
"The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government pre-supposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government."
"However combinations or associations of the above description may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
"The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism."
[The spirit of party] "serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.'
To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant…"
"…permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded and that in place of them just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated. The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest."
Monday, April 19, 2010
By all means let us return to the intent of the Founders
But be careful what you ask for!
"The intent of the Founders" is one of the rallying cries of the Tea Parties and others who are unhappy with certain events in Washington. One of their charges is that health care is not in the Constitution; therefore health care legislation is unconstitutional. But the U.S. Flag and the Pledge of Allegiance are not mentioned in the Constitution, does that mean they are unconstitutional?
The Founders were against standing armies. In his Farewell Address, George Washington said, "they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty…" Yet some of those who want to follow the intent of the Founders, want an even larger military (without paying taxes for it).
One of the intent of the Founders was for Congress to establish post offices and post roads. I wonder if the Founders would have called for the privatization of the Post Office. This same section of the Constitution gives Congress the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". I wonder if gun-toting Tea Partiers realize that the Founders might consider them insurrectionists!!
One thing the Founders seem to have that few anywhere on the political map seem to have - humility. Unlike partisans of all stripes who think they have all the answers, the Founders knew that they couldn't foresee how the country would develop. Therefore, the Founders charged Congress with making specific laws and included in the Constitution the mechanisms for amending the Constitution.
Sources:
U.S. Constitution - http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/constitution.html
George Washington's Farewell Address - http://www.100megspop3.com/bark/Beware.html
"The intent of the Founders" is one of the rallying cries of the Tea Parties and others who are unhappy with certain events in Washington. One of their charges is that health care is not in the Constitution; therefore health care legislation is unconstitutional. But the U.S. Flag and the Pledge of Allegiance are not mentioned in the Constitution, does that mean they are unconstitutional?
The Founders were against standing armies. In his Farewell Address, George Washington said, "they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty…" Yet some of those who want to follow the intent of the Founders, want an even larger military (without paying taxes for it).
One of the intent of the Founders was for Congress to establish post offices and post roads. I wonder if the Founders would have called for the privatization of the Post Office. This same section of the Constitution gives Congress the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions". I wonder if gun-toting Tea Partiers realize that the Founders might consider them insurrectionists!!
One thing the Founders seem to have that few anywhere on the political map seem to have - humility. Unlike partisans of all stripes who think they have all the answers, the Founders knew that they couldn't foresee how the country would develop. Therefore, the Founders charged Congress with making specific laws and included in the Constitution the mechanisms for amending the Constitution.
Sources:
U.S. Constitution - http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/constitution/constitution.html
George Washington's Farewell Address - http://www.100megspop3.com/bark/Beware.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)