Category Archives: politics

Eligible to Vote

1 Reply

A few posts ago, (which is also unfortunately now a couple of weeks ago — where does the time go?) I wrote about how in ancient Rome the Roman senators, all part of the “ancient and venerable patrician elite,” did not consider the common people fit to rule along with them. In the post, I drew comparisons to some people in our present day government who seem to hold to the same opinion regarding the so-called common people. The middle class, lacking an Ivy League degree, common man American. The Tea Party, if you will — those bitter clingers to their guns and religion.

Considering further, however, I can see some justification for the Roman patrician’s views. The people they considered unfit included freed slaves, foreigners, and middle class plebs, all mostly illiterate, all having to work all the time (they had no weekends off, not even Sundays and only a few yearly festivals for rest). Many of them lived in the Roman equivalent of tenements, or scratched out a living on rented farm property. The vast majority owned next to nothing, had no education but what they picked up on the job, and had no time to consider much of anything except where their next meal and entertainment might be coming from.

If you have people who own nothing voting alongside people who own something, it’s just human nature that those with nothing are going to vote to force those with something to “share.”

That’s one reason why in early America one of the conditions for being eligible to vote was that you had to own property. In this way people “without so much as a farthing” wouldn’t be able to vote in a legislature of Robin Hoods — making laws that take from the rich and give to the poor. Plus it was thought that those with property would be more likely to have a vested interest in doing what was best for the community in which their property was located.

This came under attack however with the onset of the Revolution and particularly in the time between the Declaration of Independence and the adoption of the Constitution. There were many reasons for objection – concerns about veterans, concerns about the effects of increasing the scope of the electorate, and even concerns about how valid property rights were as a means of determining quality voters.

Ben Franklin made an excellent point in the latter regard:

“Today a man owns a jackass worth 50 dollars and he is entitled to vote; but before the next election the jackass dies. The man in the mean time has become more experienced, his knowledge of the principles of government, and his acquaintance with mankind, are more extensive, and he is therefore better qualified to make a proper selection of rulers—but the jackass is dead and the man cannot vote. Now gentlemen, pray inform me, in whom is the right of suffrage? In the man or in the jackass?”

Ultimately, property ownership was deemed undesirable and was replaced by the paying of taxes as a qualification to vote, and as we all know, the franchise has expanded greatly from there  — and not altogether to the country’s benefit, I fear.

Because voting is not so much a right as it is a privilege, something to be conferred with care and received with gratitude and a sense of sober responsibility. Today it seems to be taken for granted, given and received as an entitlement,  a means of bribery, or of gaining power, a pain in the neck, or something other people will do, because it really doesn’t matter and “I’m just too busy doing my own thing.”

Everyone born in America today has always had it. We’ve never lived in a time when we didn’t. And yet… the entire institution seems to have been so corrupted, it’s hard to remember what a privilege it is. Not that the politicians are necessarly less upstanding today than previously, nor that the process is any less vitriolic, but that the people… a lot of people don’t really pay attention. Or is it that they’ve been distracted by things that don’t matter?

During all the hooplah with Tim Tebow last month, I read that he was number five on some list of the most influential people in America. I don’t recall who assembled the list, only that it wasn’t all athletes. Tebow was seven places (if I recall correctly) ahead of Tom Brady, quarterback for the New England Patriots. He was however, still five below the most influential person on the list… Lady Gaga.

Lady Gaga?

Originally the media, the fourth estate, was to work as a check for political processes. That’s long gone out the window, but worse, what I’m seeing today is the incessant barrage of messages, accusations, stories, speculuations, promises, claims, innuendo, and out and out lies. From the news outlets, the radio, Internet, and TV. Especially radio and TV. Whoever has the most ads wins, because the poplulace has heard those the most and simply through repetition of hearing has come to believe what those ads say.

Reminds me of the Hitler salute back in the beginning of his regime talked about in Eric Larsen’s In the Garden of Beasts:  How people at first resisted it, but after awhile, when it was constantly an issue, they gave in, even though they didn’t believe in it, didn’t really hold with it… but then after awahile, all that endless saluting and Heil Hitlering eventually brought them around to where they did believe it, and wanted to do it and bought into the whole package without ever realizing what exactly was happening.

I see that happening so much today. Everywhere. In everything. And it’s sobering.

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”  Abraham Lincoln

Over My Head

9 Replies

I’m reading a book about Rome (Life in Ancient Rome by Don Nardo) and have come across a number of interesting pieces of information, one of which is that during the Roman Republic, which began around 500 BC, they had a Senate comprised exculsively of men belonging to the Roman aristocracy. These men, who held their positions for life, controlled the finances, foreign policy and dictated how the provinces would be run. Here’s the part that struck me:

The traditional power of the oligarchic Senate was what kept Rome from evolving into a true democracy. This is not surprising, considering that the senators were part of the ancient and venerable patrician elite. They doubted the intelligence, abilities and moral capacity of the common people, whom they often referred to as “the mob.”

On this subject he quotes Cicero, who held that while a little democracy might be good, “too much was dangerous.”  Cicero believed that it would be unfair to grant authority to both society’s highest and lowest members because “the highest were by nature superior…and therefore deserved to rule, while the lowest would be incapable of ruling well even if given the chance.”

And it just reminded me of the political ruling class in this country. The idea that governing has allegedly become so complex and sophisticated that only a small minority has the intellect and capability of figuring it all out. If you haven’t gone to Harvard or Yale you are clearly hopeless.  (Unless you have, but you are a Republican with the last name of Bush…)

In any case, I can see why they think that with some of their strange ideas about the economy — for example, going into more debt is a great way of getting rid of one’s debts.  That is definitely a complex and sophisticated idea — so much so that to me, a common person, without an ivy league education, it makes no sense whatsoever.

Just like inflicting increasing gun control laws on our law-abiding citizenry, while freely allowing some 2000 guns to “fall into” the hands of Mexican criminals. I’m afraid I am too stupid to figure out how that was a good idea, either.

Nor how we can have “affordable” healthcare for all without it costing  any of us any more in taxes. And why are we lectured on the need for all of us sharing the sacrifice when our leader and his wife can’t even share the same plane?

I’m confused.

But then, I’m not a member of the ruling class intelligensia, so that must be why. It’s all just over my head.

Occupy Wall Street Protesters

2 Replies

The National Review Online did some interviews of the protesters last week which have been posted various places. There was the “Amusing Man,” who held a hand-made cardboard sign that said “I hate stuff”. When asked about his statement he agreed with the reporter that the agendas and concerns of the people with him pretty much ran the gamut and thus had decided to come up with something that unified them all: “I hate stuff.”

Then there was an older gentlemen in an East German uniform, which he’d donned for the event because… “It’s a beautiful uniform.” He would never, of course, wear a Nazi uniform. He didn’t make much sense either…but seemed to be enjoying himself quite a bit in his beautiful uniform.

Finally there was this next guy, the video of which has popped up in quite a few places. You may have already seen it, but if not, I’ve decided to post it here. He seems to me like a very nice guy, young but… well, I can’t say he seems to be deeply motivated about it all…He simply wants his college tuition paid because…that’s what he wants. I thought this was funny, especially with the NRO reporter asking him to explain himself in that lovely British accent.

If you want to see the other two, go here and click on the highlighted words.

Coexist?

3 Replies

I’ve seen those COEXIST bumper stickers around for some time, and on occasion amused myself when stopped at traffic lights trying to figure out what all the symbols stood for. The only one I could never figure out was the E. But now I know, thanks to the poster below (via PowerLine):

Click to enlarge

The Donkey Whisperer

Leave a reply

I found this video at Power Line.

Though the presidential race has dominated the slow-but-sure revving up of the  2012 campaign season, there are others who are stepping into the arena now, as well. One is Rick Perry’s fellow Texan Roger Williams who is running for Congress, and if his first campaign ad is any indication, I hope he wins. I think it’s hilarious.  Of course, I love donkeys. They’re funny to me even without the political connection…

My favorite line: “See those big ears? Still can’t hear me.”

Hurricanes, the Media and Politics

1 Reply

Well, apparently Hurricane Irene turned out to be a dud, at least in the media’s eyes (if not in the eyes of the people in its path who are still struggling with the flooding, crop and structure damage, power losses, etc, that it caused.) I had a feeling it wasn’t going to turn out as horrible as they were predicting. Living here in Arizona, known for how hard it is on weather forecasters, I’ve come to the conclusion that the really bad storms seem to come out of nowhere. Usually on a day they predicted no storms.

When they predict and warn and commend themselves for how they are protecting us all (as if we are incapable of looking out the window and judging for ourselves) and we’d better pay attention to them, tune in, twitter in, Facebook in… I tend to yawn. After all the hooplah, the actual storms usually turn out to be anticlimactic. And so it was with Irene, if only because the hooplah was so shrill and over the top this time.

As if happened, though I experienced an interesting confluence of timing over the weekend in reading George Bush’s account of what happened during Katrina in Decision Points, at the same time as everyone was caterwauling about Irene. I thought even back when the events of Katrina were unfolding that Bush was being unfairly accused of “mismanaging” the relief efforts, and his account pretty much reinforced what I’d already concluded. He was fully aware of and concerned about Katrina, and had ordered the federal government’s Emergency Management Agency well in advance to start stockpiling food, water, medical supplies, etc, and to move in troops and helicopters as near the target areas as was safe for the aid of those who might need them after the hurricane hit.

But the feds can’t come in until state and local officials request them to do so. In Florida, Alabama and Mississippi, there was no problem, the integration between state and local authorities and federal responders operating smoothly. But in Louisiana, things were different. Even though the President asked and asked and asked Louisiana governor Kathleen Blanco to let him help, she refused to give him an answer, dithering the time away until it was pretty much too late. Then everyone blamed him.

In his book he graciously took responsibility for it, but I’m still struggling to see why he should have. The whole point of state’s rights is that we have the freedom to manage our own affairs. The US is not a kingdom but a federation of states, and if state officials don’t want to accept federal aid, that is their right. They are elected officials, so if they are inept, perhaps the people they supposedly serve will not re-elect them…

With all that in my mind, it was interesting to watch President Obama this time, a man who seems to have an eerie coldness and detachment when it comes to connecting with the “little people” even when he does descend from his chariot, er… airplane… to see the damage and try to lift their spirits. Given what the media had done to Bush, it seemed clear he wanted to make sure no one could accuse him of not caring or of being too slow in providing aid. Unfortunately, for me, he seemed only to be seeking a photo-op to enhance his current campaign. Nothing about him ever seems sincere, but rather condescending.

Others affirmed and elaborated on my observation, and this excerpt from Power Line blogger John Hinderaker in his post How to Politicize a Hurricane is not only amusing but apt:

“I’m sure it’s a relief to everyone on the East Coast to know that Obama is personally directing hurricane response efforts. Never mind that he isn’t competent to organize a Little League baseball team; today’s charade obviously is a corollary of the Hurricane Katrina fiasco, in which America’s mass media committed group malpractice, somehow managing to blame the inevitable consequences of a severe weather event, magnified by incompetent local authorities in New Orleans, on the Bush administration. Obama is setting the stage to receive praise, rather than blame, no matter what actually happens between now and when Hurricane Irene blows itself out.

This is one more step in the degradation of American politics. One hundred years ago, people understood that the president had nothing to do with hurricanes. Now, the president is expected to pretend to have control over more or less everything. This has something to do with the inexorable expansion of federal power, and also something to do with the dumbing-down of the American people.”

Common Courtesy

7 Replies

One of the things I dislike about the Internet is the way it wears away at common courtesy. Some people in their comments  — blogs, product reviews, movie reviews —  just blast away, saying whatever they feel like saying, as rudely and bluntly as it comes out and who cares about the consequences!

One thing that I find especially irritating is when I post something political and people who have never commented before, whom I don’t know, suddenly appear with their negative comments about how wrong I am to have posted such a thing!  Sometimes their remarks do have something to do with what I said. Other times it’s some variant of Bush Derangement Syndrome. I have only to mention the subject in question and here comes the trashing. I wonder how they even found my post and have to conclude they are searching for particular subject matter. So they can go and pounce on some hapless blogger with their negative opinions.

WordPress allows me to moderate comments by first time commenters, and in general I don’t like to censor negative comments out of hand, so unless it’s really obvious they were just trolling for the subject, I approve them. That happened today regarding my Gov Christie post yesterday. Instead of acknowledging the courage and integrity the governor exhibited in the clip I showed, the commenter was on a mission to set me straight on my foolish claim that Christie was conservative. After I thanked him for the comment and noted that I’d not heard about the accusations he’d made, he proceeded to flood my blog with comment after comment on how Not-Conservative Christie supports cap and trade, amnesty and Obamacare, with plenty of links to support his assertions.

Well, fine. I didn’t know Christie supported those things, and a cursory investigation by means of Google indicates that he does indeed, at least to some degree. I don’t support cap and trade, amnesty or Obamacare but does that mean that I cannot applaud courage and common sense when I see it?  Good heavens, Christie’s the governor of Blue Blue Blue state New Jersey. I can hardly believe he’s even there. I doubt he could have been elected there if he were Ronald Reagan. And in any case, he IS a fiscal conservative, and I have watched him stand up to snarky reporters and angry teachers union activists with a backbone I’ve seen few others display. I admire that.

Still, seeing as the commenter was apparently from New Jersey, I can  also sympathize with his frustration. My senator, after all, is John McCain, Mr. I-was-a-Maverick-before-I-wasn’t-a-Maverick, who is also for cap and trade, amnesty, TARP and I can’t recall on Obamacare. I did not vote for him in the primary. I will in the general election, however, (holding my nose)  because his Democratic opponent will not bother to even  pretend  he’s conservative.  The bottom line is very, very few of our elected representatives fulfill all our criteria for Conservatism. And most of them cave immediately when pressured by the media or the unions. And probably by the DC social/political life, as well.

Besides that, Writing From the Edge 2 isn’t meant to be a political blog. I post about politics from time to time, because there are things I find interesting or admirable or exceptional, sometimes ironic, sometimes goofy, sometimes surprising or outrageous or even ominous. But I’m not into political activism and I’m not interested in getting into arguments with people who don’t like what I post, nor sponsoring political discussions in the comments section. There are many other blogs out there who welcome all that, but I just don’t have the time or emotional energy to do so.

In fact, I should be in bed right now. I did 4 hours of writing work today and hoped to get up early to do 4 more hours tomorrow. So I guess I’ll post this thing and stop second-guessing myself. If readers decide that’s it, they can’t read my blog any more because I censor comments I don’t like… so be it.

NJ Governor Chris Christie

4 Replies

I am sooo impressed by this guy, Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey, and have been for some time. Not only is he articulate and conservative, but he has courage and integrity and shows incredible leadership. Every time I hear him, my admiration increases.

In the video below, he responds to a reporter’s question about whether or not he’s going to fire the person responsible for a clerical error that caused the state to forfeit several hundreds of millions of federal education dollars. Some Obama administration bureaucrat denied the request because the wrong sheet of numbers was turned in amongst the mass of application documents. Conservative pundits are already wondering… is this because of “mindless worker-bee syndrome” or is it more insidious — punishment to Christie for being of the wrong party and for balancing the NJ state budget.

It’s not a long video, but the very best part, I think, is at the end, so watch it all the way through!

An Issue of Law and Nationalism, not Race

6 Replies

Last Thursday’s post on Judge Bolton’s injunction of AZ SB 1070 stimulated a comment from the opposing viewpoint that in turn provoked such a long answer from me, I thought it would serve better as an actual blog post.

“Aelinor” commented that she was delighted with Bolton’s ruling because she thought SB 1070 had racial overtones and we need something better. She also thought that racism was a problem in AZ, one she’d experienced first hand, and stated that “Unless you are a minority, you cannot say that you understand the racism firsthand.” My first response was to point out that her statement is itself racist since in it she was making an issue of my race in her assessment of my ability to understand something.

I take issue with that because for one thing, “racism” is merely someone having a judgmental, arrogant, implacable, critical, hate-filled, exclusionary and/or irrational attitude toward someone else and expressing it. It is someone making assessments of another’s  understanding, character, ability, talent, based on something as superficial as the color of one’s skin, structure of their bones, shape of their eyes, and assigning relative worth because of it.

Everything about that is stupid, ludicrous and absolutely, disgustingly wrong. And I don’t think I have to experience it as a minority to understand that.  In point of fact, I have experienced it, just not based on skin, bones, shape of eyes. It’s sin, it’s evil human viewpoint, and its source is the sin nature that every single one of us have. A nature we have all operated in from time to time (some of us, all the time) and will continue to operate in until the day we die, and we’ve all been the recipients/victims of other people’s sin natures, as others have been the recipients of ours. And race has absolutely zero to do with it.

No race is better or worse than another, just as no man, before God, is better or worse than another. We’re all depraved. We’re all sinners. Some of us go for the overt expression of it, in immoral degeneracy; some of us for the covert expression in moral degeneracy (think Pharisees of Jesus’s day for your example). Jesus died for all of us and desires for all men to be saved. We have only to believe in His name. Race is irrelevant.

And it’s irrelevant when it comes to SB 1070 as well.  This bill is not a furtherance of racism except in the thoughts, apparently, of those who think in terms of race. We’re not against Hispanics. We’re against people who break the law and think they should be rewarded for it by services paid for out of our paychecks. Or perhaps full citizenship. It doesn’t matter what race they are, what matters is that they come here illegally, they have flouted the laws of our land, circumvented the proper road to citizenship in order to get to the golden eggs.

Worse, because they can’t live in the mainstream, they gather in their own little enclaves, speaking their own language instead of ours, and failing to assimilate as so many other immigrants who have come before us have done. I read an article recently about the impact large numbers of a single, unassimilated ethnic group of this sort would have on the existing population — rather than assimilation, it’s invasion. The host country’s culture would be overwhelmed by the new if allowed unfettered entrance. The host country, in essence would be lost.

And that,  I think, it really what’s at stake here.

SB 1070 and this border issue is not about race but about our responsibility and determination as a nation to preserve our borders. If anyone can come in at any time, then we have no borders. If we have no borders, we have no nation, and if there are no nations, then we’re on the road to one world government, which is against the word of God. Nationalism is a biblical principle instituted for the protection of mankind. Man continually messes up every system he gets involved with, but if there are many nations, there’s always a chance for freedom to flourish somewhere.

There is another issue here as well, and that’s the rule of law, under which this country has always been governed and which is crumbling before our eyes. Judge Bolton’s ruling was not based on consideration of the law, but on her opinion of what is “right.” The Obama administration’s  justice department brought the suit not for fear of racism — having admitted 1070 has nothing to do with that — but in an attempt to consolidate power. They want amnesty. They want open borders. They want a raft of democratic voters, ignorant and beholden, feeding from the government trough, and motivated by that to vote for those who promise to feed and care for them.

They want all that in order to do what they really want, which, I truly believe, is to bring this country down. And so far, they seem to be succeeding.