|
Edited on Sat Feb-05-05 10:14 AM by OETKB
The Republicans win because they embrace a primitive view of what a society is and are willing to use deception in the form of propagands, outright lying, and violence to achieve it. They believe the top of the hieracharchal chain of human society is inherited wealth and the militarily stong. These are the people who know better than the rest of us. How else, in their thinking, did they get there? It uses religion as a tool to suppress any other view by presenting them as evil or dangerous to the people's way of life. It has taken them years as they have built institutions to implement this view(Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, Regnery Publishing, etc.) As we all know they now use these organizations to slant and control information to the public through our present media organizations. They actually believe in what they are doing. They truly believe that this is the essence of human society and is an inviolate, and unquestionable truth. Until I understood this, I was continually wondering why you can't get to first base with these people. If you do not harbor this ordering of society, you are the enemy and can be dealt with in any manner. It becomes morally right in their minds because they are protecting the correct structure of human society.
The Democrats must now present the alternate view and have the guts to label it the "right way" and theirs the "wrong way." This involves declaring a "social contract" which deals with human survival. It goes like this: As reasoning creatures with a desire to live together, it follows it is our intellect(of which there are several kinds) not brute force or the power of wealth which is necessary to ensure a meaningful existence and secure our niche on this planet. This calls for an open society where those who are well educated, have strong communication skills, and appropriate life experience should become our leaders. Religion, as Desmond Tutu has said, is neutral, neither good nor bad, but it is what people do in the name of religion which is judged. The spiritual intellect of humans is personal and is not a govermental tool since it is a belief system not based on experience or knowledge. Government is used to deal with what Thomas Paine called our "wickedness,", namely violence, greed, corruption and deception. Government exists to ensure trustworthiness, security, and true freedom(the ability to do what one wants to achieve intellectual and emotional contentment without fear of harm, but always within the law enacted by appropriate representation.)
We also understand humans are tribal, but we can expand the tribe to be as inclusive as possible since this helps to reduce conflicts arguing what belongs to whom. The sooner this includes the whole human race, the better off we all will be. Under the neocon model this is not possible since they believe in a society which is better than anyone else's. This is a call for perpetual conflict. In my own mind I play with this idea. What if somehow this country with all its inhabitants were suddenly removed from the Earth, would the rest of the world get along without us? The answer, of course, is a resounding yes. Therefore we need a unifying model, not one that breaks us up into different tribes. This is a multi-year project to implement and will require a major effort. However, I feel it becomes easier when you know where you are clearly headed and can clearly articulate it. It has the ring of authenticity which is what the other side is using to convince people to join them. We must energetically and convincingly show there is a better view. It will take people of all talents and therefore all intellects with the strong exception of deception and blind faith to carry this out.
How I got here: "The Naked Ape," "Common Sense," biographies of Benjamin Franklin, Jefferson's letter to Adams on "Equality," "Blinded by the Right," "The Republican Noise Machine," "Don't Think of an Elephant," "What's the Matter with Kansas," "Guns, Germs, and Steel," "A People's History of the United States," the economic theories of Henry George, and Scott Ritter.
|