Would SOMEONE read this trash and tell me what you think?

[NoSheep]

I posted this under a different subject heading in GDP and it clearly wasn't getting any bites. I hate that. And my first post there too. ;)

Consider this quote:

"The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first-rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even the mob with him by force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second and third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most easily adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.
The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
H. L. Mencken

WOW!

Here's your daily dose of what I've been thinking!

I'm wondering what in the world the Democrats are going to do to get together and come up with a fundamentally sound plan to better this insanity we have found ourselves in.

I've very recently had my attention turned toward HL Mencken 1880-1956 (journalist, satirist, social critic) and William Jennings Bryan (politician, orator, progressive, fundamentalist Christian!) Two great thinkers who, however exceptional, were very much a product of their time. Both stand accused today of imbalance, one for his curious outlook on evolution and fear of science (Bryan) and another for his heavy-handed criticism of American society in general and just about everything else! (Mencken). The amazing thing is, so much of what they had to say is so relevant right now as far as politics go. People haven't gotten a whole lot smarter than Bryan and Mencken's dumbest moments. Democrats can certainly learn from Bryan's arguments that it is a moral imperative to shape policy that seeks to protect the less advantaged. And Mencken, while a most fabulous smart-ass, can show you how futile it is in times like these to be "above" humanity with ones wit and cynicism.

There is a new book called A Godly Hero (by Michael Kazin) about Bryan and I think if you can get beyond his fundamentalism, it might be a great read for anyone who'd like to fly back in the face of the unethical Republicans who beg to take the higher moral ground.

We all know the Republicans see social issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. as a bandwagon they can ride to get votes. All the while, being morally reprehensible themselves.

Here is my favorite quote from WJ Bryan:

"The poor man is called a socialist if he believes the wealth of the rich should be divided among the poor, but the rich man is called a financier if he devises a plan by which the pittance of the poor can be converted to his use."

The quote I started with of Mencken's is typical of his point of view, which I agree with completely. However...that sass is NOT going to turn our Republican neighbors into open-minded, ethical voters who think beyond "survival of the richest."

Believe me, I don't want to go back to a pre-Darwinist world as Bryan would have it. And I wouldn't take a million bucks for a smart-ass like Mencken (he reminds me so much of myself). But the Democrats don't just need to win (and they will) but they need to make genuine change and do it with moral conviction and assurity. I fear many Democrats in office have become just as corrupt as the Republicans. They've seen the fast route to power and may be doomed to repeat it to get back on top. We don't need TWO Republican parties. Democrats need to remember where we come from and that, I believe, is from a moral higher ground.

[RagingInMiami]

1. I'm confused

What are you calling trash?

[NoSheep]

4. It's a joke. I don't think it is trash. I actually think it is important,

but nobody was reading it so I thought if I said it was trash, it might get some attention! :D

[Flabbergasted]

2. I like the thoughts! Very deep.

Personally I'm having a difficult time getting the central point and seeing some of the connections you're making.

[acmejack]

3. It is very good overall!

But I must take exception with the closing paragraph. "I fear many Democrats in office have become just as corrupt as the Republicans. They've seen the fast route to power and may be doomed to repeat it to get back on top. We don't need TWO Republican parties."

Did you happen to catch the Senate today? Have you seen the Bankruptcy act, the Budget Reconciliation Act, the Tax Cuts, Either of the two gentlemen you discuss would tell you that there is only one party with two wings in this Country at the present time.

Trillions for offense but we let old people die because we are too cheap to pay for their oxygen. Sure.

[NoSheep]

6. Good points. I'm particularly talking about those issues that the

general public responds to. (Sadly, not the real stuff that goes on in the congress...most of which has only STARTED to make any sense at all) Those things that get votes, and it kills me that the democrats have traditionally been morally on the right path yet the repukes get the "moral" votes for all the wrong reasons. I'm suggesting the Dems need to try to get through the thick skulls of those who have decided their hatred is really morality and remind them of what morality really is!

I am fascinated that these two voices from history are playing into this issue right now. Sorry if my point seemed obtuse.

[zeemike]

5. All of that is pretty heavy

And looks to the past.
It's a greatly different world we have now than at the time of Mencken and Bryan. In those days personality is all you had.
Now we have a media driven spectacle that requires as much as anything, a good actor that knows his lines and sticks to them, and a public relations team that sees to it that the media dovetails into the lines that the candidate recites. In other words it is all a show and if you do ot have a producer and the necessary superstructure you are not going anywhere.
Now that sounds dark and hopeless but not necessarily, because a truly committed leader with a clear message can overcome all the showbiz tricks by appealing to the people directly. and that is what we need. Another JFK or RFK that can escape the lone assassin long enough to get elected at least.

[NoSheep]

7. It is the value of Bryan's arguments about the immorality of the rich

and their enablers that I feel is so relevant.

[zeemike]

11. Relevant and true

But anyone that dare say something like that today would be ripped to shreds in a heartbeat.
Truth is always truth but not always popular.

[kentuck]

8. You make a very insightful comment...

"...but they need to make genuine change..."

[NoSheep]

10. YES! And I feel the basic morality of looking after the less advantaged

is genuine and very much what the Democratic party has been about. I think we need to re-focus our energy on this and we will show the country who the real boogey-man is. Not the gays and not the poor and not the feminists whose civil rights are being eroded while we spend our collective fortune to conquer mid-east oil, but the greedy pigs who have come to control every aspect of our society by lyng and raping the constitution.

My reference to Mencken is because I have been very witty and angry, and I don't think that is doing any good. While Bryan would be considered the intellectual inferior of Menckin, he actually has the answer in this case.

[bobbieinok]

9. a while ago DU had a long discussion on Bryan...I looked up

his 'Cross of Gold' speech he gave at the democratic convention in 1886 and found, among others, this passage

...

...my friends, the question we are to decide is: Upon which side will the Democratic party fight; upon the side of "the idle holders of idle capital" or upon the side of "the struggling masses?" That is the question which the party must answer first, and then it must be answered by each individual hereafter. The sympathies of the Democratic party, as shown by the platform, are on the side of the struggling masses who have ever been the foundation of the Democratic party. There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them.

more....

[NoSheep]

12. Excellent reference. Exactly why I'm blown away by Bryan.

And imagine...he was a creationist. Mencken was the more learned in that he considered that point of view to be almost savage. I've BEEN Mencken ever since the first stolen election, but I know it will take a rally cry for morality to out smart these wolves in sheep's clothing.

[Poppyseedman]

13. I can't agree more.

I fear many Democrats in office have become just as corrupt as the Republicans. They've seen the fast route to power and may be doomed to repeat it to get back on top.

Many here think the route to regaining power is in impeachment. It is my humble opinion that is the absolutely worst thing as a party we can do to regain power.

The republicans came to power in 1994, it was not by impeachment, but by bringing forth a vision and being the party of change. That political strategy can work for us.

We need the leadership and political vision to do so. I fear the current crop of democratic leadership couldn't find a viable political strategy if it bite them on the ass.

[NoSheep]

15. (A bit of voting fraud also had a hand in that ) But we agree in that

We democrats have to take win back the argument with reality (true vision) and not the smoke and mirrors of the repukes.
Impeachment is due, plain and simple, but it will not repair the damage that has been done to this country and the rest of the world, it will only open an opportunity. I think there should be some focus on the mission when the opportunity arises.

[BiggJawn]

14. If Mencken were alive today...

He'd be saying "See? I TOLD you so!".
We do have a moron "adorning" the white House, and yes, I think that DOES represent, if not the "inner soul" of our Murkan Eye-Dull, "Survivor: GITMO!" Super-sized Plain Folks, then at least their desire for a "beer drinkin' buddy" as stupid as they are.

"...that sass is NOT going to turn our Republican neighbors into open-minded, ethical voters who think beyond "survival of the richest."..."

No, and neither will a two-by-four upside their bigotted skulls, either. No matter how perilous, they will NEVER vote anything but their portfolios. For "Exhibit A", I give you the Log Cabin ReTHUGlicans, watching the Dow go through the roof and taking their investments with it, as they all shuffle backwards back into the Closet.

I had my belly full of the gawd-damn mythical "Swing Voters" last election. If I have to lie to a bunch of idiots in order to trick them into voting Democrat, fuck it, I'll stay home.

And yes, I'm striking for Mencken's job as Head Curmudgeon.

[NoSheep]

16. I never suggested lying. It is not a lie that democrats have traditionally

worked for a government that sought to protect the common man. You've misunderstood my point. I'm talking about showing these freaks; the right wing fundamentalist hatred mongering greedy fucks who think they are MORAL because they are bigoted and ignorant, that TRUE morality lies in looking after the less advantaged. That is why I'm blown away by Bryan. He is an enigma in that he held both fundamentalism and progressiveness in the same mind. I'm saying, as a person who more identifies with Mencken (as you seem to), I'm blown away to be enlightened by Bryan.

[BiggJawn]

22. Of course it's not a lie...

..That the Democratic party has traditionally protected and boosted "the little guy", or at least they did until the rise of the DLC, Centrists, and other forms of "ReTHUGlican LITE".

Where the lie come in is when somebody insists that we (I) have to keep quiet about my personal dislikes and prejudices in order to convince these "weak" ReTHUG voters that there's plenty of room in our Big Tent and it's a huge party for everybody.

Every election cycle, I read and hear how I and others like me are "costing the party votes" by scaring away the stupid ("Oh, gee, the Election's today, and I don't know WHO to vote for!")"Swing Voters", Which is how I also interpreted your admonition about "sass".

[NoSheep]

23. But I don't have those feelings at all, so I must not have meant that

by "sass" . I think I meant I see myself being pretty snobby sometimes and I think I need to be less cynical. That's all. People can't hear the good in what I say sometimes because I say it with such sarcasm. Sorry you misunderstood my meaning.

[TreasonousBastard]

17. Well, Bryan and Mencken were men of...

their times, and those times are long gone.

I'm guessing Letterman is as close as we get to Mencken nowadays, and Bryan was preaching to his flock of Midwestern farmers getting killed with miserable crop prices largely blamed on currency crises. Remember that Bryan was a pacifist, too, and that was largely from the same religious leadings that made him fight Darwinism.

Thing I miss about people like Bryan is that he quit his job as Secretary of State because we were going to war. I don't buy into bimetallism and I don't buy into Fundamentalism, but I do admire that kind of integrity. Just don't see that sort of thing any more.

But, I digress... A major problem now is that appeals to feeding the poor and all just don't get you votes. Oh, it gets you some votes, but not enough to mean much. Too many of the "working class" just doens't see itself as working class any more. A prime example would be the better paid union workers, like electricians and longshoremen, who can easily make 6 figures the way their contracts are written. I know a few of them, and they sure don't think of Wal-Mart employees or hotel workers as brothers and sisters in the fight. They're voting Republican now, because they're worried about their money and if you're poor, it's probably your own damn fault anyway.

And so it goes...

[NoSheep]

19. Too many of the "working class" just don't see themselves as ....

except for your grammar ;)I say yes. The poor conservatives seem to think they aren't being duped! They bought the idea that being poor was somehow a sin! Amazing.

If the repukes can convince the (mostly) white poor that they are not poor...
If they can convince the greedy that they are pious..
If they can convince us that war is peace and torture is a family value...
I think we can at the very least claim the moral high ground on what we all know deep down is right. The Democrats have cowered to this shit (I fear). I'm worried we will lose our fundamental values of equality and fairness. We have to de-program the idiots and make them ashamed. It's like moses coming down and finding the flock building a golden calf. Folks have strayed.

I'm not in any way religious, but I know the R's have preyed/prayed on the hypocrisy of the so called religious. Can the Democrats teach the truth? That is what I hope for. And I hope they have not lost the truth themselves.

and so it goes...do you like Kurt V too?

[flipperNOTgipper]

18. Um......WHOA!!!!!!

Where does that put Big Dawg, FDR, Truman, JFK, and the People's Hero--and my personal babe magnet--John Kerry?:spank:

[Lexingtonian]

20. I think you're struggling with two points

one of which is the nature of political parties, and the other is a moral politics. There's a problem, though, in that you don't place these into the historical situation- the composition of the People and the challenges it faces.

I don't know of anything that will 'turn our Republican neighbors into open-minded, ethical voters who think beyond "survival of the fittest"'. Then again, I don't think we need that on large scale. What we want a big chunk of them to do is give up resistance to a bunch of fundamental changes in the country. The Grim Reaper will inevitably be the major agent of permanent change in the electorate.

Grabbing the moral high ground is the way an embattled minority remains viable. A majority has to argue that its rule is pragmatic, the best solution possible to implement under the circumstances. And if you read over 19th and early 20th century American politics, the Parties represent essentially interest groups, whatever the moral claims. I don't think any of that has changed.

I think the way to go is to walk away from defensiveness. You have to let intelligent people look at each policy area and decide what is most important, what true solution solves the slew of problems large and small in its area, and what the politics of implementing that solution is. For example, gay marriage legalization sweeps up gay rights and much of womens' rights matters. The many state-level criminal disenfranchisement laws in the country are a travesty and probably the root cause of elections problems nationally; they're possibly also the political keystone to criminal rights. Abolishing, overturning, and repealing these laws should be a priority. And so on in a few dozen areas.

Politicians reflect us, The People, all too well. They come to decisions and positions from understanding what their constituents have decided upon and what these constituents have avoided decisions, or made bad compromises, about.

Simply having a strong analysis of our present problems is a lot. Confidence and hope for the future emanates from strong thinking, and plans of action as well. The political world is full of misguided good people and helpful/useful bad ones; and in politics, to some extent bad people achieve some redemption by getting good measures through that good and moral people are unable to. Morality should carry us on, but some things implemented or destroyed cause improvements in the national life that greatly surpass the moral dickering or arithmetic involved in the decision process. The evil too serve the good in a limited fashion, it is wrong to cast them from us and good cause lightly. A great deal of moralizing has to be given up to achieve large things. But an achievement of permanant good, though seemingly become materially very small when attained, has remarkable power over the people who notice it. One mid-sized one restores a high amount of faith in the public life. A few of them, and people start thinking everything is possible.

What we do have is a lot of Democratic politicians who are essentially too old to want to make great changes in the national life. But for now, to be blunt, the ones we're stuck with are still good enough to do the first part of the job: cleaning up and investigating the Republican mess. We'll be replacing a lot in the next few years. Over on dKos, people are saying the next generation of Democratic politicians waiting in the wings is really a good one.

[NoSheep]

21. The ethical route is always the most pragmatic.

"A majority has to argue that its rule is pragmatic, the best solution possible to implement under the circumstances."

I SO wish I had used the term "ethics" instead of "morality" in this discussion. If this admonistration had been ethical, as in most situations, pragmatism is inborn.