A message to young (and old) ideologues

[MaggieMae]

With the heated congressional debate over the tax cut extension, we are witnessing an historic example of Constitutional tenets of checks and balances in order to reach compromise. It is democracy in action, and one for the history books.

The Constitution does not express ideological opinions because a single political philosophy should not create rule of law. A single event should not dictate reaction to future events of a similar nature.

The public rightfully needs to have adult conversations and debates concerning real world problems in real time, and historically as now, the outcome is not going to please everyone. But our system of government is arranged so that those who "lose" the debate of the moment will live to see another day.

I'm continually reminded of the brilliance of our founders who instinctively knew how to frame the Constitution while not knowing how diverse the nation would ultimately become.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

With the heated congressional debate over the tax cut extension, we are witnessing an historic example of Constitutional tenets of checks and balances in order to reach compromise. It is democracy in action, and one for the history books.

The Constitution does not express ideological opinions because a single political philosophy should not create rule of law. A single event should not dictate reaction to future events of a similar nature.

The public rightfully needs to have adult conversations and debates concerning real world problems in real time, and historically as now, the outcome is not going to please everyone. But our system of government is arranged so that those who "lose" the debate of the moment will live to see another day.

I'm continually reminded of the brilliance of our founders who instinctively knew how to frame the Constitution while not knowing how diverse the nation would ultimately become.

Which is why we should all fight the government's urges to "Fundamentally transform the united states of america" and we should also fight all their attempts to go above and beyond all the limits the constitution has placed on them.....recent examples the patriot act and the health care bill.

 

[loosecannon]

only on a political board can the complete breakdown of our republican system be heralded as a shining example of the constitution's brilliance.

The system has fallen down and it can't get up.
And the constitution did not enshrine political parties to dominate Congress.

 

[MaggieMae]

only on a political board can the complete breakdown of our republican system be heralded as a shining example of the constitution's brilliance.

The system has fallen down and it can't get up.
And the constitution did not enshrine political parties to dominate Congress.

Sorry, but I've seen it fall down several times in the course of my lifetime and it always manages to land upright, on its feet. And it will again. The irony is that with all the screeching about "Constitutional Values" by the far right, it appears to the the far right who has no faith in the system at all.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

only on a political board can the complete breakdown of our republican system be heralded as a shining example of the constitution's brilliance.

The system has fallen down and it can't get up.
And the constitution did not enshrine political parties to dominate Congress.

You read Madison's arguments in the federalist papers, you would see your mistake. Partisan politics was not new to him, and in Federalist #10 he explains how the system uses parties rather than allows parties to game the system.

Madison is the guy who wrote the initial draft they worked from.

At the same time I had to read the Federalist papers, I also had to read Machiavelli's Discourses for another class. You could tell Madison was very familiar with Machiavelli's work.

 

[QUENTIN]

"Ideologues" is treated like a dirty word as though essential, foundational beliefs aren't "pragmatic", but I'd argue it's just another way of saying "a principled person who sticks to their convictions."

The country's founders were mostly ideologues who zealously advocated and codified a clear ideological opinion found in absolutist, unequivocal language in the Constitution: a firm belief in representative democracy, aversion to concentrations of power, the inviolable right of freedom of speech, religion, press, privacy, assembly, fair trials, etc.

Most great leaders throughout history were ideologues and men finding common ground in competing principles they resolutely maintain produces far better results than excessive concession on matters of principle and adoption of so much Realpolitik.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

only on a political board can the complete breakdown of our republican system be heralded as a shining example of the constitution's brilliance.

The system has fallen down and it can't get up.
And the constitution did not enshrine political parties to dominate Congress.

Sorry, but I've seen it fall down several times in the course of my lifetime and it always manages to land upright, on its feet. And it will again. The irony is that with all the screeching about "Constitutional Values" by the far right, it appears to the the far right who has no faith in the system at all.

What? Who says this? We have faith in the system, but we reserve ultimate faith in our ability to manage our own lives. We don't have faith in government's ability or motives when reaching out into areas like education, values, food, drink, this that and the other thing.

 

[Jarhead]

With the heated congressional debate over the tax cut extension, we are witnessing an historic example of Constitutional tenets of checks and balances in order to reach compromise. It is democracy in action, and one for the history books.

The Constitution does not express ideological opinions because a single political philosophy should not create rule of law. A single event should not dictate reaction to future events of a similar nature.

The public rightfully needs to have adult conversations and debates concerning real world problems in real time, and historically as now, the outcome is not going to please everyone. But our system of government is arranged so that those who "lose" the debate of the moment will live to see another day.

I'm continually reminded of the brilliance of our founders who instinctively knew how to frame the Constitution while not knowing how diverse the nation would ultimately become.

Well said.

We are seeing democracy in action.

Just wish both sides would stop with the rhetoric. The rhetoric is all about elections, and right now is not the time for political posturing.

 

[Jarhead]

only on a political board can the complete breakdown of our republican system be heralded as a shining example of the constitution's brilliance.

The system has fallen down and it can't get up.
And the constitution did not enshrine political parties to dominate Congress.

The system designed is well at work.

The unethical manipulation of the system by both sides of the aisle is what is slowing it up.

 

[AllieBaba]

I thought the word was "ideagogue".

Lol. Learn something every day!

 

[Samson]

only on a political board can the complete breakdown of our republican system be heralded as a shining example of the constitution's brilliance.

The system has fallen down and it can't get up.
And the constitution did not enshrine political parties to dominate Congress.

Sorry, but I've seen it fall down several times in the course of my lifetime and it always manages to land upright, on its feet. And it will again. The irony is that with all the screeching about "Constitutional Values" by the far right, it appears to the the far right who has no faith in the system at all.

The real irony is that this isn't your most absurd post.

If only Americans had more faith in King George and the British Government, which had its problems, but "always managed to land upright, on its feet."



Poor maggie.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

For your reading

Enlightenment.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

North Korea does not have this problem. I would rather have the problem than the cure.

 

[MaggieMae]

only on a political board can the complete breakdown of our republican system be heralded as a shining example of the constitution's brilliance.

The system has fallen down and it can't get up.
And the constitution did not enshrine political parties to dominate Congress.

You read Madison's arguments in the federalist papers, you would see your mistake. Partisan politics was not new to him, and in Federalist #10 he explains how the system uses parties rather than allows parties to game the system.

Madison is the guy who wrote the initial draft they worked from.

At the same time I had to read the Federalist papers, I also had to read Machiavelli's Discourses for another class. You could tell Madison was very familiar with Machiavelli's work.

Ironically, it was the Federalist Papers where the DEBATE first occurred. And the compromise became the Constitution. That was my point.

 

[MaggieMae]

"Ideologues" is treated like a dirty word as though essential, foundational beliefs aren't "pragmatic", but I'd argue it's just another way of saying "a principled person who sticks to their convictions."

The country's founders were mostly ideologues who zealously advocated and codified a clear ideological opinion found in absolutist, unequivocal language in the Constitution: a firm belief in representative democracy, aversion to concentrations of power, the inviolable right of freedom of speech, religion, press, privacy, assembly, fair trials, etc.

Most great leaders throughout history were ideologues and men finding common ground in competing principles they resolutely maintain produces far better results than excessive concession on matters of principle and adoption of so much Realpolitik.

Of course they were ideologues, but they rose above it, recognizing that their philosophies were NOT always right and NOT always wrong either. And I defy you to actually read the Constitution and not find it replete with ambiguous language, which is why we have a US Supreme Court and why interpretation of the law of the land was given over to that body in the Constitution. If the Constitution was "uniquivocal" by its codes, the Supreme Court would not exist.

 

[MaggieMae]

only on a political board can the complete breakdown of our republican system be heralded as a shining example of the constitution's brilliance.

The system has fallen down and it can't get up.
And the constitution did not enshrine political parties to dominate Congress.

Sorry, but I've seen it fall down several times in the course of my lifetime and it always manages to land upright, on its feet. And it will again. The irony is that with all the screeching about "Constitutional Values" by the far right, it appears to the the far right who has no faith in the system at all.

What? Who says this? We have faith in the system, but we reserve ultimate faith in our ability to manage our own lives. We don't have faith in government's ability or motives when reaching out into areas like education, values, food, drink, this that and the other thing.

I was answering specifically to the assertion that the system has fallen down, my point being either you believe that the system will ultimately right itself because of the Constitution, or you don't. We can pick apart the laws (and attitudes) created since its inception 'till pigs fly, but the institution will remain intact.

 

[MaggieMae]

only on a political board can the complete breakdown of our republican system be heralded as a shining example of the constitution's brilliance.

The system has fallen down and it can't get up.
And the constitution did not enshrine political parties to dominate Congress.

The system designed is well at work.

The unethical manipulation of the system by both sides of the aisle is what is slowing it up.

Yup.

 

[MaggieMae]

I thought the word was "ideagogue".

Lol. Learn something every day!

Not a bad word to add to our vocabulary, since (to Jarhead's point), the Washington politicians are engaging in demagoguery, aka, political posturing.

 

[MaggieMae]

only on a political board can the complete breakdown of our republican system be heralded as a shining example of the constitution's brilliance.

The system has fallen down and it can't get up.
And the constitution did not enshrine political parties to dominate Congress.

Sorry, but I've seen it fall down several times in the course of my lifetime and it always manages to land upright, on its feet. And it will again. The irony is that with all the screeching about "Constitutional Values" by the far right, it appears to the the far right who has no faith in the system at all.

The real irony is that this isn't your most absurd post.

If only Americans had more faith in King George and the British Government, which had its problems, but "always managed to land upright, on its feet."



Poor maggie.

Looking for another fight, I see. Bring it, jerk.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

And they will always do that. It seems to work for them. If there were a more effective way of getting the populations attention, they would do it that way.

 

[Jarhead]

I thought the word was "ideagogue".

Lol. Learn something every day!

Not a bad word to add to our vocabulary, since (to Jarhead's point), the Washington politicians are engaging in demagoguery, aka, political posturing.

And said politicians have us fighting their battles.

We are their puppets as they bring down our system.