A message to young (and old) ideologues

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.

Although they differed on many issues, Madison and Jefferson remained close friends because they both believed in that strong sentiment.
 
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.

Madison was discussing issue partisanship not the entrenched political parties we have today. There is no comparison or basis to assert that Madison was a proponent of our two party system. NOTHING could be further from the truth.

He even acknowledged the dangers of or corrosive potential for issue partisanship in your federalist passage.
 
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.

lmao!
 
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.

Well the balance of power will be a lesser majority come January, which is why I've been saying for months now that I'm eager for that to happen. But I didn't expect any major revelations, so it will be interesting to see the results of the tax extension bill and how the battle will rage over cutting the deficit thereafter. I just hope the Senate Democrats don't just start taking the same JUST SAY NO position that the Republicans have. Someone needs to break the cycle of "revenge" politics because the country can't stay politically paralized forever.
 
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.

Well the balance of power will be a lesser majority come January, which is why I've been saying for months now that I'm eager for that to happen. But I didn't expect any major revelations, so it will be interesting to see the results of the tax extension bill and how the battle will rage over cutting the deficit thereafter. I just hope the Senate Democrats don't just start taking the same JUST SAY NO position that the Republicans have. Someone needs to break the cycle of "revenge" politics because the country can't stay politically paralized forever.

And you expect the GOP to break the cycle of revenge?
No way.
The dems?
Nope.

It is all about the subesequent election. Never about what is really important...governing.
 
And said politicians have us fighting their battles.

We are their puppets as they bring down our system.

Well the balance of power will be a lesser majority come January, which is why I've been saying for months now that I'm eager for that to happen. But I didn't expect any major revelations, so it will be interesting to see the results of the tax extension bill and how the battle will rage over cutting the deficit thereafter. I just hope the Senate Democrats don't just start taking the same JUST SAY NO position that the Republicans have. Someone needs to break the cycle of "revenge" politics because the country can't stay politically paralized forever.

And you expect the GOP to break the cycle of revenge?
No way.
The dems?
Nope.

It is all about the subesequent election. Never about what is really important...governing.

I hope you're wrong, but Harry Reid sets the agenda, and he's a jerk. (And I've said that before too.) So time will tell.
 
Well the balance of power will be a lesser majority come January, which is why I've been saying for months now that I'm eager for that to happen. But I didn't expect any major revelations, so it will be interesting to see the results of the tax extension bill and how the battle will rage over cutting the deficit thereafter. I just hope the Senate Democrats don't just start taking the same JUST SAY NO position that the Republicans have. Someone needs to break the cycle of "revenge" politics because the country can't stay politically paralized forever.

And you expect the GOP to break the cycle of revenge?
No way.
The dems?
Nope.

It is all about the subesequent election. Never about what is really important...governing.

I hope you're wrong, but Harry Reid sets the agenda, and he's a jerk. (And I've said that before too.) So time will tell.

lol...and look what happened in the house...we replaced one posturing speaker with another.

I do not frown on Pelosi for her ideology. I frown on her for the way she uses rhetoric.
Well, I see Boehner as guilty of the same childish manipulation of the peoples thought process.

We are going to have another 2 years of political games.
 
"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.

The ambiguities and charge of the Supreme Court are almost all in relation to how clearly-defined laws apply to practical, often complex situations, many of which the framers could not have anticipated. These questions evince an ambiguity of application and contention over interpretation rather than ambiguous language. "Shall" is incredibly pervasive and quite unequivocal while recognized exceptions (and the ability and means to modify them) are also codified in the language.

To make my point relevant to this bill:

If those who believed middle-class tax cuts, deficit reduction, and social welfare were essential stuck to their guns, they would force those who demand extension of tax cuts for the wealthy to find the common ground that neither party wants taxes to go up on the nation's majority.

If push actually came to shove and a true stalemate was reached, Republicans would not allow taxes to go up across the board for it would violate their overarching low tax principle. Nor would they allow millions of unemployed to fall into destitution during a recession because it would be political suicide. The current stance of Congressional Republicans to not relent on assuring beneficial rates for the wealthy is not based on a foundational, unimpeachable ideology, but is political posturing calculated to attain something they want rather than something they need because they know Democrats need to not raise middle-class taxes or dump the unemployed and have such a habit of giving in.

Right now Republicans have taken advantage of that position to say "you get nothing unless you give us this." If Democrats took an equally firm stance, they would force the other side into a position where they had to vote against a massively popular policy (86% support), be the party responsible for a major tax hike (in pursuit of a policy that expands the deficit), and take full blame for the consequences or agree on what both parties recognize is necessary - low taxes for the middle class. Democrats would likely need to give up something they want (like the allocation of some of the unspent stimulus money or any number of pet initiatives) in order to pay for the benefits, that's compromise, but would not have to relent on a policy they believe triggered and exacerbates the depression, particularly given that they have the American people's support (74% don't want tax cuts for wealthy extended).

They could extend a middle class tax break and unemployment benefits because ultimately neither side wants those things to end, some are just trying to exploit the moment to get a few more things on their agenda, which both parties always do with bills but doesn't always need to win out particularly given the current climate.

Again, effective and beneficial compromise arises from finding common ground in competing principles, not making concessions on vital matters or supporting what you know to be harmful.
 
Last edited:
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."

:lol::lol::lol:

Poor maggie.

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

To easy

Like slapping a retard.
 
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.

we have issues, we had issues form day one, but I'd still take what we have over the alternatives.

If you have one, please share.
 
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.

we have issues, we had issues form day one, but I'd still take what we have over the alternatives.

If you have one, please share.

The system that most democracies, rather almost all democracies, adopted is a few steps better than ours:

parliamentary democracy -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

There are myriad parties by design but they must cobble together a coalition to lead and all parties get proportional representation. They also can recall the PM at any time if they no longer support his leadership.

It's a more flexible system than ours and more responsive to the need to actually govern. Plus it gives everybody some representation in the government instead of the either/or/neither character of our system.
 
And you expect the GOP to break the cycle of revenge?
No way.
The dems?
Nope.

It is all about the subesequent election. Never about what is really important...governing.

I hope you're wrong, but Harry Reid sets the agenda, and he's a jerk. (And I've said that before too.) So time will tell.

lol...and look what happened in the house...we replaced one posturing speaker with another.

I do not frown on Pelosi for her ideology. I frown on her for the way she uses rhetoric.
Well, I see Boehner as guilty of the same childish manipulation of the peoples thought process.

We are going to have another 2 years of political games.

Well in fairness, the Speaker's job is to set the agenda and gather the herd to support it. Until something is brought to the floor, the minority party is not involved. But I do hope there aren't the concerted efforts (in either chamber) to limit access to the process just to prove how much muscle the majority has. That immediately eliminates any hope of compromise.

I thought it was amusing that not 15 minutes ago, Bill Clinton echoed almost my exact words (above) that the partisan bickering which has paralized the process needs to stop.
 
"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.

The ambiguities and charge of the Supreme Court are almost all in relation to how clearly-defined laws apply to practical, often complex situations, many of which the framers could not have anticipated. These questions evince an ambiguity of application and contention over interpretation rather than ambiguous language. "Shall" is incredibly pervasive and quite unequivocal while recognized exceptions (and the ability and means to modify them) are also codified in the language.

To make my point relevant to this bill:

If those who believed middle-class tax cuts, deficit reduction, and social welfare were essential stuck to their guns, they would force those who demand extension of tax cuts for the wealthy to find the common ground that neither party wants taxes to go up on the nation's majority.

If push actually came to shove and a true stalemate was reached, Republicans would not allow taxes to go up across the board for it would violate their overarching low tax principle. Nor would they allow millions of unemployed to fall into destitution during a recession because it would be political suicide. The current stance of Congressional Republicans to not relent on assuring beneficial rates for the wealthy is not based on a foundational, unimpeachable ideology, but is political posturing calculated to attain something they want rather than something they need because they know Democrats need to not raise middle-class taxes or dump the unemployed and have such a habit of giving in.

Right now Republicans have taken advantage of that position to say "you get nothing unless you give us this." If Democrats took an equally firm stance, they would force the other side into a position where they had to vote against a massively popular policy (86% support), be the party responsible for a major tax hike (in pursuit of a policy that expands the deficit), and take full blame for the consequences or agree on what both parties recognize is necessary - low taxes for the middle class. Democrats would likely need to give up something they want (like the allocation of some of the unspent stimulus money or any number of pet initiatives) in order to pay for the benefits, that's compromise, but would not have to relent on a policy they believe triggered and exacerbates the depression, particularly given that they have the American people's support (74% don't want tax cuts for wealthy extended).

They could extend a middle class tax break and unemployment benefits because ultimately neither side wants those things to end, some are just trying to exploit the moment to get a few more things on their agenda, which both parties always do with bills but doesn't always need to win out particularly given the current climate.

Again, effective and beneficial comprise arises from finding common ground in competing principles, not making concessions on vital matters or supporting what you know to be harmful.

That's all very sensible. Maybe first on the agenda for the 112th should be how to treat the remaining stimulus money, about $45 billion, starting with covering the 13-month unemployment extension. (Frankly, I did think that was an exceedingly long time.) I see that as the first order of business by the new Speaker.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top