We Need a Whole New Way of Thinking About Government

Which statements more are closest to your point of view? Check all that apply:

  • The USA requires a bigger more authoritarian government.

    Votes: 1 1.6%
  • Government should take care of the poor.

    Votes: 5 8.1%
  • The rich should be required to support the poor.

    Votes: 4 6.5%
  • The government should provide the general welfare.

    Votes: 11 17.7%
  • Federal and State Government invite corruption when it dispenses charity.

    Votes: 19 30.6%
  • Government should not do anything the private sector does better.

    Votes: 31 50.0%
  • Government is too big, too intrusive, too expensive.

    Votes: 38 61.3%
  • The Federal Government should secure our rights and then leave us alone.

    Votes: 43 69.4%
  • None of the above. I'll explain in my post.

    Votes: 5 8.1%

  • Total voters
    62
My favorite guru, Walter Wiliams PhD, posted this on his Facebook page today. It is music to my ears because it is singing the song of a whole new way of looking at government which is basicly the original way of looking at government:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zOIFv8hvXA&feature=player_embedded

There are a number of issues in which I disagree with the Honorable Mr. Paul--Dr. Williams is much more a libertarian of his stripe than I am--but everything he is saying here definitely should become part of the debate.

Yeah. Some of Paul's positions such as national defense I simply would argue against. But I truly believe that both of us could so argue in good faith and with respect of each other's intent and unquestioned patriotism. I am slowly turning towards Paul's beliefs regarding the Federal Reserve and the gold standard. This brings up an important point. When I first encountered some of Paul's positions I thought him a wacko. While I now have tempered this view, I can't help to think how radical true conservative beliefs must seem to those who truly believe the progressive ideology. Excepting those such as politicians, union leaders (not members), and such that now obtain power and wealth via the progressive excuse for bigger and more intrusive government, there are many that have only known the progressive influence and education. This has been a movement that had honest and forthright intentions that started just before the begining of the 20th century and whose main luminaries were TR and Woodrow Wilson (an aside: I am more in line with TR regarding foreign policy than Paul). Progressive thinking has taken over both political thinking and academia since then. So, I think we, as descendents of Madisonian thought, not only have a tough row to hoe, but have the responsibility to hoe none the less. It is our responsibility and duty to, respectfully ,correct, cajole, and guide those that might listen to our arguments. This is especially true of the youth. I know this might sound condescending but it is not meant to be. If we are to argue for constitutionalism we must also follow both its letter and its spirit of treating fellow citizens respectfully while constantly hammering home the message by pointing out empirical realities that make our point. However, we should not acquiesce to statist lies or succumb to their attempts to bate us. Conservatives are becoming much, much better at this. But you know all this.

JM
 
I have always resisted strict term limits requirements because I am such a strong believer in the lessons of experience. If we should have an election at the same time as certain kinds of national crisis or during a war or impending war, it could be unfortunate that those with the greatest experience and expertise might be forced out re term limits. And I think an organization like GOOOH also has to be sure it thinks through any unintended negative consequences along with its excellent motives.

Well, I guess if we are to come to some sort of agreement with GOOOH we would have to come up with an antidote to a Charlie Rangel type. We all know that this type of corruption is fostered by an environment whereby the politician is insured against being defeated. Rangel's problem(or his constituents anyway) is sourced via a gerrymandering to allow a black candidate to win. It is not clear when these black citizens will actually wake up to what this has done to them. Is there a point where these citizens will demand that their representatives fullfill more than the requirement that a candidate's skin have a certain level of melanin? When will they demand that the party of the people shift their focus to that of the teachers' union to that of their children's education? This could be fertile political ground for conservatives. So, yes GOOH might be a bit simplistic but I welcome them to our constitutional debate...the more the merrier!

JM
 
My favorite guru, Walter Wiliams PhD, posted this on his Facebook page today. It is music to my ears because it is singing the song of a whole new way of looking at government which is basicly the original way of looking at government:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zOIFv8hvXA&feature=player_embedded

There are a number of issues in which I disagree with the Honorable Mr. Paul--Dr. Williams is much more a libertarian of his stripe than I am--but everything he is saying here definitely should become part of the debate.

Yeah. Some of Paul's positions such as national defense I simply would argue against. But I truly believe that both of us could so argue in good faith and with respect of each other's intent and unquestioned patriotism. I am slowly turning towards Paul's beliefs regarding the Federal Reserve and the gold standard. This brings up an important point. When I first encountered some of Paul's positions I thought him a wacko. While I now have tempered this view, I can't help to think how radical true conservative beliefs must seem to those who truly believe the progressive ideology. Excepting those such as politicians, union leaders (not members), and such that now obtain power and wealth via the progressive excuse for bigger and more intrusive government, there are many that have only known the progressive influence and education. This has been a movement that had honest and forthright intentions that started just before the begining of the 20th century and whose main luminaries were TR and Woodrow Wilson (an aside: I am more in line with TR regarding foreign policy than Paul). Progressive thinking has taken over both political thinking and academia since then. So, I think we, as descendents of Madisonian thought, not only have a tough row to hoe, but have the responsibility to hoe none the less. It is our responsibility and duty to, respectfully ,correct, cajole, and guide those that might listen to our arguments. This is especially true of the youth. I know this might sound condescending but it is not meant to be. If we are to argue for constitutionalism we must also follow both its letter and its spirit of treating fellow citizens respectfully while constantly hammering home the message by pointing out empirical realities that make our point. However, we should not acquiesce to statist lies or succumb to their attempts to bate us. Conservatives are becoming much, much better at this. But you know all this.

JM

I think you're right that Conservatives are controlling their message and getting it out much more effectively than we used to. There was a time when I despaired that we would do anything more than deflect the statist lies and many conservatives took the bait the more clever statists threw out there. I was as guilty as any.

And you are right that we have a whole generation that has been spoonfed a lot of revised history and ideological nonsense rather than intelligent information and historical fact. So we have our political class throwing out terms like 'corporate welfare' and 'defense industrial complex' and "Halliburton' and 'trickle down' without a clue what those terms actually are.

It is all boiled down into sound bites and carefully calculated talking points and code words intended to glorify modern progressivism and demonize traditional conservative values.

And if they can't dispute the history or the facts, they are trained and skilled at deflecting the discussion from ideas, concepts, truths, and vision to "okay give us specifics. Don't give us ideology. Give us a blow by blow plan to fix it." And when the conservative doesn't take that bait, he or she is then blown off as an ideological blowhard to be insulted and/or dismissed.

The final tactic is to simply keep repeating over and over how things have been. How things are. How things are going to be in the mind of the progressive.

A concept of a whole new way of looking at government seems to be beyond the ability of some to comprehend. Or maybe it is just too threatening. I don't know.
 
Last edited:
I think you're right that Conservatives are controlling their message and getting it out much more effectively than we used to. There was a time when I despaired that we would do anything more than deflect the statist lies and many conservatives took the bait the more clever statists threw out there. I was as guilty as any.

And you are right that we have a whole generation that has been spoonfed a lot of revised history and ideological nonsense rather than intelligent information and historical fact. So we have our political class throwing out terms like 'corporate welfare' and 'defense industrial complex' and "Halliburton' and 'trickle down' without a clue what those terms actually are.

It is all boiled down into sound bites and carefully calculated talking points and code words intended to glorify modern progressivism and demonize traditional conservative values.

And if they can't dispute the history or the facts, they are trained and skilled at deflecting the discussion from ideas, concepts, truths, and vision to "okay give us specifics. Don't give us ideology. Give us a blow by blow plan to fix it." And when the conservative doesn't take that bait, he or she is then blown off as an ideological blowhard to be insulted and/or dismissed.

The final tactic is to simply keep repeating over and over how things have been. How things are. How things are going to be in the mind of the progressive.

A concept of a whole new way of looking at government seems to be beyond the ability of some to comprehend. Or maybe it is just too threatening. I don't know.

Yes. I was looking at the post mortem of SOTU on Fox News Channel and Brit Hume opined that he was watching for two things in the speech. First, whether Obama was going to truly triangulate and move to the center and if so the specifics on the mechanizations the admin would go thru to accomplish such a goal. Since the speech did not demonstrate the first he shifted his thoughts to how the Republicans would handle their efforts to actually curb spending and what the political blowback for the Repubs might be. Krauthammer then brought up the salient fact that the Repubs would be wise to stir clear of cuts in the area of entitlements like Medicare simply because the conservatives only had control of the House and if they tried meaningful reform in this area they would be crushed by the President's and Dems demagogery (grandma lose health care, SS, and therefore is sustained on a diet of only cat food...blah, blah). So, perhaps the best we conservatives may hope for in the next two years is a cautious conservative house with both feet on the brakes while striving for more control in 2013.

But things have changed because of two entities: Fox News (its that damned immigrant's fault, don't you know) and the internet. I have said and believe that playing the race card is now done at the left's peril, especially since that infamous walk of shame the Black Caucus performed after Obamacare (or was it shortly before the vote?) where Tea Partiers were accused of spitting and hurling racial epithets. The proof of this fraud is the 100K USD that still sits in Breitbart's escrow account waiting for video/audio proof of the left's claim. These facts combined with Bill Buckley's succesful efforts to present a coherent and academic argument for conservatism and Friedman et al's facts and figures have been enormously helpful in advancing the conservative arguments based on founding principles.

So we can now be both hopeful and happy. Hopeful because the message is getting out and happy because ,once out with the facts ,the message sells itself to those honestly interested in keeping America strong and free. Be a happy warrior!!

JM

P.S. O'Reilly is supposed to have an interview with the annointed one before the superbowl. Let's see how Obama fairs in the "No Spin Zone". It's always good to see the president, given the rarity of his appearances.

P.P.S I am looking forward to posting in the poverty thingy but I've got some stuff to read first. I think I will limit my research to poverty within the U.S. since that seems the first place we might actually be successful. Preliminary reading suggests your observations of family structure is right on target.
 
The 112th Congress was sworn in this morning amidst hope that a new crop of visionary conservatives can make a difference along with dismay that a new crop of visionary conservatives occupies many new seats in the House and Senate.

The die has been cast. Those new Conservative members will be able to turn the country in a new fiscally responsible direction with more personal accountability; or they will cave in to the status quo of more and bigger and more powerful, intrusive government.

How do you want it to go? Please include at least some basic reason for your choice that is more than an insult toward another person or group.
This is my first try at posting on this forum, so hope this post makes sense.

Hi Foxfyre.

I think my basic belief is that the Constitution forms a good original framework for how the government should govern, so I don't think we need any new approach as much as we need to go back to the original intent of how government was supposed to work. I believe government has gotten into far too many functions that they have no business sticking their noses into. I would like to see the newly elected Congressional members stick to their principles of more limited government and more fiscally responsible government.

I do not think the ship of state can be turned around quickly. I would liken it to a huge super-tanker, which cannot be thrown into reverse or turned on a dime. We need to incrementally cut back spending on necessary functions, while we try to eliminate the bureaucracies and spending of unnecessary or unneeded functions of government.

One of my favorite examples of this is the federal department of education, which did not exist before Carter created it, yet we had attained the most advanced and best educated population in the history of the world up to that point. We could return to that, but it will take more than politicians, it will take a population that is more educated and informed about their responsibilities as citizens. Citizenship needs to be taught better and more fully in our schools, which will require a change in how public schools are operated. One can quickly see that the problems we have are not easily and quickly solved, so it will take much time to accomplish. The job of governing also includes the attempt to educate the public about what the problems are and how we can best solve them.
 
The 112th Congress was sworn in this morning amidst hope that a new crop of visionary conservatives can make a difference along with dismay that a new crop of visionary conservatives occupies many new seats in the House and Senate.

The die has been cast. Those new Conservative members will be able to turn the country in a new fiscally responsible direction with more personal accountability; or they will cave in to the status quo of more and bigger and more powerful, intrusive government.

How do you want it to go? Please include at least some basic reason for your choice that is more than an insult toward another person or group.
This is my first try at posting on this forum, so hope this post makes sense.

Hi Foxfyre.

I think my basic belief is that the Constitution forms a good original framework for how the government should govern, so I don't think we need any new approach as much as we need to go back to the original intent of how government was supposed to work. I believe government has gotten into far too many functions that they have no business sticking their noses into. I would like to see the newly elected Congressional members stick to their principles of more limited government and more fiscally responsible government.

I do not think the ship of state can be turned around quickly. I would liken it to a huge super-tanker, which cannot be thrown into reverse or turned on a dime. We need to incrementally cut back spending on necessary functions, while we try to eliminate the bureaucracies and spending of unnecessary or unneeded functions of government.

One of my favorite examples of this is the federal department of education, which did not exist before Carter created it, yet we had attained the most advanced and best educated population in the history of the world up to that point. We could return to that, but it will take more than politicians, it will take a population that is more educated and informed about their responsibilities as citizens. Citizenship needs to be taught better and more fully in our schools, which will require a change in how public schools are operated. One can quickly see that the problems we have are not easily and quickly solved, so it will take much time to accomplish. The job of governing also includes the attempt to educate the public about what the problems are and how we can best solve them.

Hi okie, and again welcome to USMB. I think you made perfect sense. To build on your post. . . .

We often run into a conundrum on these forums as so many of our younger members have almost no background in the writings and concepts put forward by our Founding Fathers and the great philosophers who preceded them. The most they usually have are '30 second' sound bites (short quotations) plucked off this or that website. So, yes, for me it is a return to the original way of thinking about government in America, but for many of them it is a 'whole new way of thinking about governmernt.'

One of my more able opponents on this thread is Flopper who really makes me back up and think even though he is coming from a moderate leftist position. But to me he is classic among those who have come to accept the government we have now as the way government is and approaches problem solving from the way things are now. And he makes some good points.

I think the way things are now is a government that is broken and that we need a whole new perspective of how to get back on track as a nation. Which of course for me is mostly the original perspective. :) I hope I am also making some good points.

Flopper: If I have misrepresented your position here, I apologize. I do try not to speak for other members, and if I am out of line re your perspective here, I hope you'll set me straight. :)

I think there is room to explore these themes further though. I think we're going to have to. Or America is done for.
 

Forum List

Back
Top