As we sail into the murky political waters of 2008, it's useful for liberals (progressives) to remember our core beliefs. Two elemental American narratives illuminate these values: the triumphant individual and the benevolent community.
The triumphant individual is the story of the man or woman who starts from humble beginnings and becomes a success through a combination of hard work and self-confidence. It's a testimony to the value of perseverance. In the movies, this is the "Rocky" narrative; in American history it is the biography of Ben Franklin or Abe Lincoln. In the 2008 presidential race, this is story of Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama, who have had to overcome substantial obstacles -- gender, poverty, and race -- to get where they are.
While all Americans cherish the triumphant individual myth, we often disagree on crucial elements of the narrative. One point of contention is the eligibility rules. Historically, liberals have supported a more inclusive definition of who the narrative applies to; for example, progressives argue that everyone should be eligible to run for President: male or female, black or white, gay or straight, believer or atheist, able-bodied or physically challenged. Conservatives contend the position should be reserved for white, male, straight, able-bodied Christians, and apply similar restrictions to other positions of power.
Another point of contention concerns the starting line for each of our lives. Liberals believe in the notion of a level playing field. They contend that every American deserves the right to unfettered opportunity and, therefore, it is unfair to provide some children with advantages that others do not have; for example, progressives believe every child has the right to a quality education. In contrast, conservative thinking is heavily influenced by economic Calvinism, particularly the notion that poverty is an indication God does not look with favor upon an individual: if a poor child is served by mediocre public schools and has inadequate healthcare, conservatives argue that's what God intended.
Liberal and conservative values and policies stem from their interpretation of the triumphant individual myth. Progressives defend the notion of elemental human rights, the idea of a strong social safety net – food, housing, medical care, and education. Conservatives emphasize property rights and the necessity of the rich and powerful to operate without interference.
The benevolent community is the narrative of the group of individuals who set aside personal concerns and work for the common good. In the movies, this is the town in "It's a Wonderful Life." In American history it is illustrated by our response to natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, where millions of Americans helped the victims. When Americans came together after 9/11, it represented the best aspects of community.
While all of us cherish the benevolent community myth, we often disagree on critical elements of the narrative. Liberals visualize the American community as including everyone in the United States and believe: "I am my brother's keeper and my sister's keeper."
Social conservatives restrict the notion of community to those who identify as Christian, particularly those who say they have been "born again." In the Left Behind series, La Haye and Jenkins posit that at the end of the world, the rapture, only true Christians are saved. The same discriminatory logic underlies "compassionate conservatism," where conservatives argue that Christian churches should be enabled to help the needy, but in order to gain social services one must be a believer – participation in social programs requires church attendance. When conservatives seek to disable the social safety net this reflects their belief there is no national community, only the brotherhood of Christian believers.
The social consequences of these differing philosophies are profound. Liberals seek an activist federal government that takes seriously the notion of human rights. Conservatives want a passive, diminished government that supports the twin notions of the unfettered market and faith-based social programs. They couple this with a narrow view of human rights, restricting on the right of government to interfere with individual activities.
In the 2008 Presidential campaign, there's been a lot of talk about the "two Americas," the division between the rich and the poor. But there are also two ideological Americas, two sets of citizens who see our country quite differently. Consistent with their believe in an expansive myth of the triumphant individual and the benevolent community, liberals speak of the common good and have a set of values that reflect their belief "we're in this together." Conservatives use a different moral standard, "what's in it for me?"
On issue after issue, liberals and conservatives see things in a radically different light: The environment? Progressive see they have a responsibility to sustain a healthy environment for future generations – it's an extension of the notion of the common good. Conservatives see the environment as free resources to be used to maximize individual advantage. We perceive differently, because we have different core beliefs.
Democratic presidential candidates Clinton, Edwards, and Obama differ on policy details, but their liberal core values are similar. Each of them offers a stark contrast to any of the GOP candidates.
Bob Burnett is a Berkeley writer and Quaker actvist. He is particularly interested in progressive morality and writes frequently on the ethical aspects of political and social issues.
"The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act as the destroyer of liberty."Abraham Lincoln
The trick is to find the correct balance between caring for the sheep and limiting the wolves.
by
David N-V (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 34 comments)
on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 8:56:22 AM
“Conservatives emphasize property rights and the necessity of the rich and powerful to operate without interference.”
A poor attempt at defining conservative beliefs on humanity from an obvious non-conservative perspective.A better definition is that, “Conservatives believe that human nature is a combination of good and bad and that society's role is to control people's bad impulses through checks and balances that permit people's good sides to flourish, “ - http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/10/core_conservative_beliefs.html .
“Social conservatives restrict the notion of community to those who identify as Christian, particularly those who say they have been ‘born again.’”
Again, this definition is essentially wrong.Conservatives believe that, “(a) Religion is a good thing; (b) It's okay if people's religious values shape their political beliefs; (c) It's okay to acknowledge America's predominant Christianity by nodding to Christmas and Easter, as long as no one is forced to observe those holidays or discriminated against for not observing those holidays; (d) People should be free to worship without government interference in their beliefs; (e) Neither government nor business should be forced to change their practices to accommodate one belief system over others (see here and here for examples of some of the changes demanded).”
“Conservatives see the environment as free resources to be used to maximize individual advantage.”
Really?Honestly, can Mr. Burnett get any conservative perspective to reflect reality?“Conservatives believe that climate change is happening, but they do not believe that the debate is settled as to the anthropocentric idea that it is entirely the West's fault. They recognize that the earth's climate is in a constant state of flux, and want more, less politically charged, information before panic begins. They like the idea of alternative energy sources, since they not only enjoy clean air and water, but would also like to see fewer Petrodollars flow to tyrannically governed nations. Again, though, they do not believe in going off half cocked.”
I offer the first referenced article in response to Mr. Burnett’s skewered view of harshly dividing American liberals and conservatives into pre-determined categories.I disagree that the core tenants upon which both parties are built are radically different.Rather, it’s the approaches taken by the parties to realize and secure the full potential of the core tenants that result in the significant differences.
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1541 comments)
on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 9:25:09 AM
It is true that conservatives do not grow fangs in service of blood lust, and what you have described is a fair opinion of conservative belief. There are other takes on it, however, and there exists a wide spectrum of a variety of conservative beliefs. Even this is not a threat to the republic.
The terms conservative and conservatism have been appropriated of late to take in an even wider spectrum of the political right that goes far beyond what is traditional conservatism. The terms have become shorthand expressions to describe conservatism, libertarianism, objectivism, and more authoritarian varieties of political thought including neoconservatism and fascism.
It is the most extreme right wing activity represented by neoconservatism and fascism with its associated corporatist indulgence that presents a very real and present threat to this republic.
As a somewhat centrist liberal, there are many conservatives whom I respect as true patriots for their unflinching defense of the Constitution, although I disagree with them on most other areas of political thought.
I also believe, as I'm sure you do, Tom, that we should probably drop the shorthand and be more explicit in defining our isms.
by
John Sanchez Jr. (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 8 diaries, 1049 comments)
on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 11:40:12 AM
I believe that Mr. Burnett, a Quaker by the by, is referencing the current crop of self styled conservatives, many of whom are not such at all. Tom, you are defending an idealised and false picture of the conservative movement as it once was but simply isnt any longer.
I would quibble with your whitewash of the intent of religious conservatism to enforce its own beliefs upon the majority. This is simply a form of rot at the very foundations of our democratic republic. Nothing less.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Thursday, January 24, 2008 at 6:54:18 AM
I enjoyed this article, as well as two of the comments, all of which I found interesting and useful. I have to wonder, however. If the real truth were told, how many of us fall somewhere between the two "labels?" As I search my own life, I find that I can be very conservative on some things (ex: personal finances) and yet I can be quite liberal on others (ex: social). I have a strong belief that we need to maintain an environment in our country where everyone has an opportunity, through their own efforts, to grow and prosper. At the same time, I believe that we need to recognize that, at the present time, there really are some folks who, for a variety of reasons have somewhat "fallen through the cracks" and need our genuine assistance. I also believe that some basic values need to be applied equally to everyone, i.e. basic healthcare, etc. I also find that I can be tolerant of those who believe strongly in either side because I know there are reasons, in their heart and in their background, that causes them to hold their beliefs. I am only put off when others attempt to force me to believe the way they do, and exclude me when I don't. Thanks for allowing me to have my say.
by
im4unity (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 45 comments)
on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 10:57:12 AM
No offense but this article as well as the comments resemble very much the debates in High School. Go, get some ice-cream, you did good today.
There are no conservatives and/or liberals; it is a myth created by the US media to make it easy to sort the events and opinions. In reality there are interests, sometimes individual, primarily the group ones which are in most cases rather selfish and shallow. Everything else are , how it is said in the Movie King Ralph, a charming bonus. Like our Dem candidates, oh boy! They are all tools and certainly have no views. I would say that the difference between the candidates from both parties is that GOP has a cohort of maliciuous nutty bastards (Huckabee, Romney, Mccain and Guiliani) while Dems give us a cohort of amateurish demagogues-Clinton, Obama, Edwards.. I like Kucinich but he is on the fringe). If I had as much millions as my CEO I would be a ' social conservative' and sing a song praising Bush. Now, about religion being a good thing: which one? The US Christianity is a cult, the US Christians have violated all possible principles by hijacking Jesus, thus US Christian religion is nothing but a sham. IT IS CERTAINLY NOT A GOOD THING! and that proves that all those divisions into conservatives and liberals are.. bogus. Most of the people, especially in the US have no beliefs- they are too shallow as characters to have any. Even Bush, a disgusting evil clown is a very 'lazy evil' and that is maybe very good for us all. Americans are 'cool'. That is they are neither hot nor cold but they PRETEND so much that they even kill thousands of people just to ' show them'. Then they get surprised when people respond appropriately.
It would be very good for all of us if we stop basking in hypocricy and admit that our selfish interests guide us but sometimes we 'serve the God even by bad of ours' like the old Jewish religious saying says. None of us is good. But some of us ( and here I would call them liberals if you wish) think more, have deeper concerns and try to know where to stop and where maybe even to turn back. It is all self-preservation.
by
Mark Sashine (46 articles, 19 quicklinks, 235 diaries, 3359 comments)
on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 11:20:52 AM
By your definitions, I am neither a liberal nor a conservative. I understand the mythic power of the two stories you tell. But there are others you are not telling.
One is that of the lunchbox worker, who is pushing his union to get 4 day workweek so that he has the time to take the second job that he needs to maintain his standard of living. It is the guy who, to paraphrase the Bill Clinton of an earlier era, works hard, plays by the rules and still gets screwed. Lunchbox Joe doesn't believe any more.
The prospect of a Clinton / Romney election in 2008 promises to be one of the dirtiest we have seen and voter turnout will be miniscules.
by
Wes Rolley (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2 comments)
on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 12:04:41 PM
and when was it that someone fulfilled his/her promises to Joe? Now, if Joe had time and money or means to push the union not to have himself two jobs but to have ONE which is enough for his way of life that would immediately bring a confrontation bigtime and Joe would very quickly see the light ( as if he does not see it now). I am not patronising here. In my book Joe is neither a liberal nor conservative and he is only struggling for survival. If he gets a break through the union means he most likely will become a little bit liberal. If he wins a lottery-oh, how quickly he will become a 'social conservative'. Money talks. It is nonlinear though. The VERY RICH sometimes play with the socialism. But it is a game to them. ALL is a game to them. But we are not playing games. My advise to Joe is- to make sure his union if it is serious-looks at providing better jobs and if thet do not- maybe he and his friends make it happen. That is if he has enough strength because none of us has good health anymore. Our 'healthcare' took care of that.
by
Mark Sashine (46 articles, 19 quicklinks, 235 diaries, 3359 comments)
on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 12:20:48 PM
The always thoughtful Mr. Burnett has offered a definition of liberalism that might well define some key characteristics of SOME liberals; unfortunately, he’s omitted a large segment of the progressive community in doing so. Worse, and I extend this observation to all we commonly refer to as “liberals”, his focus on social safety net issues and his definition of a “sense of community” fails to focus on the critical changes we need.
The cliché, “you can’t get there from here” highlights the problem with traditional liberal views. Mr. Burnett’s summary seems to focus on core liberal values that see the individual as a victim. The focus is on, for example, children who do not have equal opportunities for a quality education based on their economic status or their race. Also, the focus is on those excluded from “the community” because they do not hold the "right" religious beliefs or the "right" sexual orientation. Both examples focus on victim-hood and the obligation of society to treat all equally. It’s a “why can’t we get others to be more fair” approach to politics. Therein lies the rub.
Before achieving any of the liberal values cited, our primary focus needs to be on changing the institutions of power that prohibit Americans from acting on their deeply held beliefs. Rather than focusing on the inequities corporatism will always bring about, we need to focus on what needs to be done to restore the will of the people to power. It means very little to talk about civil rights and equal rights and eradicating poverty without first talking about the processes that empower corporations and bar the American people from being represented by their own government.
Rather than focusing on the America we want to see, the right focus should be on what it will take to get there. I don’t believe that the primary problem is the values held by the American people. I think most Americans are caring and charitable. There’s very little “commonwealth” to be redistributed when the Federal treasuries are regularly ravaged for greedy corporate gain. If you haven’t read it, Naomi Klein’s “The Shock Doctrine” does a great job spelling out the problem.
Here’s what I would define as the core value of liberals excluded from Mr. Burnett’s essay:“every adult citizen should have absolutely equal power in the political arena.” Any law or policy that allows a disparity of power should be changed. This means that access to political representatives must be equalized. Corporations, and their lobbyists, should not have access to or influence over elected representatives to a greater degree than any single citizen. Wealthy citizens should not be able to finance candidates or parties or broadcast media to gain a disproportionate political advantage.
The “playing field” that needs to be equalized does not require “economic parity”; it mandates “political parity.”We will never have "equal opportunity" or a "level playing field" if political parity does not exist. This should be the primary focus of liberals. Frankly, it should be the primary focus of conservatives as well. Real democracy cannot be defined as a system whereby the wealthiest people can have a greater say in the governance of the country. In reality, this isn’t a liberal-conservative division at all.
One final comment … I received a campaign call last night from the Obama campaign.“I’m not going to be voting in the general election for any Democrat,” I said. Why? The issues I care about are the dismantling of empire, the return of all US troops from the more than 730 foreign military bases, an equal access to power and government for each and every citizen, the dismantling of the military-industrial-Congressional complex, the end to no-bid contracts, the implementation of single-payer healthcare, the passing of a real energy policy to radically reduce CO2 emissions, an end to corporatism and meaningful campaign and voting reform. I don’t hear the “leading” Democratic candidates talking about these issues in a substantive way.
To me, these are the liberal views that many “liberals” hold or should be holding. Until these views become the focus of more Americans, the changes sought by traditional liberals will never be realized. Supporting candidates who fail to make these views the solid core of their campaigns puts too much faith in a political process designed to protect the status quo. Without altering the underlying paradigms of power, the values many of us hold will never see the light of day. The liberal focus needs to change from taking care of the weakest among us, a noble goal, to stripping power from those who only take care of themselves at the expense of all others. When “we the people” have reclaimed our own government, then, and only then, will we see human values rather than corporate values embodied in our national policies and laws.
by
welshTerrier2 (7 articles, 3 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 105 comments)
on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 12:56:49 PM
Maybe we should ask ourselves what liberals and conservatives have in common. Modern liberalism and conservatism are both derived from Classic Liberalism (i.e., the political philosophy of John Locke), and both share ideas that entirely antiquated by today’s standards.
For example, both liberals and conservatives (at least ostensibly) preach about equal opportunity, and that idea in itself is good, but the reality is that equal people will achieve vastly different outcomes given the same opportunity. This is true because of the nature of capitalism-capitalism takes relatively equal people and makes them very unequal. Capitalism literally takes the wealth generated by the entire society and redistributes it to a tiny minority. Capitalism is a giant pyramid scheme and Enlightenment philosophy doesn’t take this into account because Enlightenment ideas antedated even Adam Smith’s work by a century.
By the 1930s it was readily apparent that too much of the philosophy of Locke and the founding fathers was obsolete, yet since Classic Liberalism gave birth to a weakly democratic system of governance, it took near social upheaval to get even the mild reforms of the New Deal passed. The same was true for ending slavery, for initiating labor reforms, and for just about every other progressive reform in our history.
Aside from Classic Liberalism being the cornerstone for a flawed notion of equal opportunity as being fairness, and despite that the system is hierarchal and was designed to create a “natural aristocracy”, a third major problem with Enlightenment philosophy is its dependence upon empiricism. Locke’s theory of cognitions (i.e., the blank slate and the theory that all knowledge is gained through the senses) is just wrong. The idea of creating an ad hoc system and then looking at the output of a system in order to correct the individual parts of the system doesn’t work well in complex, modern society. We should rather use the knowledge and ideas of everyone to plan and design a well working system to begin with; and my notion inherently implies democracy. We’ve been using the Enlightenment cognition paradigm for the past 320 years. It made since to use it back in the 1690s when there was little knowledge and everything had to be proved, but today it makes no sense whatsoever because we’ve already gained much knowledge. We’ve got mountains upon mountains of data on many things. Our problem today isn’t gaining knowledge-its using the knowledge and innate ideas that we already have in the most productive, efficient way.
Social Democracy should have replaced Classic Liberalism a century ago, but our system didn’t let it happen. I hope we can somehow change this before it is too late.
by
Mark Whittington (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 20 comments)
on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 6:32:14 PM
(First to humiliate, as it ordinarily infuses humbleness, sadly called for in this case. When it doesn't work, and nothing else does either, the inhumanity signalled in obviating all humbleness, never retracting, proves out the mercenary at work -- and when so, such comments given here are then not personal convictions or ideas, and instead are hired disorders of an irregular. Tommy truculent contrarian meant 'core tenets' -- which nearly is redundant; which might suggest maybe imperious 'core tenants' Supremacist and Superior of ALL others was truly what he did mean, and himself, his, and he, divined among them skewed on one side. In doubt's beneficence, though, grant that it could have been human error of undersight. We all make mistakes, including me; catch me if you can and we are both improved. Humbly, esquire.)
The content of the comment doesn't deserve mention. 'What name shall I use?,' however, does; and the like -- 'Either one or the other,' per se.
Please consider the following. As it is my novel own, you can seek long and vast and find it nowhere else, so get it right and get it here the first time, by Rob Kall's aegis -- that paragon of perfecting politics.
There ARE NO conservatives, there ARE NO liberals. EveryONE is conservative, everyONE is liberal. That would be you. And me. Normally.
Semantic disfigurement calls for primary adjustment, in order that the rest can follow agreeably. All 'things' conservative might be termed 'right' or 'rightism,' and the other 'things' termed 'left' or 'leftism.' Work with me on this, it's for our best accommodation.
A person is not a 'rightist,' and rather, there is 'rightist' thought. And, no 'leftists,' only 'leftist' thought. Point being, you (and me) have both sorts of thoughts, one of each, because we each have two thinking minds -- a so-called 'left-brain' and so situated beside a so-called 'right-brain' and so situated.
It is best if the two brains in each of us are understood as being two independent brains, individually capable in conscious thought almost simultaneously. Whereas a conceptual model imagining them as each only half-witted and needing the other 'half' to compose a whole thought, 'misunderestimates' the integrity of each. Stronger understanding obtains in imagining each, left-brain and right-brain, delivering a complete process of thought, to a comparator process of evaluation.
Consciousness is directed in deductive and inductive coherences, (among others), favored in left-brain and right-brain, respectively. There is a uniform physical stimulus which excites our two brains in those two different attenuations. The stimulus is a magnetic moment generated orthogonal to a circulating (chemo-)electrical current, or 'drift,' along the superior chiasm ('rift' between the brains) in the sagittal plane, so that the magnetic vector is 'positive'-going in the direction and axial from our right ear to our left ear -- where 'positive' is not denoting moral judgment, only a consistency of nomenclature by the righthand-thumb rule, for convenience.
What is key to note is that the moment is consistently unidirectional. In this, in situ, the moment stimulates 'compression' incidental on the right-brain, and stimulates 'expression' (or 'expansion') incidental on the left-brain. That's how the two brains get stimulated differently in response to one uniform phenomenon. 'Compression,' then, characterizes inductive thought, wherein (right-brain space) temporal sensations accrete to strengthen a 'common denominator' or 'direction' of thought signal; and 'expression' characterizes deductive thought, wherein (left-brain space) temporal sensations 'divide apart' into particular thought signals.
Integrated in consciousness, then, inductive thought determines 'What is common in all (thoughts),' or, what's the common weal? And deductive thought selects out 'What is unique of one ('s thought),' or, what's it mean to me, (pertaining to survival of the organism)?
Thus, right-brain thinking is leftism, and left-brain thinking is rightism. We all have both, WE all ARE BOTH. (Except that abominable idiot who should respire immediately with his 'half-a-brain tied behind his back.') Stop the name calling. When you ain't bringing all you got in your presentation, don't bring it nothing and don't come, don't show up. Stay out of political thought, do not vote, get out of here, I mean it.
And progess in civic, or 'social' affairs, with a left and right measure of stride, is, like walking, moved forward by pressuring one side's platform for its optimum thought-position in the gravity of the situation, carrying to advance, then pressuring the second side's platform for its optimum thought-position recognizing the gravity, and carrying to advance, then the first again, then the second again, and so on iterative and stepwise to a result from the best of both, leftism and rightism in balance along the way -- in each individual person and in all humankind, political congruence.
by
meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 483 comments)
on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 6:53:52 PM
Thank you for catching the spelling error on tenents, and yes - the phrase "core tenents" is redundant. I was not trying to be subtle or superior in using "core tenants".
by
Tom Murphy (3 articles, 3 quicklinks, 9 diaries, 1541 comments)
on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 7:11:14 PM
Moreover, the experiential 'meta' of conscious disntegration
... we don't think of how we think, we just think. Just 'do' it.
Fair politics respects and dignifies individual integrity, enacted in balance as governance which respects and dignifies collective alacrity.
My view sees politics as having a biological basis, political demeanor as a 'side-effect' or consequence of biology in human anatomy. Our right-brains (thinking leftism), informs a conscious sense of collective awareness. Leftism is valid and worthy, valuable, conscious thought, and needs no more than so stating for justification of it. The 'conservative' Republican disdain, slur, slander, imprecation, and demeaning of "the 'L' word -- liberal," foisted by Rash Lamebrain in hypnotic monotone daily infection of infantile idiocy to suggestible illiterate palsied mental weaklings, is a despicable intolerable scourge on America and Americans. Lamebrain is an infamy, a traitor of himself, and makes an embarrassment, a shameful immoral destitute of anyone listening who adopts the retardation as their own, and recites dittohead dumbass any word the f**khead fascist broadcasts. Life in prison is too good for that brain-damaged drug addict. Keeping broadcast license is criminal for any station which has ever carried any of his syndicated anti-American fascism.
The public disgust might react antagonizing his sponsors, or purchasers of his sponsors' products, as has happened. But more's the civil disorder raised through and incited by him and his hatetalk radio genre and format, a fury that by karmic veracity eventually and ultimately can obliterate the broadcast media properties beaming Lamebrain's brain decay into people's behavior of otherwise decent sensibility. Massmind media persons, profitably selling airtime for spots that corrupt the public airwaves, as awful as poison-spitting industry smokestacks blight the public's air and toxify breath and lungs, those injust and inhuman maimers of our manners, pretend having no recognition of or responsibility to community en masse ... recapitulating the suicidal manner of French Royals for whom the decapitating guillotine came. And at hate-inciting media workers is risk to reappear.
The unconscienced and unconscionable depravity of broadcasters goes around and comes around and is meted back to them. No one steers to lead or guide the consequences back on them, their hate of humankind and antisocial psychopathy is its own condemnation, it just works that way. See how sick Murdoch and Ailes suffer, and the movement sticking needles in the voodoo dolls of them hasn't even started yet.
We can know they pass away in agony within them of eternal screams of terror, brought into themselves, into their lives and families and misfortuned friends, know it all and true, and not ever need to witness it is so.
Such is the violence of imbalance, in the interior mind of an individual, when the nature of their one brain abhors the vacuum of their other brain, the ghost that haunts them sleepless for forever.
The dissolution of America's constitution is laid to broadcast liars of the 'conservative' propaganda fascists, cowered now in bunkers, with self-defeat clutching closed their throats. They cannot walk upon this land, it is not theirs, and they inbreed themselves into oblivion along with all who listen in the channel pipes and follow.
Such is the state we see disintegrating.
by
meremark (1 articles, 3 quicklinks, 23 diaries, 483 comments)
on Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 9:48:24 PM
The article itself is of little use because it doesn't really define what anyone believes or why. It is essentially a polemical rehash of a commentary by Robert Reich, entitled "The Lost art of the Democratic Narrative" which itself fai
