MODERATION and Independents work well. Liberal THINKING and moderation can work together since, when policies are regarded from a liberal stance, a wide spectrum of political approach including cogitation, reason and philosophical inclusion can be and is acceptable. But, MODERATION from a Conservative point of view seems anathema, and antipode. By definition, if you are conservative, your "posture" necessitates LIMITING what you are willing to accept. The word "LIMITING" is the operative philosophy. When and where MODERATION cannot be tolerated, Republicans, in order to woo Independents to vote for their candidate, have only two alternatives: either they must 1. TRY to fool most of the people SOME of the time, and run the risk of alienating those who advocate TRUE Conservatism, OR, 2. they must walk a very careful and "strangely CONTRADICTORY line.
Conservatives, then, chasten Liberals for being limitLESS. What they miss in their understanding is that the Liberal philosophy can be inclusive of LIMITS, but is not bound thereto. Essentially, Conservatives, and hence Republicans, believe that it's wrong to have an "accepting" philosophy. Gays, stem cell research, minimum wage to assist poor people, higher taxes on the wealthy to allow lower taxes on the poor and middle class, compassion for unfortunate people, etc. these invite the epithets from Conservatives that Liberals are "SOFT" on everything (including morals and religious tenets, WAR and DEFENSE, etc.). Bottom line is that since Conservatives "worship" LIMITS, they embrace the FINITE and abhor the INFINITE. Their concept of God is often that "HE" actively regulates and micro-manages the world, finitely controlling details of everything that happens. They do NOT suffer lightly that anyone can ALLOW both possibilities: God might be a micro-manager, or NOT. And certainly that if someone is atheistic, that can only mean they MUST be either immoral or a-moral. The two opposing forces in their world are God and the Devil: real FINITE people-like beings. Ergo, Democrats, in their view, often allow those within their "tent" to stand for Terrorism, Crime, societal chaos and cultural decadence. With so dire a "reputation", is it any wonder that Republicans are often EXCESSIVELY motivated to GET OUT THE VOTE.
But, limits can, and as we've seen, HAVE, meant RIGIDITY. Rigidity can be seen as staying strong, but it can also manifest in being foolish. And "foolish" connotes benightedness and stupidity. It is possessed of inflexibility such that a wrong path becomes the ONLY path. That's where we are in Iraq. George W. Bush has not helped to counter that popularly held ascription with some of his expressions and lispings. He doesn't seem even able to pronounce some words correctly, words such as "NUCLEAR" [nook-YOU-ler]. When describing the war in Iraq, he allowed that "Many are not satisfied with what we've done there", and confessed that "I'm not satisfied either." BUT then, in the follow-up, when asked, "Then you're DISsatisfied?" his retort was "NO." These kinds of mental "burps" do not give the impression of someone who is adept at consequential thought.
But, as we've seen, Independents are likely the DECIDERS of many of our political fortunes. The BEST future for us lies NOT in INflexibility nor in casting aspersions. ... BUT, since we are all OVERLY gullible (even from the early years of our "Curious George" and "Elmo" lives), and susceptible to THIS month's fashion or fad (what is it these days: Borat?), FOLLOWING our current POLITICAL habitudes, our elected officials will continue to be in office resulting (in significant response) to/from NEGATIVE ADS and well-marketed, extremely well-funded politicians (those who have a Carl Rove to guide their campaigns) irrespective both of the qualities (or lack thereof) of the candidate, and/or of his/her past experience (or LACK THEREOF). Perhaps, there's something to be said for a bi-partisan commission to improve upon the "democracy" we all feel is the best that has ever been devised, and to look into how campaigns are funded. To do so, though, will require embracing MODERATION.
Conservatives, then, chasten Liberals for being limitLESS. What they miss in their understanding is that the Liberal philosophy can be inclusive of LIMITS, but is not bound thereto. Essentially, Conservatives, and hence Republicans, believe that it's wrong to have an "accepting" philosophy. Gays, stem cell research, minimum wage to assist poor people, higher taxes on the wealthy to allow lower taxes on the poor and middle class, compassion for unfortunate people, etc. these invite the epithets from Conservatives that Liberals are "SOFT" on everything (including morals and religious tenets, WAR and DEFENSE, etc.). Bottom line is that since Conservatives "worship" LIMITS, they embrace the FINITE and abhor the INFINITE. Their concept of God is often that "HE" actively regulates and micro-manages the world, finitely controlling details of everything that happens. They do NOT suffer lightly that anyone can ALLOW both possibilities: God might be a micro-manager, or NOT. And certainly that if someone is atheistic, that can only mean they MUST be either immoral or a-moral. The two opposing forces in their world are God and the Devil: real FINITE people-like beings. Ergo, Democrats, in their view, often allow those within their "tent" to stand for Terrorism, Crime, societal chaos and cultural decadence. With so dire a "reputation", is it any wonder that Republicans are often EXCESSIVELY motivated to GET OUT THE VOTE.
But, limits can, and as we've seen, HAVE, meant RIGIDITY. Rigidity can be seen as staying strong, but it can also manifest in being foolish. And "foolish" connotes benightedness and stupidity. It is possessed of inflexibility such that a wrong path becomes the ONLY path. That's where we are in Iraq. George W. Bush has not helped to counter that popularly held ascription with some of his expressions and lispings. He doesn't seem even able to pronounce some words correctly, words such as "NUCLEAR" [nook-YOU-ler]. When describing the war in Iraq, he allowed that "Many are not satisfied with what we've done there", and confessed that "I'm not satisfied either." BUT then, in the follow-up, when asked, "Then you're DISsatisfied?" his retort was "NO." These kinds of mental "burps" do not give the impression of someone who is adept at consequential thought.
But, as we've seen, Independents are likely the DECIDERS of many of our political fortunes. The BEST future for us lies NOT in INflexibility nor in casting aspersions. ... BUT, since we are all OVERLY gullible (even from the early years of our "Curious George" and "Elmo" lives), and susceptible to THIS month's fashion or fad (what is it these days: Borat?), FOLLOWING our current POLITICAL habitudes, our elected officials will continue to be in office resulting (in significant response) to/from NEGATIVE ADS and well-marketed, extremely well-funded politicians (those who have a Carl Rove to guide their campaigns) irrespective both of the qualities (or lack thereof) of the candidate, and/or of his/her past experience (or LACK THEREOF). Perhaps, there's something to be said for a bi-partisan commission to improve upon the "democracy" we all feel is the best that has ever been devised, and to look into how campaigns are funded. To do so, though, will require embracing MODERATION.
