I watched an interesting TV show tonight, one that showed that we as a country have become totally polarized in our political viewpoints. It claimed that whole communities are coming together united in common ground by their beliefs.
From my point of view...that really sucks. Give me a good argument anytime! Come on, change my point of view. Whatever happened to the forceful sway of a svengali, a silver tongued devil who could convince a tea totaller of the error of their ways. Did it all die with slick Willie? Did the nation gorge itself on one scandal after another till there is no real political fervor left? Or are we still waiting for the next big cliff hanger to take place?
We have established politics as a way to get our viewpoints across in a civilized manner. Our congressmen, our senators should represent ALL THE PEOPLE in their districts...not just the money bags that voted them in.
Somehow, I feel our founding fathers & mothers too would not be too happy with us right now. They fought, they bled, they sacrificed much to give us a free nation..we belittle their memory with each scandal.
The future could be a wonderful place for our next generations - but we must secure the basics, human dignity, freedom, right to live in peace and everything else guaranteed by our hard won constitution.
God bless America...land that I love
Stand beside her and guide her....
Happy 4th of July
3 comments:
Comment (continued)
I certainly agree that our founding fathers would not be at all happy with the current state of political affairs I don't think it is what they intended when they worked so hard and so long and made so many compromises to come up with the basis for a new government. Yet, that result--the Coinstitution that you call upon in your last paragraph, and its accompanying Bill of Rights--is where we often part ways today. Political factions differ on just what is meant by freedom of religion and freedom of the press; on what constitutes cruel and unusal punishment; on the real meaning of equality; on the limits of presidential power--all of them covered in the Constitution. We simply hurl nasty invective around in an attempt to convince others of the rightness of our cause--and all too often they are convinced by that nastiness. Latching onto a clever invective is easier than really THINKING about the issues. We need civil discourse to resolve those differences, I agree. There was a time not too long ago when that civility existed between parties. If we can rid ourselves of some of the nastiest of the current participants, maybe we can find it again
Have a happy Fourth.
Comment (Part 1):
While I agree with much of what you say, there are some things to which I would take exception. For instance, why the pejorative "slick Willie'? Why not just "Bill Clinton"? Is it that anyone who is iwell-nformed, articulate and engaging--he is an exceptionally good speaker, even his enemies agree--must, ipso facto, be described as "slick" or that his name must, by conservative fiat, always be accompanied by some denigratring adjective? It seems to me that his is the kind of civilized, well-reasoned but also emotional, argument (whether one agrees with it or not) you want to hear more often, yet it is ridiculed here. I don't understand.
I don't think the nation gorged itself on one scandal after another. The people involved in those scandals were the "gorgers" and the public was merely shocked and disgusted to learn, and be forced to face, how widespread corruption has become. Nevertheless, I would much prefer that such corruption be exposed rather than kept under wraps. We can't change what we don't acknowledge. And change we must.
Actually I voted for Clinton, have always liked him-still like him, but I do recognize that when onehas the highest office in the land, one should conduct one's self with just a bit of decorum...which he did not. He did indeed bring shame to this country and he did "it" in the most coveted office space of all. So, yes, slick Willie it is.
I have to disagree a bit with what you stated. I do believe the public fuels the fires that burn under a scandal. The news media in all it's forms would not try to outdo each other unless there was a need for it, a communal hunger if you would for more and more dirt. The "I want to know, I have to know..it's my right to know" has run rampant since the nonsense with Nixon. Everybody doesn't need to know everything...the world didn't work that way before - now you reach into the air and pull facts right off the internet...and of course anything on there is for real, right?
Sandi
Post a Comment