Very well then. Since you have given me this cordial post, I will not assault you as I had planned. But I will tell you, amongst very many other things, I had planned to vigorously encourage you to execute your laughable and utterly stupid "threat" to use me in someone's "art" (dear me). And I care not a blip, not even a single blip, about someone whining to SI about me. We all should be kicked off. I will resist my desire and let the balance of the post go.
>Neither am I [a Republican or Democrat]. Yet you have expressed support for the Republicans.<
This certainly makes me no more a Republican than your expressed support of Democrats makes you a Democrat.
>I don't necessarily disagree with you here. I'm reminded of an old song by the punk rock band, the Dead Kennedys, called, "California Ueber Alles," in which Jerry Brown becomes president and institutes a regime of Zen Fascism: "I am governor Jerry Brown. My aura smiles and never frowns...The hippies won't come back you say. Mellow out or you will pay...Now it is 1984. Knock-knock at your front door. It's the suede-denim secret police. They've come for your uncool niece."<
Closer to the idea. I suspect when your fear is realized, we as a country will be begging for it. When they come for my uncool niece, it will seem reasonable to most.
I hardly think a Hitler can arise in this country. We are all on the lookout against this model. There will be no race war or any of that silliness. The militia you fear are a group of weak rednecks, and will never amount to anything. They have no real plans and no real ability to carry out the half-baked notions they come up with. Even were they to find good thinking leadership, they could never implement what they advocate. Dis ain' 1860. Times done changed. The races, despite their strife, are too integrally linked to divide against one another, and the thing is moving closer (not farther) all the time. We will never have a consolidation of military might based upon state location despite those who want the South to rise agayin. The South that they want, is no more-- and will never be again.
I suspect your man will arise after a serious economic disaster, something on the order of the worse case scenarios surrounding a Great Depression or Y2K (personally, I think technically Y2K should not be a problem at all. But mass hysteria, bank runs and whatnot could be a real hassle. But I digress). Should we find ourselves in extraordinary pain, having to make quick but dreadful decisions, this, without holding firmly to principle, we will be ripe for the picking. Your man will rise and you will beg for him. Some will press against him. They will lose, but will make life miserable for many-- for a time. Eventually all will be oppressed.
>But I must tell you that I have very little respect for Bill Clinton, have never voted for him (couldn't bring myself to do it), and since a few weeks before the election became pretty much indifferent to the impeachment process. I hardly see the possibility that someone like Clinton could destroy American democracy by letting an intern play with his privates and then lying about it.<
It is not that he utterly destroys democracy at once. It is that he substantially warps it. Additionally, he has weakened our resolve to maintain the fabric that holds it together. We have a breach in our system as long as Bill Clinton does not have to face the judgment of our law. If we allow the breach to remain, then logically others in the system can crawl through it, each time making it larger. Anyone whose circumstances are similar to the President's can logically demand the same treatment as he. Indeed, if Clinton receives only a censuring, Americans who find themselves testifying about sexual matters in a court of law can logically enter our courts fully aware that they can lie by embracing tortured meanings to commonly held words and phrases. When caught, they merely need refer to Clinton, and receive their verbal lashing. In effect, we will have a new law on our hands. If Americans are not allowed to "benefit" from Clinton, then we will really have a new law written only for the convenience of the private citizen who happens to be president. Neither of these is the system in which I believe.
I would rather Clinton had taken the fifth. Then he would not have been impeached, and our system would yet be intact. Since he did not take the fifth, I think the reasonable thing would be to have him charged and tried (impeached), even should the "court" declare him not guilty or extend him mercy.
>As I've written to you before, I pursue such principles in my daily life and expect and encourage integrity, truth, and a respect of justice from and among those I am close to. But I simply do not have the pyramidal, organic view of the relationship between government and society that you and some of the others on this thread appear to have.<
The relationship between government and society is indeed organic simply because government is society. You and I are the government, serving a vital function therein. Government is an organization of our society that merely assists us in setting and enforcing our own law. Our law is a codification of societal morality. If our laws do not reflect a common societal morality, one that extends to all, from the president to the mail room clerk, then the glue holding together individual Americans in our society is weakened. Depending upon where I fit in the system, I may trust you less should I doubt that society will hold to the principle of our law. Perhaps I will even try to abuse you should I discover my resources sufficiently more powerful than yours to allow my bending the law in my favor. If by some means either official or otherwise it is known that a law applies to one segment of society, but not to another, the implications become horrific. Every interaction, including the one we are having right now is affected. All commerce, anything having to do with contracts, is altered. Bill Clinton may have the ability to sexually harrass a subordinate, and then when that subordinate takes him to the law, lie to the law, escaping retribution because of his elitist position. If he knows he can do this, then why should he not?
>I vehemently reject the view that the values of the president somehow trickle down into society. I think the values of the hardworking, ethically upstanding mainstream of this country far surpass those of the elitist clique which runs it.<
Perhaps, and this would be fine if people in a society did not have to interact. But we do interact. The elitist interacts with the ethically upstanding mainstream American and vice versa. It is the law, our mutual religion that protects them both. The law now holds us together.
>But Bill, though ethically handicapped, gets the job done.<
But if his handicap takes him to a point of causing a breach in the fabric of society (our law), then the job he does is over the long haul quite insignificant when compared to the damage he has done. While in one regard he does a fine job, in another he may be a monster. (I do not think Bill is in fact a monster - just a very ugly critter - but I believe the way is set for the arrival of a true monster).
>People voted for him essentially because he seemed like a young, smart, and energetic guy who would make the country run smoothly and bolster the economy. Everyone knew he was a philanderer and a liar and a hustler, but they voted for him anyway. Does that mean they approve of philandering, lying and hustling? Absolutely not. It means they are a pragmatic people.<
I think the approval is tacit. Had Clinton been a murderer and the people decided to keep him as President, they would be tacitly approving murder, claiming it is really quite acceptable. There is a lack of integrity between rejecting perjury and supporting as one's leader one who lies you your courts.
>And given the choice between a couple of clueless, doddering fools (Bush and Dole) who hypocritically trumpeted their "characters" and a smart, can-do pimp with a head for numbers and public policy, they chose the latter.<
I happen to agree with your assessment of Bush, Dole and Clinton. I think in the cases of the former two we had men who at least had, as far as we knew, exhibited enough character not to flagrantly cause a breach in our law. This is very important.
>The idea that the president of the United States should be some paragon of virtue is as absurd as it as contradicted by historical reality.<
Well. I think the president reflects the nature of his people. We elect Jesse Ventura because he appeals to our sensibilities, to the Jesse in us. I fear for us that we elected Clinton and even now champion him. This tells me we would likely not well endure a true and brutal problem in this country. Bill Clinton does not have the character to stand firm and suffer for what is right. And I fear this is our nation's character.
>Maybe 100 years ago one could argue that the leader of the nation embodied the moral values and aspirations of its people. But the centers of power have become extremely dissipated and the presidency simply ain't what it used to be.<
How true. Nevetheless I yet think the president reflects our nature. There is a great lack of integrity in claiming virtuousness while being willing to die or send your sons to die at the command of one who is anti-thetical to virtue.
>People nowadays look to their priests, their parents, their coaches, their bosses, their friends, their community activists for leadership and moral principle. While it would be nice to have a president who abided by their moral principles, their first criteria is someone who can boost the economy and get the trash picked up on time.<
A great sadness because that president in many ways has influence on who dies and lives in this country. In many ways, he holds my life in his hands. I want him to share my fundamental morality so that when I hurt, when I suffer, when I risk my life, I do it for a cause with which we all agree is worth suffering, risking and dying for. I want him to truly feel my pain so then he will think twice before sending my sons or me to our deaths. I want to be able to trust the man. It simply is not too much to ask.
>The presidency is not some American pontificate. Never has been.<
I do not expect the president to be perfect, or even close to perfect. I merely want that I can trust him. I don't have to trust him as much as I do my wife or my parents. But I should be able to trust that he has the nation's best at heart. I do not believe this about him, and think this very sad. I don't want a pope or pastor as president. I merely want a basically decent and honest man-- a man I can trust. |
