Written 2007 For Country Above Self
There are Liberal patriots and there are Conservative patriots. Being a patriot has nothing to do with how well you disagree. It has nothing to do with how right you think the country is. It is a first step requirement, far too many are giving lip service to today, seeking to jump right to the result.
Liberals will look at a problem and visualize the correct condition based on their perspective and knowledge. Conservatives will hear a problem and imagine how to get there based on their perspective and knowledge. While the two sides are fighting over the topic, the logic of their individual contributions to society is pure: unless they are joined, society as we know it will not survive. One side takes two steps forward the other demands one step at a time and they both wind up in the same place. Fist fights are next as two forces cannot occupy the same space without joining and becoming a new single force. American. Instead, a vast separation exists that is nothing but friction to stay apart.
This condition existed before and nearly overthrew the government over gold. Look Up Franklin Roosevelt. Then, an army of guns was necessary; today, none are needed.
The two extremes of thinking are not really opposing, as much as they are the parts of the greater whole. Where liberals see what should be, conservatives see how to get there. There is not one liberal proposal or program passed by liberals in this country that does not attempt to right a perceived wrong by jumping right to the point of making it right. Not one consideration is put into that equation to reach the two step forward movement by comprehending the requirement of reality: you can only do one step at a time, every result requires a cause; and, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
If those three requirements of reality are not observed, the result will not merge opposing sides to form a nation, the result will not stand as it has no foundation to stand upon and the resulting society will be ripe for the picking.
Barring the nuts, there is not one conservative who wants war. Yet the anti-war crowd has not one liberal that will cause peace. For them, it is simply wrong that peace that does not exist, therefore it must. Two steps forward. The very concept of a 'cause' required for any result is foreign to the Liberal thinker. A 'cause' would indicate a reality that cannot be controlled and contrived. Cause and Effect has to be random to make up for all of the different perspectives of Liberals. When a person is living their own reality it is very hard to find common ground, unless one calls the cause of that reality: 'opinion'.
Even the conserva-nut knows you have to win a war to even think of peace. It is when the elected among us, or the elected above us depending on your political viewpoint: wind up being the worst of us. Not the worst as in least intelligent, least well-off; but rather the worst in us, as in usurpers of power, instead of dedication to service. You voted them in.
A prime example of the differences in the results of thinking is the current hilarious goings on in congressional committees over a few Republican appointed prosecutors. Did you know that the EEOC does not have the authority to do to a private business what the Legislative Branch is trying to do to the Executive Branch?
The EEOC cannot stand outside a company, look inside and take it upon themselves to prosecute civil rights violations. Oh, they run a rather sloppy excuse for a cover in the outreach program, and they use all sorts of legal intimidation to coerce settlements out of companies, but they still need a complainant to prosecute anything.
Congress, believing it simply must make the fiasco fit their already determined prejudices of what the Bush Administration is, will be determined to overcome the obstacles all the way to their solitary bunks. You can count on it.
Liberals' visualization of the way things are supposed to be (always a personal decision as your brain evaluates what it has received, concocted or not) simply has to result in imposing that condition upon reality, even if reality is not aware such silliness exists. Reality needs a cause, which is always the first step. The cause of the first step is not the cause of the second step, so when you jump over reality it has a habit of bringing you back 'round.
Libs: can't trust Bush as they believe their own hype, see a perfectly legal thing and just have to assume their worst fears, yet they just know it is all smoke and mirrors. They know smoke and mirrors quite well enough to recognize them. But then that two step forward inductive logic is applied and they skip right over the cause, just to reach their indoctrinated result.
Good ol' Al Gore is the current poster child for such inductive absurdity. The simple fact that a single issue (with ample disagreement from far more qualified 'prophets') can captivate a man so deeply shows the man incapable of fending off suggestion, even if it means having to admit that putting humans and their presence greater in importance than the planet itself (people could not come close to harming it for real, minus the idiotic use of a mega-weapon, we are mere ants.) Feeling superior even to the planet, surely prohibits a Liberal from having any consideration whatsoever for anything not yet even breathing on its own. Unless it isn't human. Even the self-created gods of their own prediction cannot overcome the pulsating need to grant favors upon the 'little things' of THEIR life (anybody else's life is not worthy of their concern, but they want you to think so as it keeps them in power). Hug a tree. Think it cares?
On the other side, using the exact same inductive reasoning lay the foundations for the public face of the old militia movement. Government is going to the dogs so “Bubba, go git yur gun”. The ultra - conservatives, the people Liberals try to insist all Conservatives are (take one step back) insist that it doesn't matter what the consequences of something are, the proper state must be returned. It is backwards of liberalism.
Millions of people poor over the borders to find a better life in this county (and if you blame them you know nothing of Mexican life) because they can. That is a fact. But now that someone bothered to pay enough attention to the borders for a different reason, the 'duh' branch of the conservative movement is able to step out of their wooded compounds and support people who are just as illogical as the worst Liberal host of any TV talk show, yet they insist being logical is amnesty. It isn't. John McCain used to know that.
The ultra - conservative demands deportation before anything else, as that is what failure to uphold the rule of law for many years has resulted in. Take one step back. When dealing with consequences one has to factor in your move as well as what you are moving for. The argument for how absurd such a demand is, is already well documented. That extreme position flies in the face of reality. Now, John McCain is walking around the issue of supporting deportation. John; as a constituent, allow me to talk you straight: It is NEVER possible to erase a mistake, or a misjudgment, or an act of malfeasance. It is only possible to stop it from happening again. Failing to know that is taking that two step and the reality of it will set you one step back. Retirement is not in your future.
The Liberals are right many times. The goal of giving women the power over their own bodies that men already have, is just and correct. That is two steps forward. How to make that happen involves the method in which a woman can either choose to use her body or not. Aborting the child is the result of that choice. To allow a pregnancy at all is a choice. To refuse a pregnancy is also a choice. In a society that selects to ignore one cause and eliminate the other has set its path to doing the same thing with any other two part cause. Consequence is not a trait of jumping to the conclusion because you can.
Barr'ing the nuts there is not one conservative who would deny a woman the right to choose whether to allow a pregnancy or not. Therefore the solution to not wanting children is to not get pregnant. To place the responsibility for that choice (made in emotional robotism or not) upon another, born or not is far past immoral.
So since Liberals can perceive what things should be (minus the extreme left-nuts who find everything else right, but wrong) and conservatives can imagine how to get there, the two sides simply must join forces. To do that requires understanding the other side.
The true liberal only wants what is good and right. The true conservative only wants what is good and right. They say the same goal but they reach it differently. If the two parties were to work together to accomplish the good and right the divisions of this country would begin to unite and the fist fights would stop. But factoring in the human condition of motivation, it is obvious such a movement could only be between those who put their country above self. Patriotism must be the reason for a party to exist. Elected power should be the party's reward for governing good and right, not the award for doing it wrong.
I hope that one day soon, some savvy politician will rise up and start The America Party (Newt Gingrich's movement comes close but without the high profile founder too many people distrust, it will make a nice exploratory mailing list): not a third political force, a reasonable image of what the country should be, united and strong, working together for right and good and made up of members of all parties. But it would be very hard today to find true patriots willing to embark on solidarity. For in Patriotism, there is no rush in ruling, and there is no cash in placing one's country ahead of self. There is only time.
Imagine. When asked the question of 'what are you?', I could respond: "I'm an American. Logical member."