This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Values

edited March 2007 in Politics
America is in trouble, and we all know it. We've reached a degree of plurality that is unhealthy to a democracy. Every issue is polarized. Those in power, including the toothless democrats, are all espousing the same "values" which justify our continued wars, reversals of social progress, and crimes against human rights both domestic and foreign.

The religious right has hijacked the very concept of values, by associating their arbitrary rules with the very word itself, implying that anyone who doesn't share their values has none at all.

It's damn hard to find a group of people that agree on moderate politics. Everywhere from mainstream TV media to cutting-edge Web 2.0 social networking sites seems to be dominated by ultra-partisan thinking. People who are completely in line with the Bush agenda argue with people who accuse Bush of orchestrating 9/11. Some people want to burn the Middle East into the ground, while their opponents want to abandon it completely, so they will do it to themselves.


Just what do we value in this country anymore?

Why can't we allow abortions but fund efforts to reduce their frequency and necessity?
Why can't we allow people to marry whoever they damn well please, but do everything we can to help children in unhealthy families of any kind?
Why can't we end the war, but still do everything we can in peace to help the people of one of the least developed and most unstable regions in the world?
Why can't we recognize the traits of our people that led to the unprecedented heroism and self-sacrifice of ordinary people and rescue workers alike in the wake of 9/11 and Katrina, and abolish the un-American and immoral laws which limit our freedoms while providing no real security? If those events aren't proof of the inability of the government to either prevent a disaster or effect its recovery, as well as the remarkable ability of ordinary, free citizens to work as hard as they can to do just that, then I don't know what is.

I value life *and* liberty. I believe our abundance of resources gives us a obligation to help those without, though we are free to effect this obligation. I believe we are liable for the damage we do to the world with our excesses. I believe we are not responsible for the well-being of any other country or people in the world, but that we should choose to help those consent, because it is the right thing to do.

In times of trouble, we start choosing between freedoms. "Well, liberty is important," we say, "but we can't let these terrorists murder anyone else, so let's take away liberty." You can't choose. Life is not more important than liberty, nor is the opposite true. If you value freedom, then you must honor ALL freedoms. If you cannot find the solution to a problem that respects all freedoms, then keep looking. It is a shame when we can't do as much to safe life or protect liberty as we want, but it's a damn crime when we fail a freedom completely.

I don't think we need a national dialogue to determine a shared set of values. I think the founding fathers set it out for us. We've got three self-eivdent, inalienable rights. If you've got a value that comprises any of those, it's wrong. If you disagree with any of those three, you're dead wrong.

If we feel we've outgrown those three rights, then we've outgrown America. If so, we should dissolve the Union immediately, and form one or more new governments that more adequately reflect the state of the people. Otherwise, we're just big fucking shit-talkers, who have become everything we ever rebelled against.

Comments

  • edited March 2007
    Two words for the Repuglicans who count "supporting our troops" as a value: Walter Reed.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • edited March 2007
    America is in trouble, and we all know it.
    No offense, but people have been saying this ever since America was founded. Sure, there are some serious issues confronting our country - but the same could be said during almost any other time in our history. I think we're in a lot less "trouble" now than when we had hundreds of nukes almost sent our way during the cold war.
    It's damn hard to find a group of people that agree on moderate politics.
    Most people are moderates. They just aren't the ones making the noise. The bottom line is that any nationally elected politician has to be a moderate in order to get elected. (Just ask Howard Dean.) There isn't as much difference between Bill Clinton and George Bush than you think. Clinton was pro NAFTA. Clinton forced more people off of welfare than any other president. Clinton embraced trade and relations with China. Sounds moderate to me. (Clinton bombed aspirin factories and Chinese embassies.... Bush invaded Iraq.)

    I've got a lot more to say about your post... but it will have to wait until I have the time.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • Kilarney beat me to it. We love to predict societal downfall. But we are certainly more stable as a nation today than 100 years ago.

    If you want to look at a picture of a truly polarized nation fighting against pluralism and desperately split by political and social gaffs, look at the currency disputes in the 1896 election, the Dredd Scott political and social division in 1857, the mass persecution of German-Americans after the first World War and the internment of Japanese-Americans in World War II, the Red Scare in 1919...

    If there is one thing that our nation has learned, it's that patience and "subversive" thinking will eventually galvanize Americans behind the right causes. Look at our tremendous strides toward minority equality since even as recently as 1960. Look at our massive abandonment of homophobia since 1980. What will be next? We're only getting better with time.

    Kenjura, it's easy to point fingers and scream ourselves hoarse about how bad America is; after all, every other nation on Earth seems to be doing it. But we're the leaders. We're the ones actually making a difference. We're the ones funding the rest of the world, feeding it, giving it medical aide, cleaning up the global disasters like the tsunami in southeast Asia, and spreading the ideas of tolerance and peace.

    Yes, it's easy to forget about all that while we're also waging war. But this, too, shall pass. We want everything to be perfect now, but all good things take time, and we're moving in the right direction. The level of education is growing, the crime rate is dropping, awareness is burgeoning... America isn't ruined. We've got lots of positive energy left.

    I'd write more, but the wife is calling. It's time to go get pizza.
  • Jason, Kilarney, you both miss the point. The examples you bring up Jason each indicate a separate event that would have caused America to not become the nation that is has the potential to be. Each one is its own separate challenge and it's our job to treat each challenge as a completely new creature, because no two challenges are exactly alike and each bring with it their own set of difficulties and obstacles. We succeed because we treat each one as a potential catastrophe and not as a problem to be sleepwalked through.
    I think we're in a lot less "trouble" now than when we had hundreds of nukes almost sent our way during the cold war.
    The bombs are threats external, and in some ways those are easier to deal with. In the world as it stands, we have no real external threats. The only two nations who truly pose any kind of military threat to the US are our trading partners or cautious allies. This leaves us with threats internal, something much more damaging to the stability of a country. We no longer feel that we have to stand together or we will fall, so we risk tearing ourselves limb from limb internally. It's not the amount of trouble we are in as a country, it's how easy we are able to deal with it.

    Jason mentions the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's. The only reason it was necessary is because we failed to deal with the problem of racial inequality and equal citizenship on our first two or three passes at the issue, and we would still like to forget that we ever had the problem in the first place. The Civil Rights movement should have been unnecessary in this country, we fought a war that was started because of the divisions slavery caused, and we never bothered to build a society or try to change our society to treat them as fully human for a hundred years.

    Kenjura, it's easy to point fingers and scream ourselves hoarse about how bad America is; after all, every other nation on Earth seems to be doing it. But we're the leaders. We're the ones actually making a difference. We're the ones funding the rest of the world, feeding it, giving it medical aide, cleaning up the global disasters like the tsunami in southeast Asia, and spreading the ideas of tolerance and peace.
    You're fucking kidding me, right? It's been brought up here before, our nation exists on a sea of debt, we're being floated a loan by the people manufacturing our goods, and we give less of what we have in aid then almost any other industrialized nation. I'm not talking about what our asses being owned by the Chinese means, I'm just saying that our asses are being funded by China.

    The problem is every time we fail at one of these problems, it takes us a long while to go back and right it. Ken is very much right about how the religious right has hijacked the vocabulary in this country, stolen, beat and raped the very ideas of values and of patriotism, and turn liberal into a curse word that few politicians bother to fight back against. They have asked us to trade our Liberty for security and a continued life; and they seek to deny the pursuit of enlightenment, tying us to their false idols and manufactures ways of living.

    We do not have discussion in this country anymore, we have either sound bite debates or vitriolic rants denigrating the very base of humanity of the opposing side, which offer no chance for rebuttal and far too often no demand for apologies.
    We want everything to be perfect now, but all good things take time, and we're moving in the right direction. The level of education is growing, the crime rate is dropping, awareness is burgeoning... America isn't ruined. We've got lots of positive energy left.
    If we do not push to make things as perfect as we can, then we fail every following generation for the hurdles that they have to jump that we should have removed from their path. Who knows how far, how fast our following generations will run if we try to remove all of the obstacles that bar their path?
  • edited March 2007
    Ken is very much right about how the religious right has hijacked the vocabulary in this country, stolen, beat and raped the very ideas of values and of patriotism, and turn liberal into a curse word that few politicians bother to fight back against.
    Do you really believe this? The religious right is has been shrinking for years. (See this page.) Gay marriage is a reality in numerous states. Abortion is here to stay.

    Liberals love to complain about the religious right. What are you so afraid of? They've got a right to voice their opinion - no matter how strongly they choose to do it. What do you propose? Do we force them to feel differently?

    I love this... "I'm for freedom of speech... but the people I disagree with have gone too far."

    In my experience, both the far left and the far right are intolerant. That's why I'm a moderate. When it comes to moral issues such as abortion, there really is no right answer. You can't apply science to issues such as this. You either think it's okay or you don't. What's the crime in admitting that?

    Our democracy supports some issues I believe in, and it doesn't support others. That's the way a democracy works. I've never expected our democracy to be created in my own image - nor should you. You can fight for what you believe in, but the second that you think you are above democratic principles, you're in big trouble.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • Liberals love to complain about the religious right. What are you so afraid of? They've got a right to voice their opinion - no matter how strongly they choose to do it. What do you propose? Do we force them to feel differently?
    We denounce them for the backwards, superstitious and fearful lot that they are, poke holes in every argument and ridicule them for their hate. They have the right to say whatever they wish, but they don't have the right to have their paranoid delusions fed or respected. They have power only because those who would denigrate them are treated as social pariahs.
    In my experience,boththe far left and the far right are intolerant. That's why I'm a moderate. When it comes to moral issues such as abortion, there really is no right answer. You can't apply science to issues such as this. You either think it's okay or you don't. What's the crime in admitting that?
    Yes, both extremes are intolerant. Both of them see the other side as not worth respect. I'm not going to argue that point. But the argument that abortion has no right answer? What about Ken's suggestion, legal but rare? What's wrong with that position? The question abortion raises, when is a fetus capable of thinking, can be examined scientifically, but the feelings about it can't be. That can be talked about, but some of the options people are trying to take off the table people are against for no reason, such as the morning-after pill and similar.
    Our democracy supports some issues I believe in, and it doesn't support others. That's the way a democracy works. I've never expected our democracy to be created in my own image - nor should you. You can fight for what you believe in, but the second that you think you are above democratic principles, you're in big trouble.
    That's fine. Our democracy is guided by only a few things, the values of our founding fathers that help us read their intent in writing the Constitution. Beyond that, our job is to build a consensus about the direction of our country. So I do think your wrong, it is my expectation to build a coalition of people to put together a vision for this country. I fail to see how this violates democratic principles.

    The major change I see since the founding is the level of respect that religion deserves. A man deserves to be treated as crazy if shouts that evolution never happened or that the world is only several thousand years old. A man who claims to believe in demonstrable false things, such as a working communist government or a seven-day creation, deserve exactly the same amount of respect.
  • .....our nation exists on a sea of debt, we're being floated a loan by the people manufacturing our goods, and we give less of what we have in aid then almost any other industrialized nation. I'm not talking about what our asses being owned by the Chinese means, I'm just saying that our asses are being funded by China....
    I've heared my teacher say that we've always and always will be In billions of dollars in debt.
  • Just what do we value in this country anymore?

    Why can't we allow abortions but fund efforts to reduce their frequency and necessity?
    Why can't we allow people to marry whoever they damn well please, but do everything we can to help children in unhealthy families of any kind?
    Why can't we end the war, but still do everything we can in peace to help the people of one of the least developed and most unstable regions in the world?
    Why can't we recognize the traits of our people that led to the unprecedented heroism and self-sacrifice of ordinary people and rescue workers alike in the wake of 9/11 and Katrina, and abolish the un-American and immoral laws which limit our freedoms while providing no real security? If those events aren't proof of the inability of the government to either prevent a disaster or effect its recovery, as well as the remarkable ability of ordinary, free citizens to work as hard as they can to do just that, then I don't know what is.
    Because these are all pragmatic solutions and compromises. Unfortunately in the US, we always seem to think it's my way or the high way. Either that or if you don't get your way you try your best to make sure the other option is neutered or will fall.
  • edited March 2007
    Why can't we allow abortions but fund efforts to reduce their frequency and necessity?
    We do. Not sure what the beef is here. Yup... some people disagree with this. So what? That's how a democracy works.
    Why can't we allow people to marry whoever they damn well please, but do everything we can to help children in unhealthy families of any kind?
    This is starting to happen. Give it time. Currently, we help children in unhealthy families regardless of sexual orientation of the parents, so I'm not sure where you are going here.
    Why can't we end the war, but still do everything we can in peace to help the people of one of the least developed and most unstable regions in the world?
    At the time the war began, our democratically elected lawmakers approved it. Now that new facts have come to light, the war is going to come to an end sooner than later. Again... what's not working here? Other countries contribute more money in foreign aid, but it isn't that simple. Japan has basically no military. We are the world's police force. It's easy for a country like Japan to contribute more when we are footing the bill for their national security. Secondly, large handouts have pretty much been proven to be useless. The biggest progress has been made with micro loans and other such programs.
    Why can't we recognize the traits of our people that led to the unprecedented heroism and self-sacrifice of ordinary people and rescue workers alike in the wake of 9/11 and Katrina, and abolish the un-American and immoral laws which limit our freedoms while providing no real security? If those events aren't proof of the inability of the government to either prevent a disaster or effect its recovery, as well as the remarkable ability of ordinary, free citizens to work as hard as they can to do just that, then I don't know what is.
    There is a lot here...
    - Newsflash: We've never had absolute freedom and we never will. I agree that we should stay within the constitution, but the constitution allows state intrusion into our lives. (police searches, taxes, etc.)
    - Whether or not a law is un-American or immoral is your subjective opinion. Trust our democracy to sort out what is right.
    - You believe that the government can't prevent further terrorist attacks? I'm amazed. No doubt we can't stop everything, but we sure as heck will stop some terrorist attacks. I, for one, don't want to depend on "free citizens" to stop the next terrorist attack. I'm more than happy to have the government (within the constitution) working to prevent the next attack.
    - If the government botched Katrina, then you fix what was broken. I'm not sure why you're saying we should just throw our hands up in the air and have government do nothing in response to natural disasters. Whether or not "free citizens" can help in the recovery - somebody has to coordinate the effort.

    I'm actually impressed with how well our democracy seems to be working. I've always been against the war in Iraq. It looks like the democrats will sweep into power based on the public's disdain for the war. Those who support the war are either changing their position or getting booted from office. What's not working here?

    Keep in mind.... a democracy is compromise. Compromise means that you don't get everything you want. Time to get Zen with that - since I can't think of a better form of government.
    Post edited by Kilarney on
  • Because these are all pragmatic solutions and compromises. Unfortunately in the US, we always seem to think it's my way or the high way. Either that or if you don't get your way you try your best to make sure the other option is neutered or will fall.
    Maybe I'm in the minority.... but this doesn't scare me. Everyone is entitled to their point of view, and everyone is entitled to fight for that point of view. It's a little concept called freedom of speech.
  • I'm not sure that politics in this country are actually outside historical norms. There have been times when its been better like early last century or the "Era of Good Feelings." There have been times when its been worse like when the Federalists blew up or the mid 1800s. That politicians should hysterically denounce each other is simply an unpleasant facet of our system.
  • edited March 2007
    I'm not sure that politics in this country are actually outside historical norms. There have been times when its been better like early last century or the "Era of Good Feelings." There have been times when its been worse like when the Federalists blew up or the mid 1800s. That politicians should hysterically denounce each other is simply an unpleasant facet of our system.
    Yup yup. I would even go one step further and say that pluralistic division is GOOD, because it keeps really crazy crazies from doing super-crazy things. Imagine where we would be if Bush had majority backing for his war of terror. When you divide the power base (i.e. the partisan voting base), it forces politicians to cater to smaller groups with smaller programs. That is why democracy is the best form of government, even if it doesn't work very well 100 percent of the time.
    Post edited by Jason on
  • I fail to see how the polarization of issues today has prevented crazy people from doing super-crazy things.

    It is a fact that the amount of money we have spent on the war could have solved virtually every problem we complain about today. The CIA sure could have used a few hundred billion before 9/11. Our energy independence would be all but assured with hundreds of billions of dollars to invest in alternative technologies. Universal health care would be pretty easy with hundreds of billions of dollars to spend.

    It was absolutely crazy to go to war. It's the stupidest war, bar none, that we have ever been involved in. Vietnam was more deadly, but at least there was a concept. Some people actually thought that communism would spread like wildfire. It's not like it was ever firmly proven that our involvement did no good on some level (not that I believe it did, but you get the idea). 1812 was stupid, but there was something to gain. The Spanish-American war was naked imperialism, but we did have some success. This war is lunacy, and everybody on the planet except a tiny core of Bush supporters and himself agree.

    Bush is characterized by his absolute adherence to his own policy. He doesn't care what anyone says. He just does whatever he wants, regardless of facts, reason, or sensibility. In the face of this kind of absolutism, opposing viewpoints have taken a similar stance. Polarization breeds more polarization.


    I guess, technically, the Democrats represent some sort of moderate position. They're sorta against the war and sorta not. They're sorta for energy independence and sorta pro-oil. They're a little of this and little of that. That kind of bullshit isn't going to work. It didn't work for Kerry and it isn't going to work in 2008. What happened to the January 3rd Democrats? The ones who initiated a whole slew of reasonable, very progressive bills? They haven't even managed to pass their non-binding resolution to do nothing about the war.

    So I guess I see where the extremists come from. It doesn't look like moderation really succeeds. Instead, politicians come at the issue with polar opposite viewpoints, then mash out a compromise, which is far less sensible than a viewpoint that started out moderate. It's the inevitable result of a seemingly inescapable two-party system.
  • The war is not the worst of it, although it's bad enough. We have lost more constitutional protections during this administration than in any other in our history. The government is engaged in spying on it's citizen's phone records, email, and bank records. Any suspect information can brand a person an "enemy combatant." The president has great discretion on who he decides to classify as an "enemy combatant." This is bad enough, but under the Patriot Act and other legislation, so do secret magistrates. If one is classified as an "enemy combatant", one can be rendered to a secret prison and tortured. This unfortunate person no longer has the right to habeas corpus, to see an attorney, or to have his case tried in a U.S. civil court.

    Bush is characterized by his absolute adherence to his own policy. He doesn't care what anyone says. He just does whatever he wants, regardless of facts, reason, or sensibility. In the face of this kind of absolutism, opposing viewpoints have taken a similar stance. Polarization breeds more polarization.
    And this is the person who has the extraconstitutional power described above. Just recently, he gained the power to ignore posse comitatus and declare martial law for any reason he sees fit. Are we comfortable with this person having this sort of power?
  • I'd generally go with no.

    All philosophical musings aside, I'll be happy if all the bullshit Bush and his cronies have done is reversed. I'll be happier if he and they are impeached, especially if they are actually convicted. Nothing dissuades like consequences.

    I've been against this asshole from the very beginning. I wasn't pro-bush even on the very day of September 11th, 2001. Never, ever, did he convince me that any of the wrong things he did were right. It's so old to me that I'm long past simple contemplation of policies put into place many years ago, and have been left only with the option of thinking critically (and perhaps rather esoterically) on the nature of American politics.

    One thing is for damn sure. Let us all learn from this presidency that such things can and do happen, even in our democracy. Our system alone does not render us immune to the abuses of power possible by the government. Since our republic was founded on the concept of rebellion against that very thing, it should be foremost in our mind at all times.

    Something else: when faced with danger and general troubles at home, we lose our better nature. We Americans, and everyone in the developed world, are a prosperous people in a world filled with poverty and despair. We are no more entitled to that prosperity than those without are deserving of their fate. In times of peace, we are generous with our prosperity and seek to help those without. But in times of fear and uncertainty, we suddenly stop caring about the rest of the world, and instead embrace paranoia, racism, and bigotry. That alone is reason enough to stop acting like the so-called "terrorist threat" warrants the action we've taken. The number of people in the world who we could save with minimal effort dwarfs the deaths of everyone in the United States and the EU who has ever been killed by a terrorist.

    I lament that Americans will so freely give up their values in the presence of danger. Certainly that contradicts the intentions of those who founded our country.
Sign In or Register to comment.