Rabid Partisan Idiots, Left and Right, Made Easy

Politically correct = reality challenged

Unless one has been brought up in a political vacuum it is hard to avoid spending at least part of your lifetime enmeshed in the folds of one partisan group or another. Many people are so over exposed to a polarized viewpoint that they jump to the other party in a fashion that is often as polarized as their parents’ if not more so. The majority of both these parentaly wound-up rebels and those who retain their parents polarization tend to mellow with time; the non-rebels more likely than not to find peace with the angers of partisan zeal at an earlier age. Then there are those who never really feel passionate about either “choice” of viewpoints, the black or the white. These folks usually blend in with the soft and fuzzy “middle” end of the party’s spectrum from rabidity through hardliners and moderates and are little more to the various political leaders than empty votes to be herded with nightmares and platitudes into one camp or the other during the end game of the election. That is the reality of those who control our society.

What of ideology you say? What of the Left and the Right? What of them comes the answer from the voice of present-day politics. Partisanship has always played a part in human politics. I could go on for pages on the roots and changes, the evolutions, and revolutions in political thought but it all can be summed up very simply; partisan = tribal. Any division of “us” and “them” that is not agreed to by all parties involved is tribalism whether you call it that or nepotism or Left-wing or Right-wing. In other words, even if it makes you feel like someone broke your dolly to hear it, partisan politics is always wrong when applied to a constitutional republic such as the U.S. or to Western democracy in general.

Now let us be clear on this definition. If something is Bad(tm), it means that anyone who insists on doing it, well they are part of the problem instead of part of any defense against or solving of; deal with it.

What good does that do us, the moderate majority asks, much more than you are doing now, says the voice of the Ghost of Reality That Can Be.

The first step is to recognize a partisan when you see them. Next you must apply their own misconceptions against them, making them out to non-partisan eyes as the fools and or tools that they are. Then you must offer a viewpoint that ignores completely the rhetoric and rancor of either side while laying out a ‘triage’ of the particular subject being misused by the partisan for their own benefit. Only then can common-sense and compassion, love and reason all co-exist within one, commonly held “platform”. The chaos of partisan push-and-pull laws and regulations will dwindle over the years and decades to a Constitutionally sound minimum of ‘solutions’ to commonly recognized needs, problems and aspirations.

 

Conservatives Like to Steal the Thunder of Liberals

bugslastsupper1

Poor RIchard Dawkins. All that he did Virginia, was to note, as an interesting statistic, that Trinity College, Cambridge faculty and alumni have more Nobel Prizes than all the world’s Muslims despite many inflated “facts” floated about regarding the awesome contributions to modern society of an apocryphal “golden Age” of Islam; the quality of the Muslim claims are typical of all conservative partisans!

Though the conservatives like to take credit 100 or more years later, it is the liberal thinkers that seek, and bring, the progress; meanwhile the conservative-minded act as a ‘brake’, ideally keeping things from going too far, too fast. However, allowing conservatives too much control has only ever led only to stagnation; letting the Left dominate always to chaos, then tyranny, which eventually becomes itself “conservative” and stagnates – lather, rinse, repeat.

I am sorry Virginia but, I fail to see anygood choice‘ there for the majority of us, the moderate minded – the true 99%.

The problem is partisanship. If people of disparate thought let cooperation originally intended to improve opportunity and quality of life for the nation as a whole; individuals, families and up; to do this despite corruption, stupidity and social ills that are apolitical & endemically human turn into a rivalry for control society is at a point when it really doesn’t matter which side “wins” when you look at how much the society inevitably loses.

Reality = “I tend to be conservative in my actions and reactions as a personal policy/character trait

B.S. = “all major political & social issues should be decided by solidly conservative minds”

Calling Yourself Liberal and Religious won’t MAKE You a Good Person

PartyPlayFairDemo

Today we have two re-writes of older articles that seem very relevant today:

First, we will take the “Liberals” as well as the “Conservatives” to task for partisan hypocrisy…

Nowadays the word Liberal is often used as a pejorative; I often use it that way myself for good reasons.

Yet I am a moderate, and probably spend about 40% of the time cursing the idiocy of the Left, and 60% of it complaining and worrying about the Right (It is too bad there are not more real conservative minds in the Conservative camp these days.). Of the two the Conservatives tend to scare me a bit more but the Leftists in total power would be/ have been worse. But the actions of the radicals on either side do not condemn entire schools of thought to a mature mind.  This should be remembered by pundits on both sides in this age of attack politics.

 Lately a radically Conservative group has taken over almost all the political voice of conservative American Christianity.  They have used their pulpit to propound, and pound in, their own view of history, and how Christianity has influenced the development of the United States as a nation.

 They are not actually lying about the influence of the churches. The problem is that they have forgotten from just where in the Church all that influence came.  Yes, it was those damn liberals every time!

 In American history, every time the religious culture has had a profound positive influence (as judged by successive generations) on changes in society those influences have their roots in the Liberal-to-Radical churches. They most certainly did not come from the Conservative ones!

 The Conservative Churches in every case have held the line with the status quo through history whether it was regarding the Revolution, slavery, child labor, workers rights, racial equality or now, gay rights.  Yet the Conservative Churches of today want to shine their halos with the contributions made for the most part by the Liberal Churches of the past.

This activity is not unique to Christianity by any means.  A Radical Conservative Jew will spend much energy telling you about Judaism’s amazing contributions to Western society, but will refuse to see that his brand of thinking never produced any of it.  Find a Conservative Imam, and you will find a man eager to convince you that Islam has been an enormously positive contributor to civilization over the centuries.  But if you remind him that blind faithfulness to Islam’s Conservative philosophy had nothing to do with the various periods of (heretically liberal) Islamic glory that he is polishing up for you to admire; he may even take offense.

  In every case where religious and political power intermingle the things that modern world civilization would call progress has only come when the dominant Church(s) is(are) liberal to the point of being heretical (to the parent dogmas and doctrines), tolerant and more focused on understanding, accepting and spreading the “love behind the Law” rather than promoting a zero-tolerance attitude regarding adherence to the “Letter of the Law.”

But only stagnation and decay ensue when the Churches are conservative and cling to a memory, or fictitious ideal, of “the way it should be.”

 It should be noted that Conservative religious thought can have a greatly positive influence on society but, that usually the effects remain chiefly negative.

 Witness: the defense of slavery, and the stances of “Godly” preachers and priests against child labor laws, and minority civil rights laws.

Witness: the attempts at forced, coerced and violent conversions directed at any people of another religion that are under the influence of a politicized religion (theocracies, inquisitions, shari’a states).

 We all admit that Conservatism is designed to be highly successful at keeping the wheels of a society turning. Who but a fool will deny that there is a true virtue most times in maintaining most of the status quo; Leftists take note of the qualifications and keep your straw men to yourselves – I am not Christian, and never have been a Republican, or supporter of either Bush.

 But, it also must be admitted that Conservative governments and organizations have a poor track record when attempting to grease those wheels, to make accommodation for the fact that seems “odd“, “weird“, “different” to the average mind; whether the ideas are good ones or not!

When the going gets rough or to be a creative inspiration for the people who bear the main burdens of pushing the cart of civilization further, faster and safer than our ancestors ever believed it could go Conservatives can be of more a drag chain when they should be acting like the regenerative brakes that go with a hybrid engine.

 Conservative ideology certainly does not allow real flaws in the basic social system to be changed without a protracted, and often ugly, fight with the liberal mindset who are busy finding things that are not really broken to make into really nasty situations with well-meaning new laws and more, and more, and more tension from enforcement, and less and less elbow room for the well-intentioned citizen just trying to get along and improve their lives.

 Without a Liberal element in society, one that has enough influence to smack the current bosses on the head now and then but, not enough to dominate society  a person lives in what is at best a well upholstered slave camp destined to fade into the dust of history.

And…

Without a Conservative element at the core to give perspective and balance a people will… well, just look at the aftermath of every single revolution in the past – the American revolution was actually a colony revolt – it was an independently evolving, functioning society that broke away from the parent nation/culture rather than an indigenous movement to topple all the central power structures and replace them ad hoc with unproven or dis-proven but, “much better” institutions; not long after they succeed the real bloodshed is just beginning!

 Who was it again that decreed with proven ‘Holy Authority‘ that all human problems can, and may, only be solved by a totally Left-wing or totally Right-wing ideology? When did admitting that your Party’s platform cannot solve all problems if followed by “good” people?

The voting public needs to take off their trendy, strait-jackets/sheep-outfits, grow up, and look at reality – of the real kind, rather than the oh-so-importantly-unimportant political sort – and then find the ideal solutions, not the solutions that serve your political tribe while walking over everyone else’s Lives’, Liberties, and frantic Pursuits of Happiness.

Leftists and Right-wingers Conspire Against Constitutional Government

hypocrite_fish

I am a bit disappointed in the both the Left and the Right; no-one seems to know how to declare victory and move on, or realize the futility of their actions and let go.

There is a certain similarity to those who are gravitated toward the amassing of political power; for the most part their agenda is not the one they publically serve, instead it is one of ego and power, narcissism and insecurity.  The occasional sincere and talented leader that comes along is a happy accident in the purposeful insanity in pursuit of power we call politics.

On the Right we have people who do not seem to be able to accept that  how a person dresses or wears their hair, what books or films they enjoy, which adult they fall in love with, what kind of music they listen to, or which particular chemicals they choose to soothe themselves with against outrageous fortune matters little compared to issues that breaks their leg or picks their pockets.

This is principally because a conservative mindset supports the status quo against disruption from “outside; it is hard to tell who is not “one of us” if we fail to look alike and act alike.

On the Left we have those folks who simply cannot let go of the rush of having been on the side of “Truth and Light” against the monolithic “Man; if some group quacks like victims of “oppression” the Left immediately labels it a duck, turning a blind eye to any “regretful but vital temporary irregularities” committed in the pursuit of “social justice.”

Today it seem that to the new breed of “liberal” any traditional or overly familiar group is automatically suspected of evil intent and attacked; meanwhile any foreign, unfamiliar or new ideology is seen as persecuted, helpless, and in need of protection; they are not shy about shaming others into “doing the right thing“; even if they would call their actions evil if perpetrated by a non-Leftist.

The sign that makes this cognitive-dissonance the most obvious to me is the seeming inability of anyone belonging to a partisan group to see their own leaders engaging in hypocrisy or toxically self-serving politics.

Case in point Left:

Three distinguished ‘sociologists‘ having a panel discussion at a prestigious, elite university on the cumulative emotional/political scars of the “Palestinian people” who never even mention the existence of the PA, PLO, Fatah or any non-Israeli leadership, organisation or government!

Case in point Right:

Every bill that is passed by a conservative state legislature regarding abortion or the first amendment that they know will be thrown out by the Supreme Court on a “No Duh” basis; not to mention voting against humane laws only because the law might, possibly, in theory, in a Blue Moon and with a tail wind undermine their goal of passing other laws designed to eliminate the right to any abortions.

Case in point Left:

The partisan Leftie will bend their brain into a pretzel to justify and declare natural and normal any deviant behavior practiced by consenting adult homosexuals while at the same time denigrating the “un-naturally” traditional sexual tastes of more conservative folk, most of whom are not interested in regulating the homosexuals’ lifestyle beyond the usual restrictions on anyone committing rape, pedophilia or other criminal activity.

Case in point Right:

The partisan Rightie will get their panties in a twist contemplating all the heinous and disgusting sexual crimes a homosexual “could” be prone to while ignoring rampant child abuse in the home, or a culture of rape in an institution; that homosexuals in reality have a lower violent crime rate than straights seems to totally escape them.

Case in point Left:

Lefties just hate women who like the idea of having babies and being a homemaker, they simply loathe it! When you pin them to the wall, as happened recently when someone said that Mitt Romney’s wife who raised five sons and battled a deadly illness had never worked a day in her life, they mostly admit that there is nothing wrong and much that is admirable, about a “non-working” home-maker. Then a few days later they will once again say something that denigrates mothers.

Case in point Right:

Statistics show that the highest divorce rates, the highest teen STD rates and the highest teen pregnancy rates all occur in precisely the same areas where the most conservative sex-ed is the norm and sex is only supposed to happen after a person gets married. But, the lowest rates for divorce etc. are found amongst agnostics and secular Jews! I will leave as an exercise for the student the contemplation of reasons why two people with no clue whether they are socially compatible in the long term, or if they are sexually compatible at all, might be a bad risk for marrying; living together first is a  statistically proven better strategy!

Both sides seem to feel that all the worlds problems are sourced in the opposition’s intentionally perverse and stubborn need to fuck everything up for the other guy; I have more faith in my fellow man than that, but the partisanship has got to go!

Partisans, Partisans Fly Away Home; Your Politics Are Toxic And Your Children Are Alone.


(HH here: As the feeding frenzies around President Obama’s policies and appointments thicken I wish to note that the partisans on the RIGHT are feeling freer and freer to show their own true colors. From corporate apologies to thinly veiled Christian Supremacism we see the Right Wing minds daring to poke their heads above the Conservative majority on the Right.

Just as the Leftists feel compelled to oppose anything that is traditional or uniquely Western so the Right Wing follower of “revealed Truth” seems hard-wired to reflexively oppose ANYTHING proposed by a non-fundamentalist that does not reinforce the fundamentalist’s worldview.

Over the course of history just how many wonderful ideas were torn apart by the wild dogs of partisan “debate”? The saddest thought to me is that if the “ideal society” envisioned by both extremes ever had a chance it was from moderate ideals that the partisans rejected for lack of “purity”.

Back in March I posted a piece about my attitudes toward the extremes of the political spectrum, principally Islamists and Fundamentalist Christians. In that piece I talked about the difference between neo-Platonic thought and Neo-Aristotelian thought.

In a nutshell the Platonic model believes in revealed Truth as the only valid Truth. Human reason is a trap and a dead end and the only hope Humans have is to follow absolutely the rules of the MOST nearly enlightened leaders. These leaders can be secular (Hitler, Stalin, Mao) or they can be Religious (Bin Laden, Khomeini, Jim Jones, The Pope before the Reformation) but they all share the quality of being closer to the unknowable “Truth” than the hopeless and helpless masses. To NOT follow this master/teacher/leader is to commit blasphemy and accept the cloak of evil.

We see this model used over and over again by those who seek power but have no ideals that serve mankind. Rather they seek to sell their followers on the idea that they are lost sheep and following “The Leader” whether Christ or Allah, is the ONLY possible way to be “good”. Moral choice is declared too weighty for the average mortal and is reserved for the “priesthood” in charge of the orthodoxy.

We see this today most clearly in sharia “law” and in the actions of certain radical and heretical Christian sects. They look not to their Human conscience in making “moral” choices but to a book or fanatical leader whose pronouncements are to be simply noted and applied, not debated or questioned. Thus if the Islamic authorities declare that there is no sin in a man performing sexual acts upon his infant “wife”(as long as she is not PHYSICALY harmed) a “good” Muslim is simply expected to nod their head and go home and feel o.k. about uncle Salim masturbating on a 16 month old. MORALITY IS NOT IN OUR PROVENENCE in this mindset. Morality to the neo-platonic is obeying the rules end of story, now put your hand down and stop asking questions or we will cut it off.

Just so in some radical Mormon families or certain radical Christian families when the “patriarch” says that this 12 year old girl is to marry his 65 year old buddy as a 4th wife no one is supposed to THINK of questioning its “Rightness”. God says he has the right, he has used that right and the girl is blessed to be so taken care of; AMEN. In their minds.

Caught between the tribal squabblings of these fanatical (ultimately superstitious) fools on the Right and Left are the neo-Aristotelians. Those that believe that mankind can learn and grow. Those that feel that the universe is essentially sensible and follows consistent rules however subtle and complicated those rules may be. You know, the ones that USE their brains AND hearts.

With the Human race learning enough about the universe and how it works to place a whole series of people on the Moon and return them I would say that the jury SHOULD be in on who is right, us or the Platonians. Science as we have known it would be impossible if Plato were correct. Even the discoveries of something as old as the science of optics would be impossible if Plato were not completely off track in his analysis of mind and reality.

But this has not stopped the fanatical and self-hating Neo-Platonics from keeping the rest of us from finding greater harmony in our cultures and relations. On the Left and on the Right the tribal Us vs. Them mindset that sees all life as a zero-sum game keeps feeding off of every society that welcomes them.

Today let us examine the “fairness doctrine” and “localism”. On the left we have Mark Lloyd, Obama’s “Diversity Chief” and on the Right we have Mr. Lloyd’s bio on discoverthenetworks.org. In the middle of a lot of partisan blather are a few good ideas that look to get raped in passing while the two sides “react” instead of thinking.

Frontpagemag.com the umbrella site for discoverthenetworks.org and others trends from moderate Conservative to unabashedly Rightwing depending on the subject and on the author. This particular page, the bio for Mark Lloyd strays far over into the land of corporate apologia and far from the realm of objectivity.

Of course that does not change the fact that Mr. Lloyd is about as unreconstructed a Marxist as there is in the administration today. He knows the “Truth” of the Leftist religion and is ready and willing to use a broken slide rule to calculate which “means” are justified by each particular holy “end”. In addressing the idea that ownership of media outlets needs to be in more female and minority hands he embraces gleefully the idea of “removing” the “wrong kind” of owners and placing their outlets in the “right hands” for “proper” social growth.

On the one hand Lloyd was correct in a June 2007 report Lloyd co-authored titled “The Structural Imbalance of Talk Radio,” when he said: “91 percent of the total weekday talk radio programming is conservative, and 9 percent is progressive,” and these stations and networks are failing to follow Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934, requiering “commercial broadcasters to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.”

Also, while Lloyd feels the argument does not go far enough in FORCING the market to represent his Leftist “truth” in great enough proportion he does recognize that a big part of the cause was: “repeal of the Fairness Doctrine by the [FCC] in 1987. The Fairness Doctrine was a regulation … that required broadcasters to devote airtime to important and controversial issues and to provide contrasting views on these issues in some form. From this perspective, the repeal of the doctrine in the late 1980’s allowed station owners to broadcast more opinionated, ideological, and one-sided radio hosts without having to balance them with competing views.”

This is such a no-brainer that it boggles the mind that anyone would be arguing it. I remember what radio was like then. All sorts of things were discussed but the STATION was always neutral and it was the GUESTS that battled it out in the ideological duels. The idea of an ideologue of EITHER stripe having sole control for a time and being allowed to not only propagandize but select for themselves who they will let ask them questions and what they will answer.

The Rest of Lloyds Marxist ideals are toxic but the basic idea of a return to the times when stations regularly reminded their audiences that the airwaves belonged to THEM and not the station. I felt comforted to know that if a station went off the beam far enough the locals could bring it back in line.

Why do so many so called Conservatives fail to see when things are going their way that there might come a time when THEY will be the minority in need of a level playing field? As near as I can tell the only solid reason the Conservatives have to reject the Fairness Doctrine in its historical form is that they have more voices on the radio and non-partisan debate is the LAST thing they want. In this they have abandoned the honor of Conservatism for the reactionary opportunism of Right Wing totalitarianism.

By all means Mr. Lloyds draconian redistribution of outlets and the income of privately owned outlets should be opposed by all legal means. But to be fair, what is wrong with the fairness doctrine? It just holds the outlet to be neutral and to let real people instead of paid performers debate the issues. As I said, I remember it quite well and fail to see a problem with returning to it, other than demagogues losing the ability to get rich propagandizing people with hateful rhetoric. Regardless of the truth of any individual story that someone like Rush airs that story will be spun hard in one direction and no opposing voice will be heard.

The other issue that the “Conservative” that wrote Mr. Lloyd’s bio had that just seems silly is that of “localism” the idea that radio, TV and Newspaper outlets should be mostly locally owned instead of being arms of corporate interests.

Given the troubles that media has caused in the past due to too few voices in control I again fail to see why this is not a GOOD idea.

If Randolph Hearst had not been allowed to own so many papers would the West coast Japanese have been interred in WWII? Other examples abound. Frankly I can’t see the problem with the old school approach; one group or individual may own or control ONE outlet of each type, radio, Newspaper, TV. On the national level with cable and sat radio One theme per station should be the rule; news, music, talk, general entertainment.

If each owner, individual or group, is allowed an equal presence in every venue how is it NOT fair? To do as Mr. Lloyd wishes and control WHO is allowed to own at all is simply draconian but to try to defend corporations or individuals (like Hearst) owning and controlling huge swaths of media is just reckless. that simply defends a present status quo at the risk of the freedom of speech of generations unborn!

Reality Check: If someone who claims to not be Right Wing or Leftist defends injustice when it benefits THEIR group but sees it as evil if “committed” by the opposition then you are talking to a partisan. Do not feed them or pet them, simply walk away and continue to use your god-given will to resist the temptation to force others follow your “truth” whether they like it or not.

Go Forth and Be Moderate. Be Not Afraid to Think.)

Why do I call myself a both Moderate and Liberal?


(HH Here: As things stand today the words Liberal and Leftist are often used as though they mean the same thing. That is about like saying that the terms Conservative and Jingoist are also interchangeable. Come to think of it that is how BOTH sets of words are used today. Jingoists are branding anyone Liberal with the label Leftist and Leftists demonize anyone who is at all Conservative as a Jingoistic Chauvinist.

So, before we discuss the ever to be feared Leftists and Jingoists let us first discuss what a Liberal and a Conservative truly are.

Dictionary.com says that to be Liberal is to be:
1. favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.

2. (often initial capital letter) noting or pertaining to a political party advocating measures of progressive political reform.

3. of, pertaining to, based on, or advocating liberalism.

4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.

5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression: a liberal policy toward dissident artists and writers.

6. of or pertaining to representational forms of government rather than aristocracies and monarchies.

7. free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant: a liberal attitude toward foreigners. (HH: Simple note to the vocabulary impaired; Prejudice and bigotry require a person to IGNORE factual data to come to their conclusions about others i.e. it is NOT bigotry to dislike people like Nazis and Supremacists and others who are demonstrably inimical.)

8. open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc. (Another note for the Leftists, Not bound means you can CHOOSE to go beyond tradition and convention IF it seems desirable, the Liberal is not REQUIRED to abandon them whenever possible.)

9. characterized by generosity and willingness to give in large amounts: a liberal donor.

10. given freely or abundantly; generous: a liberal donation.

11. not strict or rigorous; free; not literal: a liberal interpretation of a rule.
(This last one is why so many “liberal” reforms have had their impetus from religious folk. Those who interpret their religion with Love see things that those who see God as a legalistic prig cannot. It was not the “Conservative” churches that supported the reform of Slavery or child labor or minority civil rights, it was always the Liberal Churches that spearheaded the way. The Conservative Churches fought tooth and nail until the “Liberal” ways became common wisdom because of the fear-mongering of their resident jingoists who magnified the threat to “Biblical Authority” in each case. Now each cause is embraced in toto by all but the most radical of Rightwing Churches.

Mr. Hill over at Fox and other unreconstructed Leftists should take note that this definition does NOT say a word about radicals or revolutions or Marxism.

O.K. that is pretty clear. So what then is a “Leftist” if they are NOT a “Liberal” you might ask? The short answer is that a Leftist is more or less a Marxist. But I do not think that the short answer will suffice in this forum so let us delve a little deeper.

Back we go to Dictionary.com or any other standard English dictionary:

1. a member of the political Left or a person sympathetic to its views.

O.k. then, what is the “political Left”?

Wikipedia.org has this to say: “In politics, left-wing, political left, leftist and the Left are terms used to describe a number of positions and ideologies. They are most commonly used to refer to support for changing traditional social orders or for creating a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and privilege. …

The phrase left-wing was coined during the French Revolution, referring to the seating arrangement in parliament; those who sat on the left supported the republic, the popular political movements and secularization.[1][2] The concept of a distinct political Left originated with the June Days Uprising of 1848. (HH: The totalitarian excesses post revolution were exclusively the result of extreme interpretations of the “Leftist” movement.) The organizers of the First International saw themselves as the successors of the left wing of the French Revolution. The term was applied to a number of revolutionary movements in Europe, especially socialism, anarchism[3] and communism. The term is also used to describe social democracy. In contemporary political discourse, the term the Left usually means either social liberal or socialist.[4]”

Well there you go, Leftism is NOT Liberalism by any definition. Leftism is radical, revolutionary and ultimately has always expressed itself in totalitarian ways to the limits allowed by other elements in a given society. For the Leftist to attempt to cloak themselves by claiming responsibility for the Liberal progress of the past is simply an attempt to put the wolf in sheep’s clothing. To the great peril of the U.S. the Democratic party has won the White house at the very moment a true blue radical Leftist has come to prominence. ACORN and Van Jones et. al. will be seen as just the tip of the iceberg as the people of the U.S. come to grips with the difference between the Liberal and the Leftist.

So, that takes care of the Liberal=Left fantasy, let us now move on to the dreaded Conservative and the even more dreaded Jingoist.

Let us go forth to Dictionary.com again and look up the word Conservative:

1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.

2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.

3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.

4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.

5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.

6. having the power or tendency to conserve; preservative.

Well now, that does not sound very bad does it? A Conservative is someone who appreciates the good in tradition and is both slow to accept radical change without good reason and avoids novelty and showiness for their own sake. Doesn’t it sound like the best thing to be might be a person who is Conservative at first but is aware that imperfections need to be dealt with in a Liberal fashion?

Is there anything in that definition that demands that a Conservative never change? Must the Conservative always judge their customs as superior and in need of no reform? There does not seem to be a word about any of that. It just says the Conservative is not reckless or careless or frivolous. Nothing to say you cannot be a somewhat Liberal Conservative nor to forbid a person from being a conservative Liberal.

Both ideologies seem to be about finding the best solutions (or non-solutions for non-problems) for all. The Conservative is more focused on not rushing to mess up what is good without good reason and the Liberal is a bit more focused on making what is wrong right but both have the love of civilization at their heart.

Can you imagine a harmonious, benign society that does not have a healthy presence of BOTH Conservative and Liberal elements keeping things out of the hands of the partisans? I can’t. So why do we follow the mindset of either Rush Limbaugh or Michael Moore? THAT I can’t answer.

But what about those Jingoist people? What are THEY into?

Good old Dictionary.com says this about them:

the spirit, policy, or practice of jingoes; bellicose chauvinism.

Bellicose means: inclined or eager to fight; aggressively hostile; belligerent; pugnacious.

And here is good old Chauvinism:

1. zealous and aggressive patriotism or blind enthusiasm for military glory.

2. biased devotion to any group, attitude, or cause.

Do we really need to break it down any further? To the Bellicose Mind, sure of its group’s purity and righteousness, a mind that wants to see things reformed for harmony is no better than one that seeks the destruction of all that is good and traditional.

To the mind that sees The Society That Is as an evil and unfixable obstacle to be eliminated in order to establish the perfect world to come ANY Conservative thought is a reactionary and evil frustration of the destined, and desired, revolution.

Neither group can ever be trusted to compromise or to co-operate in anything but the destruction of a mutual enemy. And Of course, like the Soviets and Nazis, go at each other again the moment that enemy is down for the count. Sometmes they do not even wait that long and defeat is snatched fromthe jaws of victory as a result.

It is never easy being Moderate. You need to be able to stand up to the Chauvinists attempting to control the Conservatives on one side and the Radicals influencing the Liberals on the other. Each are goo at mouthing the right words to their useful idiots to keep them pulling the wagon.

And each is pretending every Moderate is a proponent of the opposition, instead of a free soul seeking solutions rather than questing for victories.

As a Moderate you will be called the worst things that either set of totalitarians can think of and be accused of every crime each extreme has ever committed. But history shows that while most of the trial and trauma of humanity has come from the Jingoists and Leftists, when the dust settles it is usually the decency and stability of the Liberal Conservative middle that has prevailed. It is what has lead us from the Purdah and slavery of the Early Greeks in imitation of the rest of the “civilized World” to the heights of Western Civilization enjoyed and respected today by all who are not seeking unjust power over others. To those who have love for Mankind and God in their hearts the West is most certainly on the path to where we all want to be.

Indeed all of Western History can be seen as the slow triumph of Moderate thought over the partisans who would tear us all apart into warring tribes for all time.

So ignore the calls to hate the Conservative or the Liberal. See them for what they are, battle cries trying to rally the forces of destruction against those who would build instead.

Look to your home, your family, your culture and be a bit Conservative, then look to find the cracks to be found in the most perfect political creations and let your inner Liberal voice your concerns. Protect what is strong and strengthen what is weak. But above all, wish to do good to each other.