Who speaks for us?

bobono

[bobono]

Although conservative views are intellectually and morally superior, they are in many cases impure. These are in some cases, by design, intended to engender support from only a fraction of the masses. Liberal positions, though intellectually inferior and morally appalling, are emotionally superior - they "feel better" to many. Each of the two sides in a two-party system is, by design, divisive and impure.

If you are pro-life and pro-environment, you must pick one or the other, and because there are sufficient issues to divide us, we choose leaders according to the matter for which passion burns most heatedly within us, and we excuse any other issues and positions of the leader who may effectively lead us. An environmentalist will likely ignore abortion evils as long as they can assure the preservation of the bob-tailed spotted owl.

Unless there is a willing and informed statement of "majority good" (as defined by the majority and the directed by the constitution) expressed by the intellectual (and honest!) members of leadership and society, we are condemned to mediocrity that will lead to ruin (socialism). In the absence of strong conviction for the good of the masses, we will slowly permit the degradation of the country for the benefit of some limited gains of passion.

We are taught from an early age that common folks should never discuss religion and politics - instead, stick to you favorite sports team or movie actress - leave the thinking to the relatively small group of representatives that were allegedly voted into office to represent us all. This creates ignorance and complacency, the tools of abuse of power. Remember breads and circuses!

THE TWO PARTIES DO NOT REPRESENT US. (See Clinton Impeachment AND Removal From Office) They represent themselves and a specific agenda tied to development and retention of power. I believe they are aware that positions and results of substance are not necessary so long as they preserve a balance (any reasonable balance of two strongly competing views). So long as we argue only for our passions for limited-scope issues against the passions of others, we will remain divided. We should instead unify against the two parties that divide us by insisting on leadership and practice that offers the greatest benefit to the masses within the limits of the constitution. (The emergence of third-party candidates seeks this, but fails miserably)

Among the apparent means of achieving social and political progress are the attempts to engage in serious and disciplined dialogue between the two sides. Development of a common view between libs and conservatives (ignoring the less important and more divisive issues) is urgently necessary. Without a common view, we will slowly trend toward the “feel good” side of issues that inevitably erode emphasis on family, morality and personal responsibility and thereby lead to socialism.

Common views already exist - this is called a majority. The majority way of thinking may in some cases extend into both sides of the political spectrum. Common views of both parties do exist – few if any from either party sent their tax-break checks back to the government as a sincere request to be more heavily taxed.

In this country, majority does NOT rule - instead, power of a relatively few politicians and the awesome power of the press to cover-up, influence and distort - makes us believe and accept what we know is fundamentally wrong. For instance, there is no pressing need recognized by the majority to promote homosexual marriage - the MAJORITY from either side is not represented by the passage of this - but it does serve to divide us. Due to this divisive issue, the otherwise conservative people that support special rights for gays may now become (and vote) liberal.

Politicians could subordinate their efforts in these minority-oriented issues to focus on the good of the country as a whole, but they appear to view these issues as a means of preserving the division, and hence, their power. The issue distracts both parties from working together against the general government leadership on common and meaningful purpose....

The press tells us the “majority” is wrong – it is labeled as racist, or extremist. We are told it infringes upon the rights of the few. Although we believe in freedoms, we are called hypocrites if we defend the majority position, because it may limit the freedoms of criminals, race-baiters, socialists, illegal immigrants, or those handfuls of persons that seek a harmful effect on the majority. Well, hell yes, the majority has a right to seek to defeat these minority positions for the good of the country. It is that very right that is under attack, not directly by law, but by social pressure and political correctness fears – manifested through the press.

We have morons (sorry) who actually believe and assert that the First Amendment protects them from being labeled by other people as asinine after they behave in a manner that appears to the majority to be asinine. (See Tim Robbins) The press twists these issues and calls them censorship, and the majority is not well enough informed (or is too complacent) to aggressively respond to such assertions.

(As an aside, the "death of outrage" is real - many dems believe Clinton was awful in general, but because he believes in one or more of their passions, such as the right to kill unborn babies, they consciously ignore his evil!) This demonstrates the power of simple allegiance to a political party for a single passion over the general ideals of our once strong nation.

Those persons with power must be unafraid to state their positions of majority benefit to both sides. (i.e. Tancredo as he specifically discusses Immigration). Terms such as racist, bigot, extremist, isolationist, fanatic, partisan must all be ignored. And neither side should be worshipped to the extent that we dismiss impurities. Whether coming from left or right, we must ignore the political party and focus on the issue.

Perhaps within our lexicon, majority-types should invent new words as liberals do – I would start with the term “Good racist”. I may be a good racist if I seek sincere good for the protection of the majority masses, and if I also coincidentally upsets a particular minority group by doing so. You might be a “good racist” if you believe a certain mid-eastern race might harm America, and you emphasize added scrutiny for them, even though this seems unfair to the Muslim males…..alright, you’re a so called “racist” then – but a damned good one as far as the majority and the constitution is concerned.

And what’s wrong with any person representing their race, when it is OK for any other-raced persons to represent theirs? You see, the majority has no particular obligation to surrender their rights to the minority – although they do have a moral responsibility to attempt to create fairness among all peoples. MLK believed in that. Incidentally, affirmative action is not fair – but working to remove actual bigotry from ALL races is fair. Of course, when you simultaneously seek special names, treatment, preference, rights and opportunities and also seek a common recognition, there is a huge paradox. When your leaders and spokes-people espouse hatred, immorality and culturally-exclusive behavior, well, you ain’t gonna get included everywhere within the moral majority.

Sharpton, Clinton and Jackson could be labeled “ bad racists” because their programs serve no purpose other than to pretend to aggrandize a particular race without any reference to what has been earned (redistribution of wealth) - and to divide us and spread hate - all for their own political power. Wouldn’t it be interesting to state a majority position, to be labeled a racist, and to respond proudly, “yes, but if a racist at all, then a good racist in the eyes of most country-loving majority members!” ( Could you rely on support from that majority? )

We are confronted by a difficult decision - we would likely agree that Bush has proposed significantly questionable ideas (immigration!) and yet we must vote for him to keep more radical impurities from occurring through election of liberals. But either choice from within the 2-party system yields ultimately destructive effect. And it appears there is no means of successfully running a third party candidate.

The energy and money we spend on issues/political parties is simply designed to marry us to one side or the other, and then we are expected to watch as we are repeatedly under-represented or failed by our representatives.

I wish to hear from anyone that might propose a means for making all representatives, leaders, judges, etc. accountable to the masses and to the majority of loyal Americans. Until politicians are unafraid to respond to the vast majority's interest in the basic welfare of our country and preservation of its freedoms, we will fail. Issues such a homosexual marriage (and steroid use?) are not useful topics to the majority and are clearly intended to divide or distract.

How then do we focus our leaders on achievement of substantive mass benefit and protection for our country? How do we get them to dismiss divisive issues where the majority has no affirmative interest?

Talk shows and writers are making a fortune off of the divisions - if you disagree with libs, you buy a Coulter book (great reading, by the way!), and if you hate Bush, Michael "eats and lies" Moore will be available to you. But which author provides a statement that discards the passion for minor issues and goes to the heart of the problem? Writers and talkers are motivated as well as our leaders to preserve the division regardless of the side they are paid handsomely to represent. (Challenge - does even one of them have a conscience, or can one identify a more grand purpose than improving the country?)

I would wish Rush or Ann or Laura or Sean or Bill to risk commercial success to challenge each/both party and all the people - both left & right - to work together to achieve awareness, greatness and prosperity. And I ask them to dismiss the token issues of the day, and focus us on meaningful discourse. I, along with many other “so-called” extremists will use our wallets to assure they preserve some means of remaining a strong voice, even a commercially viable one, – so long as they support the people (majority) instead of simply their careers.

In our society, elected leaders from either side no longer effectively respond to the will of the masses. Popular conservative leaders – talk show hosts and authors, etc. – do and will increasingly use their considerable power to do so if they are assured of commercial viability (This is said to be why conservative talk shows are so popular!) Aided by internet communications such as this forum, we can support their efforts with unification in terms of issues and positions, regardless of right or left.

Politicians do not support the majority. Can popular conservative voices purposefully use their mass appeal to effect actual political change? Which one should, or would?