Posted on 09/19/2006 6:42:46 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion
"It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood, who strives valiantly, who errs and comes up short again and again, because there is no effort without error or shortcoming, but who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, who spends himself for a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows, in the end, the triumph of high achievement, and who, at the worst, if he fails, at least he fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who knew neither victory nor defeat.""Citizenship in a Republic,"
Theodore Roosevelt,
Speech at the Sorbonne, Paris, April 23, 1910
It is not the critic who counts - but journalism's primary emphasis and pride is in proclaiming that people we depend on have let us down. No new is good news because good news "isn't news.
Journalism needs bad news and works overtime when there is a natural disaster or a war. And as we see in Iraq, it is not enough that a war is a human disaster inherently but - precisely because American arms are in reality the primary stabilizing and protecting force in international affairs - journalism needs war to be a failure of American arms and (witness the crowing over Abu Graib and the other courts martial) even a failure of American intentions. Nor do the police fare any better than the military - journalism always considers police to be both brutal and inept.
And the police and the military are far from the only ones to feel the sting of journalism's jihad against society. According to journalism, oil companies don't produce enough gasoline (or else the price would be lower) but what it does produce causes polution, Walmart doesn't pay its work force enough, McDonlds makes us fat, the defense industry and the civilian arms industry are greedy merchants of death, farmers put toxic chemicals on apples, spinach is going to kill us all . . . in short anyone who does anything important is second guessed by journalism.
And whatever suits the convenience of journalism in its role as critic is precisely what Ted Kennedy, John Murtha, and the rest of the usual suspects find it politically expedient to trumpet. Journalists reward with positive PR and positive labelling anyone who toadies to journalism's agenda that journalism be considered preeminently important. It is for that reason that such feckless toadies are called "moderates" or "progressives" or - so much so that the word has been completely run into the ground - "liberals." It is not possible to regulate politicians to prevent them from riding the windstorm of "objective" criticism emanating from journalism. The First Amendment prohibits that, and we should not wish any other outcome.
One label positive journalism reserves exclusively to itself - "objective." The entire house of cards of "liberalism" stands on the premise that journalism is objective. That assumption has no means of support other than the propaganda campaign of liberalism. On that point, Adam Smith's rueful dictum must apply:
It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. - Adam Smith
I like that quote by Theodore Roosevelt.
The Hotel Colorado in Glenwood Springs was one of his frequent visits, it has a good tribute to him inside. The suite where he stayed is still available for rent.
. . . which was exactly my point in posting it. Journalism is the quintessential special interest; all it does is criticize. And liberalism is simply going along with the criticism of journalism. Journalism is superficial as well as critical, and as a result it tends to pull down tradition incessantly. Thus, people who are skeptical of journalism's leadership are "conservative."
Ping for later use...thanks for posting!
Did you notice that FR is full of critics and second-guessers?
“And what kind are the men that will strive for this profitable preeminence, through all the bustle of cabal, the heat of contention, the infinite mutual abuse of parties, tearing to pieces the best of characters? It will not be the wise and moderate, the lovers of peace and good order, the men fittest for the trust. It will be the bold and the violent, the men of strong passions and indefatigable activity in their selfish pursuits. These will thrust themselves into your government, and be your rulers. And these, too, will be mistaken in the expected happiness of their situation; for their vanquished competitors, of the same spirit, and from the same motives, will perpetually be endeavoring to distress their administration, thwart their measures, and render them odious to the people”. Benjamin Franklin, on high salaries to public officials.
Republicans and Democrats alike do nothing but atack each other on their policies. The only problem is their policies do not coincide with the Constitution. So both Parties are in it for personal gain and do not want to lose there offices. Take the high saleries away from public office and watch how many of them stick around. I promise none that are currently in office would.
“The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.” Alexis de Tocqueville
This is why people keep voting for scoundrels. There are being bought with there own money.
I identify the impulse to criticize and second guess with "liberalism." That does not mean that anyone is immune to the temptation of selfrighteousness and arrogance. it does suggest that arrogance is not the entirity of the motivation of conservatism, as it is the whole of the motivation of "liberalism."
I am not one who subscribes to the "tweedle dum and tweedle dumber" theory of the two party system.There certainly are people in the Republican Party who are in public office and should not be. Those in the Democratic Party who are in office and belong there are mighty thin on the ground.
Tell me then, what are the Constitutional Principles for which the Republican and or the Democrat Party stand and how they are implementing them?
The way to discuss the constitutional principles of the two parties (and factions thereof) is simply to look at the kind of SCOTUS justice each party wants. Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia are exemplars of mainstream Republican jurisprudence. Ginzberg, Breyer, Stevens and Souter are exemplars of Democrat jurisprudence (and Kennedy is all over the jurisprudential map, just as McCain is all over the political map).You will protest that although Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia were indeed nominated by Republican presidents and Ginzberg and Breyer were indeed nominated by a Democratic president, Stevens and Souter (and for that matter Kennedy) were nominated by Republican presidents. But the senate is not irrelevant. Of the nine justices now sitting, only Scalia, Roberts, and Alito were named by Republican presidents and confirmed by a Republican-majority senate.
The fact that the Democrats had the majority in the Senate obviously was pivotal in the nomination of Kennedy, who was not even Reagan's second choice for the slot. But it was just as important in the selection of the "stealth" nominee, Souter - who turned out to be stealth all right, but in the wrong direction. The true stealth nominee - the only really reliable interpreter of the Constitution confirmed when the Democrats controlled the senate - was Justice Thomas.
If another SCOTUS vacancy arises during the next Congress, control of the Senate will have consequences for a long time.
You will also protest that Bush has done some unconstitutional things, and I will cite McCain-Feingold. True. I will not try to defend that. But I question that you can name anything he shouldn't have done but did, that you wouldn't expect a Democratic president to do. The Constitution is not to be judged by whether it delivers perfect government but by the extent to which its framework results in government which is OK, whereas other forms of government are no good for America.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.