Thread: The American Polemic

American politics is inundated with rhetoric intended to appeal to the values of the voters and is, for the most part, successful. Ignore, for the moment, that the GOP and DNC have many of the same intentions for the American people, seek the same levels of control and power over all areas of American life, and have little respect for the individual. Instead, let's shine a spotlight on the rhetoric employed by Democrats and Republicans, because it is in the rhetoric that we'll discover the values held by the people, stimulated by the politicians, that empower the government, and make this whole sick world go round and around.

Republicans wrap themselves in the flag, position themselves as pro-military and national defense, advance the mythology of their support for capitalism and economic liberty, and speak to a large array of moral issues they understand to appeal to their base. Republican voters tend to be nationalistic, support capitalist enterprises and free economic markets, and desire a government capable of enforcing conservative, traditional moral standards on the public at large through the rule of law.

Democrats wrap themselves in flowery language, endlessly harping on ideals of equality, peace, and unity. Democratic voters are uncomfortable with nationalism, which seems to them to create the kind of loyalty to ones country capable of ignoring any injustice so long as the governments actions appear to benefit the nation at large. Instead, Democrats look to have close friendships and share understanding and tolerance with other nations. Democratic voters oppose the capitalist markets, because they feel that it is unfair that some people should be able to amass immeasurable wealth, while other people struggle to feed themselves or pay their cable bill. Democratic voters look to government to solve national problems through regulation and legislation intended to foster greater social security.

In fact, I would say that the issue of security is what really divides Republican and Democratic voters. Republicans desire national security (a strong, robust economy and military). Democrats favor social security in a government capable of providing for the desires of the majority, while protecting the civil rights of minorities, and celebrating the diversity and opportunity that has made America the cultural stirring pot and most powerful nation of mongrels the world has ever known.

But it is security that people are after. Not liberty. Now, let's look at the rhetoric again. What makes people who long for security excited and motivated to vote for a politician? The obvious answer is insecurity. The GOP and DNC must be as determined as possible to appeal to the insecurity of their voters. The GOP must convince its voters that Democrats will undermine our national security and our economy. The DNC must convince its voters that Republicans are a threat to our social security. The rhetoric produces the necessary fear to inspire a motivated and active citizenry come election day.

The problem is, that once in office, our politicians want to be reelected in the future. So they go about trying to produce the security they promised the people. However, each step our government takes toward security is a step away from liberty. The citizens aren't asking themselves who and what they really need protection from. The US Constitution was written to protect the people from themselves and from the Governments that would represent them. Sadly, that Constitution is no longer employed in the spirit in which it was written. The American people are more "secure" than ever, but they don't feel it.

Why don't Americans feel secure after centuries of Government increasing regulation and providing more and more social services? Why do Americans feel so frightened that the world is out of control?

They feel this way because they have given up their own liberty and therefore their own ability to protect and secure themselves. They are no longer independent individuals, but dependent citizens. They know that if the government doesn't solve their problems quickly and efficiently, that the nation could fall apart, because they are no longer able to solve their problems themselves. The virtues and abilities necessary for a free people to survive are no longer alive in American Culture and even though people don't trust their government, they have no other choice now but to depend upon government to solve their problems.

This is the road to tyranny, be it long or short. Be it the tyranny of the mob that demands that each citizen to be subject to every other, or the tyranny of government, that demands each citizen, for their own security, to be unequivocally and unquestionably subject. Americans may no longer be capable of taking care of themselves, and maybe they never were. Maybe freedom was just a dream we dreamed as we struggled out from underneath the suffocating reach of a Monarchy far less tyrannical than the Democracy under which we live today.

I can't green you for this, unfortunately.

Great post BG. Why it hasn't gotten any responses is beyond me.

Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe

American politics is inundated with rhetoric intended...

Good treatise. A few comments.

I don't believe that "Democrats" and "Republicans" are as abstractly predictable as you say. From my observations, individuals are after optimums, not absolutes. They may take a side because it advances more of their set of principles and positions. But at the end of the day, it's about what individuals want, not monolithic parties.

And within this, a good leader can find common ground and collaborate. One citizen might want school vouchers, while another citizen wants to fix the public schools. The common ground is, both recognize the need to invest in education.

I continue to fail to see all the tyranny you so often speak of. I guess it's a tyranny of principle.

You call it "security," but I wonder if the real idea is "stability." Stability has given us a system within which we can exercise liberty.

With all due respect, you still write like a Marxist. Are you calling for revolution?

And within this, a good leader can find common ground and collaborate. One citizen might want school vouchers, while another citizen wants to fix the public schools. The common ground is, both recognize the need to invest in education.

And another citizen might not want to be forced to pay for the education of others. That is the citizen who values liberty over security. Or maybe he just values his money more than the education of others (honestly, I do too, depending on who "others" is and what the costs are), or maybe both. But in the end he shouldn't be forced to pay for it. As far as politics goes, liberty is the choice to do what you want with what's rightfully yours, and respect that others have the same choice.

Originally Posted by Feslin

And another citizen might not want to be forced to pay for the education of others. That is the citizen who values liberty over security. Or maybe he just values his money more than the education of others (honestly, I do too, depending on who "others" is and what the costs are), or maybe both. But in the end he shouldn't be forced to pay for it. As far as politics goes, liberty is the choice to do what you want with what's rightfully yours, and respect that others have the same choice.

That citizen has as much opportunity to work to NOT support any kind of education as the two citizens who choose to support education in some way.

Then, if that citizen doesn't get what he wants, he can choose to live off the grid and possibly break the law. That's liberty, too.

Here's a question for you: What part of "liberty" in and of itself says you have to respect my choices?

Take a look: liberty - definition of liberty by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Where does it say, "...with the understanding that the rights of others must be protected"? How do I know you will do that? Oh, that's right we have a cop force and judges if you do...and of course, they will be immune to any influence of wealthier interests because "liberty" is such a morally correct virtue that any malfeasance or collusion will be a thing of our democratic past.

Pol Pot exercised a great deal of liberty, did he not?

And therein lies one of my chief challenges to our Libertopians. What will prevent the richest, biggest, strongest, most aggressive, etc. from manipulating the system in their favors?

Liberty, in and of itself, might be a bit of a monster, just as troublesome as Government in and of itself.

Originally Posted by Davocrat

Liberty, in and of itself, might be a bit of a monster, just as troublesome as Government in and of itself.

I can see why liberals would feel that way, but libertarians don't. I guess that's the difference.

Originally Posted by Burning Giraffe

I can see why liberals would feel that way, but libertarians don't. I guess that's the difference.

Libertarian society was given up 8,000 years ago when hunter-gatherers
traded ultimate freedom for the prosperity of the Agricultural Revolution
with its permanent communities and interdependent social structure.

Originally Posted by bla bla

Libertarian society was given up 8,000 years ago when hunter-gatherers
traded ultimate freedom for the prosperity of the Agricultural Revolution
with its permanent communities and interdependent social structure.

LMAO...that is the funniest thing I ever heard of!!

Originally Posted by bla bla

Libertarian society was given up 8,000 years ago when hunter-gatherers
traded ultimate freedom for the prosperity of the Agricultural Revolution
with its permanent communities and interdependent social structure.

I don't think organized society necessitates the kind of governments and tyrannies we've had to deal with over the last 8,000 years. I just don't think people are willing to put in the effort to live free and peaceful lives. People need the government to stop them from doing things they already know they shouldn't do. It's bizarre.

Originally Posted by mjollnir

LMAO...that is the funniest thing I ever heard of!!

How is that?

Libertarianism is all about "interdependent social structure", or maximum
personal independence?