Emerson’s dictum to the effect that “a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds adored by little statesmen,philosophers and diviners.”may be critical to the selection of an appropriate presidential candidate by both parties.
If pursuit of a series of micro strategies is what is called for,(while keeping in mind a major objective) a good chess strategy ,we need someone who can do just that.The republican candidates are lined up behind a fight or flight international attitude and a determination to minimize the importance of mounting domestic objection to racial,gender and religious barriers to access to opportunity.The democratic party is far from immune to monolithic thought.V.P Biden is without doubt a decent honest man but his pursuit of a “war on drugs”has contributed to the flooding of our prisons by minor drug users and possession offenders.Equally serious is the support of differential sentencing for possession of equal quantities of crack cocaine (mostly black folks)and powdered cocaine( mostly white folks).Biden’s handling of the senate hearings on the Clarence Thomas appointment did not permit testimony involving non work related behavior and probably was responsible for Thomas’narrow(4 vote)confirmation.I realize that some might regard this as a positive.Forthcoming publications and TV coverage will open the painful subject again.The possible candidacy of Al Gore(if not a bad joke)brings into the spotlight someone whose political blundering is even more scary.Hilary Clinton continues to sputter,unable to focus on the issues that she would like to focus on because of (now obvious)past blunders.Donald Trump’s bellicose embracing of Tea Party objectives now has him visibly supported by Neo Nazi and KKK sympathizing groups.At some point the GOP will have to explain the conflict between their ostensible devotion to Israel and the raging anti semitism of such groups.I suppose that those deluded blacks and browns who believe in the GOP’s”big tent” will also be owed some sort of explanation!
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
The Octogenarians 
Incredibly intricate reasoning Don!
There were several thousand Tea Party enthusiasts at the Park in Westwood. The only KKK sympathizer I saw was literally shouted out of the group and ended up isolated on the other side of Wilshire Blvd. Anecdotal it is, but my life has been truth-seeking, filled with adventures alone, with others, travels abroad, ten years teaching college, and military as well. I know the core of conservative values and what is suggested here by Daedal2207 is a serious and false charge. I am wondering where Daedal2207 is getting his information about the Tea Party and the GOP. My knowledge about Daedal2207 is that he is a decent man and I am quite sure that he would not knowingly spread malicious falsehoods. The Republican core presents a tent that is open to all INDIVIDUALS who value equal treatment for themselves and all other individual citizens under the law. Perhaps a large part of political misunderstandings stem from the fact that with few exceptions Republicans tend not to favor laws that promote group interests. Those who in effect deify their favored group associations apparently find offensive this dissing of their sacred causes. Also, the act of valuing individual rights and freedoms does not mesh with those calling themselves Nazi or KKK. Republicans realize that those who favor group status over that of individual status are compromising the very special, individual-enhancing, kind of equality profoundly envisioned by the founders.
Thanks Don,I do try to be decent if that includes honest.But I don’t think that I accused either the GOP or all of the Tea Party of being made up of KKK or Neo Nazi members..The statement was,rather,that the backing of such members is something that the GOP IS GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS somehow,someway and probably soon.Trump will probably not repudiate this following and may symbolize the GOP’S DILEMMA.
In reference to Neo Nazis and the KKK, Daedal2207 wrote the following, ““…the backing of such members is something that the GOP IS GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS…”. I think that he may have intended to say instead, “…the backing BY such members is something that the GOP IS GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS…”
Changing that one word alters dramatically the meaning of the statement. Which meaning was intended?
OK Don “the backing of” is intended to mean “having the backing of” which I guess is the same as” backing by”. I’m not sure that this is the difference between British English and American English.I’m often caught by defence , sabre and theatre. I don’t like” taking” decisions. I much prefer” making” them.Anyhow, please tell me what the dramatic alteration is that I’ve either missed or stepped into …
It seemed unclear in several ways: “The backing OF such members could imply that Daedal2207 is saying that the GOP backs them because they are Neo Nazis and KKK enthusiasts. I would consider this as false. Another possibility is that the GOP would back any individual, no matter how despicable their group affiliations, as worthy of equal treatment under the law. I would consider this as true. But yet another possibility exists: The backing BY such members, or having the backing of Neo Nazis and KKK, is a statement that they prefer the GOP over other political parties. If true, it may have to do with the fact that the GOP would treat them fairly under the law. It could reflect their sharing the widespread but false belief that the GOP dislikes the same groups that the Neo Nazi and KKK groups dislike. The Republicans dislike SPECIAL treatment for any group because to do so requires some INDIVIDUALS to be made subordinate in some way to the favored group (thereby causing INDIVIDUALS to be treated unequally). Because Republicans tend to vote against special laws favoring racial groups does not mean that they are racist or “hate” a particular race. It actually means that they consider that race is unimportant (and we would be better off if we understood that race SHOULD be considered unimportant). The stronger argument seems to show that those who think race is important (in good ways or bad ways) are fomenting the extremes of divisiveness out of which hatred and misunderstandings breed.
Wow! Thank you! I continually wanted to write on my site something like that. Can I implement a fragment of your post to my blog?
I see no reason why not.acknowledgement of where it came from is appreciated.
Reblogged this on daedal2207's Blog.