I left out Wie weh wird Mir and Oi Weh.but the general idea comes across.The Donald appears to have accomplished a hostile takeover of the G.O.P.He assuredly will use the abusive tactics that finally got rid of his last republican rivals,against (somewhat)Haughty Hillary.Trump’s reliance on deal making makes him agreeable to a fellow oligarch like Putin,but hard to swallow for traditional conservatives and to those for whom the full trust and integrity of the U.S. in foreign and domestic matters has meaning.The GOP is in a quandry, the party has never had such a turnout of new voters.But many of them are neo-nazis.white supremacists,lbgt bashers,misogynists and/or isolationists.Some will lay back and concede the 2016 election to the democrats while relying on control of the house and local government to paralyze the democratic president(as they tried to do to Obama)while gearing up for a push in 2020 based largely on the planned failure of democrat’s initiatives. It is somewhat more likely that the GOP will rally around Trump, bargaining for and betting on the possibility of behavioral modification.Trump’s narcissism and showtime proclivities will make it hard for him to gather a competent team.In the meantime the antics of a somewhat less narcissistic but equally cranky old man coupled with the visibility of bubba Bill in the campaign are making the unscalable Hillary mountain more scalable.
In medieval times “Cry Havoc” was the official signal for total war against populations with the end of gaining booty for the troops.(the opposing nobility was fair game only for the attacking nobility)Let slip the dogs of war meant “no holds barred” in pursuit of destruction and gain.Shakespeare was a keen observer and interpreter of history but Macbeth’s “Tomorrows” no longer “creep in this petty pace from day to day” but hurtle forward with ominous speed.How much damage will result if governance is foregone and the 26% whose votes and voices don’t matter battle one another for the scraps from the table?
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
The Octogenarians 
Disagree. The majority of Republicans just would like to return back to the values that made America a great country and enforce the laws, without political correctness.
Probably so.There are questions however.Who are the majority of Republicans? When and how did we depart from the values that made or is it make America great? Is there not a problem with access to the instruments for application of those values?.Who are the majority of Democrats?Where are these percentages coming from e.g.47,26,99? These are the wellsprings of support for Trump and Sanders…why?Can 50 states and a few territories function on the world scene without a strong federal presence? Is “political correctness” a cover word for the complexities involved in “Liberty and Justice for all”?
A more peaceful era is clearly desirable,but peaceably,skillfully and democratically managed conflict appears to be the sole way forward.
Daedal2207 has asked some fundamental questions. Here is an attempt to provide some rational answers.
When and how did we depart from the values that made America great? First we need to face the fact that societies, necessarily bringing together imaginative and psychologically complex people, have always consisted of multiple, blended, and sometimes conflicting ideas. Our challenge is that of determining which ideas should dominate. Clearly, if we bring some to the fore, others must be subdued. Let’s look at the focus of idea that was America and then compare it with today. Consider some founding ideas that have a long history of being honored by their presence on our coins, “Liberty”, “E Pluribus Unum”, and In God we Trust”. “Liberty” means that we believed it is good to be free from coercion. “E Pluribus Unum” considered America to be a melting pot where individuals of diverse backgrounds and abilities saw themselves united in the sense that all were to be treated equally under the law. (No ideal is perfect. Our United States of America had to fight a civil war to advance a more perfect union.) “In God We Trust” meant that we considered the moral “good” to be advanced not by following man’s multiple and changing whims, but by a guidance rooted in an external (religiously defined) force.
Today, in (most?) of our schools and social media it is “diversity” that is dominating over unity. Instead of “melting pot” it is “salad bowl”. Special treatment for some, not equal treatment, is advocated by the growing forces of Progressivism. Liberty is compromised because special treatment for any person or group will not (cannot) happen without coercion of some sort – it means that in some fashion some citizens must be forced to cater to those who are favored. Religion is diminishing as a sacred source for morality. Still driven to experience the heightened sentiments linked to meaning, we are inventing religious-like certitudes to which we may then “give ourselves” in exchange for feelings that are “bigger than life”. Easy to exaggerate causes like “equal wages”, “diversity”, “human dignity”, “climate change”, now assume the moral-defining place of the “God” we once trusted. Self-righteousness about a special “goodness” attributed to these new obsessions trends its adherents to judge those in disagreement as immoral, and justifies the control of others – thus further threatening E Pluribus Unum and liberty. I personally consider the “God” of most religions to be a fiction, but when the externally imposed moral force called “God” is seen to be similar to that of “nature’s laws”, the idea remains one of great power in helping us (even atheists) guide ourselves with some humility. (Our best tool for knowing nature’s laws, science, requires an attitude of skepticism, not certitude.) Like the historic concept of “God”, we can understand nature’s laws to be an objective constant: We need to learn about, adapt, and harmonize with nature’s laws. Nature will not alter itself for us.
How did a widespread agreement that liberty, unity, and trust in God (nature’s laws), contribute to America becoming great? Liberty meant that individual talent and the development of skills had a high potential to bring economic reward. Having more choices with which to make a profit meant that more engaged in the process of being inventive and productive. Profit quickly told people what to do more of and loss quickly told them when to quit. Relatively free of coercion, willing buyers easily interacted with willing sellers. Multiply this dynamic by multi-millions of individuals who for the most part understood that their government would attempt to treat all equally under the law no matter their diversity of environment and background. It should not be surprising that for the benefit of all we had an explosive growth of great productivity.
Originally, government was a referee with the duty to see that the economic processes were honest and competitive (monopolies of power avoided). The great wealth created by this degree of individual liberty benefited all, but not all equally. There is a sentiment embraced by many that it is “unfair” that some people and groups do poorly compared with others who succeed handsomely. Thus the “income gap” is viewed as something immoral. In fact, many believe that those who do less well are suffering not because nature did not distribute equally the skills that lead to success, but primarily because the rich greedily acquired wealth at their expense. To correct this “unfairness”, they vote for the government to become a powerful player (no longer a referee) redesigned for the purpose of imposing “social justice”. But unlike other economic players, government can print money, fine, and imprison. For this group’s focus of idea to prevail, coercion is required, diversity dominates, and the “Gods” in which we trust will be multiple and varied.
Daedal2207 asks, “Who are the majority of Republicans?
It appears that a great many who call themselves Republicans are ignorant of the values that made us great. Donald Trump is a confused collection of ideas. Some of his stated policies are in direct conflict with the ideas that are fundamental to original intent.
Daedal2207 asks, “Who are the majority of Democrats?
It appears that the Democrats too are populated with considerable numbers who are ignorant of the ideas called socialism, capitalism and conservatism. Many who are for the socialist Sanders say they will vote for capitalist-leaning Trump should Hillary prevail as the Democrat nominee.
Apparently our generation has not educated our children to understand the issues. Victims of our success, it has been easy to allow the pleasantly superficial to displace the necessary reflections.
A strong federal presence is advocated by both the Democrat and the Republican leadership. How that presence is to be used is not clear (For instance, lines are drawn that mean nothing.) And that is dangerously tempting to those who wish to challenge us.
Daedal2207 asks, “Is “political correctness” a cover word for the complexities involved in “Liberty and Justice for all”?
It doesn’t have to be complex. When the full meanings of liberty and justice apply equally to EVERY INDIVIDUAL in our society; sensitive feelings about “groups” (ours or others) recede into the background.
Reblogged this on daedal2207's Blog.