Sentiments worth reading
-According to the Xthplanet....
FROM COMMON DREAMS:
Conservatism is Dead. Long Live Fictional Conservatism!
--xthplanet says-I’m in agreement with kivals(above) especially in divining the force which drives the right. I think there is a general effort by the right to hide that force out of an accurate sense that the public would not support them if they saw them in the way the right sees themselves. Defining this force should be a central effort of those who wish the public to vote another way.
or this gem--
FROM COMMON DREAMS:
Conservatism is Dead. Long Live Fictional Conservatism!
--xthplanet says-I’m in agreement with kivals(above) especially in divining the force which drives the right. I think there is a general effort by the right to hide that force out of an accurate sense that the public would not support them if they saw them in the way the right sees themselves. Defining this force should be a central effort of those who wish the public to vote another way.
or this gem--
Bush Team Is Adept Only at Bungling
I think the article is right on in its story of a lack of serious minded ‘deliverers’ of policy but the ‘frame’ is not useful for distinguishing the heart of ‘Bushism’. ‘Incompetence’ has a useful meaning only in relation to the expectation of ‘competence’ or, more bluntly, the expectation that someone who ‘cares’ and is more loyal to the ‘nation’ and its Constitutional ‘ideals’ than to the image of their boss is in each top job posting in the Executive. The belief that this is the case is supposedly strengthened by the reality that each of the Cabinet positions is confirmed by a supposedly deliberative process in the Senate and those ‘deliberators’ are each accountable to their electorates.
The middle point between this article and the points listed above is to realize that being competent in the job in the sense that most liberals, let alone Americans expect, is not the goal. In the most loving way possible and without rancor I wish more of those who disagree with the Bush administration would just notice that it CANNOT help people who are not their patrons. I mean this in the most objective and observational way I can muster. It’s the style of government that ‘they’ practice. It is a government of special interest. A natural consequence of power unconstrained. Those who disagree with this administration only undermine the impact of their own message when they get upset, emotional, surprised, etc. at the policies, actions or rhetoric of the ‘Bushies’. By this point (6.5yrs) it should be non-controversially evident that: ‘they’ exhibit a type of pettiness (or lack of concern for the value of actual (non-fetal or brain dead) human life which arises from the style governing ‘they’ practice which precludes ‘them’ from enacting any action which helps ‘non-patrons’ i.e. the general public. Helping America see this should be a central goal of progressive rhetoric. The world of Karl seems to be divided into those who paid (contributed to the ’cause’) and those who didn’t.
By being angry, surprised, etc. we hide this basic reality from the third party public. We also fool ourselves because their seemingly endless ability to cause pain for others should be an obvious end point of the style of governing they practice.
by Andrew Greeley
Published on Friday, March 30, 2007 by The Chicago Sun Times
to which xthplanet replied:I think the article is right on in its story of a lack of serious minded ‘deliverers’ of policy but the ‘frame’ is not useful for distinguishing the heart of ‘Bushism’. ‘Incompetence’ has a useful meaning only in relation to the expectation of ‘competence’ or, more bluntly, the expectation that someone who ‘cares’ and is more loyal to the ‘nation’ and its Constitutional ‘ideals’ than to the image of their boss is in each top job posting in the Executive. The belief that this is the case is supposedly strengthened by the reality that each of the Cabinet positions is confirmed by a supposedly deliberative process in the Senate and those ‘deliberators’ are each accountable to their electorates.
The middle point between this article and the points listed above is to realize that being competent in the job in the sense that most liberals, let alone Americans expect, is not the goal. In the most loving way possible and without rancor I wish more of those who disagree with the Bush administration would just notice that it CANNOT help people who are not their patrons. I mean this in the most objective and observational way I can muster. It’s the style of government that ‘they’ practice. It is a government of special interest. A natural consequence of power unconstrained. Those who disagree with this administration only undermine the impact of their own message when they get upset, emotional, surprised, etc. at the policies, actions or rhetoric of the ‘Bushies’. By this point (6.5yrs) it should be non-controversially evident that: ‘they’ exhibit a type of pettiness (or lack of concern for the value of actual (non-fetal or brain dead) human life which arises from the style governing ‘they’ practice which precludes ‘them’ from enacting any action which helps ‘non-patrons’ i.e. the general public. Helping America see this should be a central goal of progressive rhetoric. The world of Karl seems to be divided into those who paid (contributed to the ’cause’) and those who didn’t.
By being angry, surprised, etc. we hide this basic reality from the third party public. We also fool ourselves because their seemingly endless ability to cause pain for others should be an obvious end point of the style of governing they practice.
posted by xthplanet at 6:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home