Perhaps we need a new label. Conservative has become a confusing term that leads some political strategists down a black hole. Many now append the 'economic' and 'social' prefixes, but that suggests that someone who is both a true conservative. I strongly disagree. Anyone who argues for an activist government of any kind is anything but conservative. The role of the federal government is clearly laid out in the Constitution. We have strayed from those original tenets and it is time to get a candidate into the White House who will accept the limitations of the office as defined by our founding contract.
One reason we have moved so far off the original vision was the decision in 1911 that altered the relationship between citizens and their government. We have seen our individual influence with our federal government slowly dissolve and get replaced by those with the financial resources to buy advantageous outcomes. In the book "Miracle at Philadelphia," Catherine Drinker Bowen recounts the debate over the ratio of representation that would ensure citizen voice, encourage participation in the electoral process, and ensure legitimacy for the new government they were creating. George Washington weighed in on the side of a smaller ratio to increase the likelihood that the a member of the House would have face-to-face contact with a greater proportion of his constituents.
If the House had not voted itself a perpetuity of growing power and income by abandoning the ratio of representation stipulated in Article 1, Section 2, Part 3 of the Constitution, our federal government would remain focused on those things all Americans could agree with rather than the myriad of special interest programs anyone with enough money to buy a TV ad campaign can now get introduced and passed.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html#section2
...third paragraph, third sentence vs. 300,000,000/435
Tuesday, February 20, 2007
Sunday, February 18, 2007
new fan site
If you share my sentiments and want to support John and this effort, visit my site at http://philip.johnmccain.com/.
The fund raising at this point in the campaign is a little crass, but that's the way the game is played until we can get some real campaign finance reform in place.
The fund raising at this point in the campaign is a little crass, but that's the way the game is played until we can get some real campaign finance reform in place.
Dynasties
What separates the United States from the failed republics of the past? One of the most important differences is the idea that any Tom, Dick, or Harriet can become the leader of the country. We are, in theory, a meritocracy. Unfortunately, we seem to be moving closer and closer to an aristocracy. Think about this. If Hillary gets elected and Jimmy Carter dies, all the surviving presidents will be either a Bush or a Clinton.
I've always supported the non-establishment candidates - Reagan, Dukakis, Perot. When Clinton 1 rallied the moralists with his shenanigans and earned W the nomination, my McCain fervor turned into a vote for Ralph. Don't worry, I was voting in Virginia so it was a meaningless gesture. I'm so anti-establishment that I voted against Allen in the Virginia senate race, which would have been a meaningless gesture if George had kept his head screwed on straight. We have so much talent in this country, that it seems criminal to leave the same folks in the House year after year. Part of the problem was the 1914 decision to override Article 1, section 2, part 3 of the Constitution. Look it up and you'll understand why we have over 95% incumbency in the House and a campaign finance system that has taken power away from the people our government is supposed to serve.
I've always supported the non-establishment candidates - Reagan, Dukakis, Perot. When Clinton 1 rallied the moralists with his shenanigans and earned W the nomination, my McCain fervor turned into a vote for Ralph. Don't worry, I was voting in Virginia so it was a meaningless gesture. I'm so anti-establishment that I voted against Allen in the Virginia senate race, which would have been a meaningless gesture if George had kept his head screwed on straight. We have so much talent in this country, that it seems criminal to leave the same folks in the House year after year. Part of the problem was the 1914 decision to override Article 1, section 2, part 3 of the Constitution. Look it up and you'll understand why we have over 95% incumbency in the House and a campaign finance system that has taken power away from the people our government is supposed to serve.
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Aspiration
Do we all aspire to the same thing? I think conceptually, we do. There is something to Maslow's hierarchy of needs idea. In the end, we're all working for that state of being that gets lots of different labels. Some call it love, others nirvana, enlightenment, self-actualization, inner peace. Where else would anyone be headed? And the interesting thing is, it's not a contest. If you reach nirvana before me, that does not decrease the likelihood I'll get there. Probably just the opposite is true. The more folks who achieve the top of Maslow's pyramid, the easier it will be for me to get there.
So I guess the question is, if we're all trying to get to the same place and we all benefit from others getting there, why all the fighting? The answer seems to be in the lower levels of the pyramid. You need food, shelter, and safety from harm before self-actualization is within reach. Once you're safe and warm, you need a friend, spouse, or committee to make you feel accepted and appreciated. The final obstacle to achieving the end goal is self-esteem. Though people fall through the safety net for reasons someone might share, everyone in the US has access to food and shelter. Safety was a real concern after 911, but few polls show any significant proportion of Americans feeling personally threatened by terrorists. Lots of folks may struggle with the sense of belonging and acceptance, but the web has obviously reduced this problem. There's an online group for just about everything these days. As a country, we seem to be doing a pretty good job with the first three layers of the pyramid.
Only self-esteem remains blocking self-actualization. What makes you proud of yourself? I think the big struggle in our country is over heroes. Where I grew up, the streets were named Crockett, Travis, and Fannin. The Alamo story taught us to celebrate liberty and honor sacrifice. The bravery of a handfull of citizens standing up to the invading Mexican army led by the tyrant Santa Anna epitomized heroism. The righteousness of their martydom was confirmed by Sam Houston's destruction of the shiftless Mexican army at San Jacinto. Kids raised on this story, or the story of Daniel Boone, or Lewis and Clark, grow up with a particular understanding of what is right and good.
Instead of the Alamo, my children learned the Jamestown saga. The Texas pilgrims headed out into the wilderness to harvest personal wealth from the untamed soil. Virginia's first non-indigenous citizens made an equally treacherous journey, and faced similar hardships. I'm relieved that my kids' perspective on what it means to be a successful citizen and human being are similar to my own. Owing, I'm sure, to the similarity of these foundation stories.
However, I fear that the myth busters who get their joy from pointing out that the Texans who fought at the Alamo displaced indigenous peoples then broke their contract with the Mexican government, or that Conquistadors wiped out whole civilizations in South America, or that early European colonization of the Americas was only successful due to the enslavement of thousands of Africans will change what it means to be a success. If the Boston tea party was really just a callous political ploy to draw attention to an otherwise unpopular fringe group, what can we hold up for our kids as examples? Do we have to turn to George Lucas to know right and wrong?
I'm ready for a President I could see fighting at the Alamo. A man who would and did step over that line drawn in the sand to defend his compatriots, his home, and most importantly his honor. I'm so tired of shifty-eyed double-talking carpet baggers wasting away my respect for the office of the President of the United States. Despite what the bumper sticker says, we have not got the President we deserve for quite a long time. I'm ready for a President I can introduce to my children as a hero.
So I guess the question is, if we're all trying to get to the same place and we all benefit from others getting there, why all the fighting? The answer seems to be in the lower levels of the pyramid. You need food, shelter, and safety from harm before self-actualization is within reach. Once you're safe and warm, you need a friend, spouse, or committee to make you feel accepted and appreciated. The final obstacle to achieving the end goal is self-esteem. Though people fall through the safety net for reasons someone might share, everyone in the US has access to food and shelter. Safety was a real concern after 911, but few polls show any significant proportion of Americans feeling personally threatened by terrorists. Lots of folks may struggle with the sense of belonging and acceptance, but the web has obviously reduced this problem. There's an online group for just about everything these days. As a country, we seem to be doing a pretty good job with the first three layers of the pyramid.
Only self-esteem remains blocking self-actualization. What makes you proud of yourself? I think the big struggle in our country is over heroes. Where I grew up, the streets were named Crockett, Travis, and Fannin. The Alamo story taught us to celebrate liberty and honor sacrifice. The bravery of a handfull of citizens standing up to the invading Mexican army led by the tyrant Santa Anna epitomized heroism. The righteousness of their martydom was confirmed by Sam Houston's destruction of the shiftless Mexican army at San Jacinto. Kids raised on this story, or the story of Daniel Boone, or Lewis and Clark, grow up with a particular understanding of what is right and good.
Instead of the Alamo, my children learned the Jamestown saga. The Texas pilgrims headed out into the wilderness to harvest personal wealth from the untamed soil. Virginia's first non-indigenous citizens made an equally treacherous journey, and faced similar hardships. I'm relieved that my kids' perspective on what it means to be a successful citizen and human being are similar to my own. Owing, I'm sure, to the similarity of these foundation stories.
However, I fear that the myth busters who get their joy from pointing out that the Texans who fought at the Alamo displaced indigenous peoples then broke their contract with the Mexican government, or that Conquistadors wiped out whole civilizations in South America, or that early European colonization of the Americas was only successful due to the enslavement of thousands of Africans will change what it means to be a success. If the Boston tea party was really just a callous political ploy to draw attention to an otherwise unpopular fringe group, what can we hold up for our kids as examples? Do we have to turn to George Lucas to know right and wrong?
I'm ready for a President I could see fighting at the Alamo. A man who would and did step over that line drawn in the sand to defend his compatriots, his home, and most importantly his honor. I'm so tired of shifty-eyed double-talking carpet baggers wasting away my respect for the office of the President of the United States. Despite what the bumper sticker says, we have not got the President we deserve for quite a long time. I'm ready for a President I can introduce to my children as a hero.
The beginning
Welcome.
I envision this site as a lively corner in a favorite neighborhood coffee shop, but I will need your help to keep it from becoming something else. I tend to get a bit preachy and the anonymity of the web also encourages my sardonic sense of humor. Without you contributing and, on occasion, calling me down off the soapbox, this site will devolve into just another public rant.
So, when you read something and think to yourself, someone ought to tell this idiot what's really going on...that would be your cue to post. Now that we have the ground rules clearly laid out, let's get started talking about Why (Y) John (J) McCain (M) is best suited to serve as our next President.
I envision this site as a lively corner in a favorite neighborhood coffee shop, but I will need your help to keep it from becoming something else. I tend to get a bit preachy and the anonymity of the web also encourages my sardonic sense of humor. Without you contributing and, on occasion, calling me down off the soapbox, this site will devolve into just another public rant.
So, when you read something and think to yourself, someone ought to tell this idiot what's really going on...that would be your cue to post. Now that we have the ground rules clearly laid out, let's get started talking about Why (Y) John (J) McCain (M) is best suited to serve as our next President.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)