Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Why should Buddhism somehow require us to be either liberal or conservative? Remember that the main cause of suffering is clinging, and that doesn't just mean to material goods, but also to ideologies.
You're right, Ben. However, as part of the Buddhist's moral obligation to do no harm and to act for the benefit of all beings, it is important to have a government in place that comes as close as possible to those goals. The history of the Republican party in this country is about as antithetical to those goals as I can imagine. While the Democrats aren't much better, they are better. As those are the only two choices, realistically, in this country, one must opt for the Democrats, imho.
KoB, if I have to spell out the corruption that is rampant in the Republican party with all the favors done for corporations and other rich people, then you simply haven't been paying attention. Halliburton anyone? The Republicans would sell their own mothers if they thought they could get a decent price. Again, not that the Democrats are much better. I'm not a fan of government or politicians in any way, shape or form, but you've got to live with the world as it is, not the fantasy you'd like it to be.
Actually, the Republican party used to be the party of Abe Lincoln, the president who stood against slavery. There was a time when the Republican party was a good party.
As for the corruption, it is definitely rampant in this current administration. Maybe not in some of the places people think there is, but it was rampant. The changes to bankruptcy laws to favor big businesses, the loans to rescue large corporations, most recently several of the mortgage companies who authorized loans that never should have been, a lot of this is the direct result of politicians on both sides pandering to big business.
Pally, there is a solution. Vote Green or Libertarian. Or Independent. Take this out of the 2 party system, and make the politicians earn your vote, instead of the special interests' money.
Ben, it's not that Buddhism requires us to be one or the other, but that we need to be active in politics. Otherwise, special interests will win. I personally like Obama for that one reason, he's getting a lot of people my age and younger to vote, when normally the under 30s wouldn't vote. They don't want to think about the issues, because it's easy to feel you don't make a difference. Now there's an inspiring candidate out there dragging them in. If he were a little more conservative, he's make a nearly perfect president.
You're right, Ben. However, as part of the Buddhist's moral obligation to do no harm and to act for the benefit of all beings, it is important to have a government in place that comes as close as possible to those goals. The history of the Republican party in this country is about as antithetical to those goals as I can imagine. While the Democrats aren't much better, they are better. As those are the only two choices, realistically, in this country, one must opt for the Democrats, imho.
The fact remains that if more democrats are elected and especially if a democrat makes it into the White House, my taxes will go up. Government will get bigger and as Barrack Obama has said in more words than this, "Handouts, handouts, handouts."
I can't vote for democrats because I'm opposed to them on just about all their major stances.
Otherwise, special interests will win. I personally like Obama for that one reason, he's getting a lot of people my age and younger to vote, when normally the under 30s wouldn't vote. They don't want to think about the issues, because it's easy to feel you don't make a difference. Now there's an inspiring candidate out there dragging them in. If he were a little more conservative, he's make a nearly perfect president.
I've never understood everyone's animosity towards "special interest groups." They exist for good reasons. Everyone has an agenda to advance and those groups serve to represent those agendas. Be they gun rights advocates, PETA, and many more. There are people that lobby tirelessly for things we benefit from just so we don't have to do it ourselves.
That being said, Barrack Obama is the most liberal senator in the country and certainly the most left-wing candidate we've had from either party in recent history. I don't see what's so special about the youth of the country getting involved. If "getting involved" means they all want higher taxes and more governmental control of our lives, then I would really rather they be apathetic and just stay home.
For me, if I had to draw a dichotomy it would be less between democrats/republicans and more between who is in power and who isn't. Every 10 or 15 years or so, US voters oscillate between these two poles (government is the problem...government is the solution). One party gets elected, isn't really able to fix the problems, and voters, who have a short memory, look to the other approach as the solution. Isn't that just societal Samsara?
More generally, while many people (on both sides of the aisle) run for office because they want to make the world a better place, politics tends to attract people who are at least partly into it for fame and power. And power tends to corrupt even the best people over time. Legislators from both sides of the aisle have more to gain from maintaining the status quo (e.g. rules or policies that are favorable to incumbants, earmarks, etc) than fighting eachother.
For me, if I had to draw a dichotomy it would be less between democrats/republicans and more between who is in power and who isn't. Every 10 or 15 years or so, US voters oscillate between these two poles (government is the problem...government is the solution). One party gets elected, isn't really able to fix the problems, and voters, who have a short memory, look to the other approach as the solution. Isn't that just societal Samsara?
More generally, while many people (on both sides of the aisle) run for office because they want to make the world a better place, politics tends to attract people who are at least partly into it for fame and power. And power tends to corrupt even the best people over time. Legislators from both sides of the aisle have more to gain from maintaining the status quo (e.g. rules or policies that are favorable to incumbants, earmarks, etc) than fighting each other.
Ben
I think your point is a very important one, Ben, particularly in a political system that uses periodic elections to choose their rulers. Over here, Lord (Dr David) Owen has published what looks like an interesting book about what he calls "the hubris syndrome". He uses the Greek term to describe what happens to politicians when they achieve - and retain - power. Although I haven't read it yet, I have it on request at our library and I heard Owen discussing it on the radio. It made me wonder about the whole concept of 'ruling' which seems to be getting confused with 'governing'.
There is a long piece that I am writing on this particular subject but I won't bore you with that now.
The truth is that, as you say, electors tend to alternate our rulers but my guess is that we would like continuity of good governance. Perhaps we change our rulers so often because these people tend to interfere with government.
KoB, and John McCain is one of the most liberal Republicans. That's why I have a hard time with this election. It seems no matther which way we go, we're getting a liberal in office.
KoB, and John McCain is one of the most liberal Republicans. That's why I have a hard time with this election. It seems no matther which way we go, we're getting a liberal in office.
I agree. But he is better than the alternative I believe. I just hope he balances his ticket out with someone like Romney.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited May 2008
I'll be glad when this is all over...
political discussions leave me stone cold.
And it doesn't matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.
Whatever they say and do now, always changes once they hold the strings.
I'm with whoever it was said that anyone who WANTS to be a politician should automatically be excluded as being unfit for the post.
Being a politician usually becomes an end in itself instead of a means to an end and the high principles and ideals with which people enter into the system, evaporate in the scramble to keep their seat.
For those of us who despise the whole business of "political parties", this might be of interest, from the US Department of State website:
Many of America's Founding Fathers hated the thought of political parties, quarreling "factions" they were sure would be more interested in contending with each other than in working for the common good. They wanted individual citizens to vote for individual candidates, without the interference of organized groups — but this was not to be.
One wishes that Washington, with his dislike of political organisations, could have prevailed, rather than Jefferson and Hamilton who preferred their own arguments to the good of "we-the-people".
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited May 2008
It's nice to see her back on the board, isn't it...?
I loathe Politics. it seems to make Noble men Ignoble...
I used to have a great deal of respect for Ken Livingstone... being Mayor seemed to have gone to his head, and exaggerated certain characteristics I feel would have been better either suppressed or channelled elsewhere....
And I'm sorry, but where there is high office, there is corruption of one kind of another... be it scandalous or subtle, people become tainted by greed and desire.
I'll be glad when this is all over...
political discussions leave me stone cold.
And it doesn't matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.
Whatever they say and do now, always changes once they hold the strings.
Fede, I despise politics as well. The fact of the matter is, however, that they are an unavoidable part of life. Well, they could be avoided at the people's level, but I don't want to sacrifice the freedoms I have to avoid it, as that's the only way. The nice thing is, is that in a few years, we can change whoever is in office if they do a lousy job.
Most politics is local and we're all involved at some level locally. Aristotle said that man is the political animal. Therefore, as we are all intrinsically political beings, we do not despise politics per se, unless we are totally insane. Although we might indeed sometimes wish that others whose politics are so radically different than ours would be declared insane and carted off so that their votes no longer counted.
Many admire the British system of publicly financed, short elections, but the American system does have its own virtues. Perhaps drama is one of them. It might be expedient for us to change the constitution and have a one-term presidency serving for seven years, and thereby lessening the huge amount of time that is spent on active presidential politicking.
For me, the key thing in politics is not to take it personally, but with a qualified nonchalance, that not only makes allowances for different folks to have differing views, but also is not completely disinterested in questions as to why people might subscribe to their particular* ideas or associations. (*I first wrote "peculiar" ideas or associations, until I remembered I am now in the 21st century where that word no longer has the meaning of "particular," as it did just some 90 years ago.)
The Germans have a nice word for this qualified nonchalance, sort of a disinterested Interestedness: Der Spieltrieb, most succinctly expressed in English as "Play Instinct." It's about throwing oneself into "the fray' with a thoroughgoing sports-instinct that knows that it's all only a game and it's only the rigorous and honest playing of it that really matters, the end "score" being more of a footnote than a "final outcome" in the true sportsman's heart.
In the end, it's the politics of the nation that brings people together and allows them to work for the common good in times of crisis. And towards that end shared memories of Abraham Lincoln, JFK and MLK and Jimmy Carter and, yes, even Hillary Clinton, will do us no harm at all if our hearts are pure.
So, I'm in for some distraction and cheering and, I hope, a joyous celebration of a Democratic victory in November. If between now and then some dirty politics soils the sleeves of some politicians I shall expect them manfully or with womanly poise to bear it well. There's a lot of people living miserable, desperate lives who would gladly change places with them if they could.
What an absolutely wonderful post! You should write a blog if you don't already.
I loved this and agree wholeheartedly:
disinterested Interestedness: Der Spieltrieb, most succinctly expressed in English as "Play Instinct." It's about throwing oneself into "the fray' with a thoroughgoing sports-instinct that knows that it's all only a game and it's only the rigorous and honest playing of it that really matters, the end "score" being more of a footnote than a "final outcome" in the true sportsman's heart.
It also has great meaning for me at this particular time because I've been doing a lot of thinking about the 'process being more important than the outcome' and how this is true of so many things in life. I hadn't yet considered it's truth in regard to the political process and I thank you for reminding me of this important dimension which I'd left out of my musings.
Well, the election is right around the corner, and both sides have made history this year. It's only a question of who will win.
Now, several states have dropped the "winner take all" format for casting electoral votes, including California and Texas, both moving to a "by district" format, with only two of the electoral votes going to the overall winner. The question that raises is now whether or not that balances out, or did one side just gain a huge advantage for years to come.
You, in the US, are having a scheduled election and we, over in the UK, are having a sort of covert one.
Reading the papers, listening to the radio and surfing the Internet has convinced me that politics is a filthy and damaging activity, unsuitable to grown-up humans. I would therefore suggest that we revisit the discussions by the US Founding Fathers and ask:
"Is it appropiate to have a head of state who is a member of one particular political party or faction?"
Now, several states have dropped the "winner take all" format for casting electoral votes, including California and Texas, both moving to a "by district" format, with only two of the electoral votes going to the overall winner. The question that raises is now whether or not that balances out, or did one side just gain a huge advantage for years to come.
Think you are mistaken about this. Where did you read about such a "change"?
Well, I'm a native californian, so I know that particular format has changed. It's actually been years in the making as many people from more rural counties have been upset for years that their 48% of the vote didn't count. If you were watching during the primaries, you would have noticed that it was mentioned quite often that McCain wouldn't get all the delegates for California, even though he won overall in the state. Mitt Romney did get a fair chunk of California's delegates. Also, I believe Obama won the LA area, but Clinton won in the Bay Area. And like I said, several states have made such a change, Texas being one of them, I believe. This all came out in the primaries. It was actually considered by several states to head off another showdown like the Florida one in 2000.
Well, I'm a native californian, so I know that particular format has changed. It's actually been years in the making as many people from more rural counties have been upset for years that their 48% of the vote didn't count. If you were watching during the primaries, you would have noticed that it was mentioned quite often that McCain wouldn't get all the delegates for California, even though he won overall in the state. Mitt Romney did get a fair chunk of California's delegates. Also, I believe Obama won the LA area, but Clinton won in the Bay Area. And like I said, several states have made such a change, Texas being one of them, I believe. This all came out in the primaries. It was actually considered by several states to head off another showdown like the Florida one in 2000.
Not a native, but I have been in California for about 40 years.
You are thinking of the changes made by the Democrat party regarding its primary. I do not recall if the Republicans made any change for its primary.
The Presidental general election rules would have to be done by changing the California constitution - and that has not happened. So it is still winner take all. Only Maine & Nebraska have the proportional system for Presidential elections.
You, in the US, are having a scheduled election and we, over in the UK, are having a sort of covert one.
Reading the papers, listening to the radio and surfing the Internet has convinced me that politics is a filthy and damaging activity, unsuitable to grown-up humans. I would therefore suggest that we revisit the discussions by the US Founding Fathers and ask:
"Is it appropiate to have a head of state who is a member of one particular political party or faction?"
Unfortunately, dear Pilgrim, we here in the States have only one person filling the two positions of Head of State and Head of the Government. We don't have a Queen and Prime Minister, nor both a President and Prime Minister. Would be a bit tidier if we did.
Politics can indeed be pure poison if we let it enter into our souls. I, however, enjoy it as sport (which in large part is laughter at silly slogans and ideas).
I believe one can be civil and refuse to let the political poisons seep in, to the extent that, through heartfelt compassion, he or she mindfully respects the beauty and real nature of all one's compatriots —however far they may err from the truth at times. And indeed, if we are sincere we'll know that lies will be answered efficiently and soundly if our side alone is completely safe and secure in the truth, if that's ever possible. I believe that only an individual soul can be pure and "one-pointed" in the truth and that parties and institutions will always somewhat compromise the truth, stifle it with rigid pronouncements, and by virtue of their sheer power run roughshod where a rigorous person would not tread.
We are a political species of animal, as Aristotle said. Choosing positions and, yes, taking sides is just what we political creatures do. But as long as we're doing politics, I think we might as well have a little fun along the way ---just so long as we remember who we are as human beings and what one thing above all others we are called to do: to seek justice. If we lose not sight of this our calling we will do well.
Love is a beautiful thing, and having a warm and appreciative feeling for our NEXT president is something I wish on everyone.
It sure will be nice to have a president who's smart as a whip and comfortable with who he is.
I do not believe that South Carolina will vote the way we should, but I'm counting on North Carolina and Virginia. (Yes, even poor ole North Carolina, that valley of humility between two mountains of conceit, namely Virginia and South Carolina!)
I just have to say that McCain is the absolute worst candidate it has ever been my misfortune to see in a whole series of bad presidential candidates. He has made a complete disaster of his campaign, not least of which was his selection of the moose-killing bimbo from Alaska as his Vice President candidate. She is without a doubt the least qualified candidate to ever run for national office, and a looney tunes far right Xian to boot. What could he have been thinking?! And his behavior during the recent bailout negotiations was horrendous. It just baffles me that anyone would even consider voting for this idiot.
On the other hand, Obama strikes me as perfect presidential timber. He doesn't get ruffled, he actually demonstrates the ability to learn from his mistakes, and he just seems like someone I'd enjoy sitting down to lunch with or playing a little pickup b-ball (if I was still able, that is). This really should be the most lopsided election in history, and I think the electorate is gradually coming to that realization.
I was thinking today about the election and realize I hadn't voted for someone for president the whole decade. I was voting against someone else. This says alot for the 2 party system. I wish it were a 4 party or such so that more people would find someone they could back up. I don't believe most of what politicians say anymore, but feel it is my duty to vote as an American citizen. So, until Kyle Broflovski (smart kid on South Park)grows up and runs, it will be a long time before I vote for anyone again.
Hail the one-party state! Country = People = Party! No conflict of interest there, heh.
Simon, I'm actually watching on YouTube nowadays the old British comedy "Yes, Minister" - Sir Humphrey cracks me up. It is sad though for me because most of my peers wouldn't enjoy the show without much familiarity with foreign politics, we live in a virtual political party monopoly here.
I don't have a vote, but I'd think I like Obama more.
Hail the one-party state! Country = People = Party! No conflict of interest there, heh.
Simon, I'm actually watching on YouTube nowadays the old British comedy "Yes, Minister" - Sir Humphrey cracks me up. It is sad though for me because most of my peers wouldn't enjoy the show without much familiarity with foreign politics, we live in a virtual political party monopoly here.
I don't have a vote, but I'd think I like Obama more.
You do realise that "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" (like "Father Ted") are documentaries, don't you? Gritty realism.
Ah yes, I recall from somewhere that it was given some political science scene award for that very reason. Great satire.
I'm reliving British comedy from the 80s like 'Allo 'Allo because I cannot get any modern ones without a cable subscription to BBC e.g. My Family (I watched it while I had it on free preview). Nevertheless, the humour's always great despite the different times.
I'd vote for any politician anywhere for the subsidy of British-style comedy! Lol.
It has been my (mis)fortune to know a number of government ministers - indded, I was at university with quite a few future ministers. At least two of them watched "Yes, Minister" to learn how to handle their civil servants. For our USian friends: the UK has a system of a permanent civil service which remains in place whichever government comes into or goes out of power.
BTW, Ajani, have you found the BBC website? You can download or stream old programmes.
Ah yes Simon. Unfortunately they have restrictions for non-UK viewers. We only get to enjoy but a few of the many up for offer, I think. In fact when I last checked, I think only within the UK could you watch the program, but outside of it you may only catch on their iPlayer BBC Radio. Meanwhile streaming on non-BBC sites is always an option.
The pundits here in the UK have Barack as the next president - no contest. Barring some unimaginable upset, they opine, he will soon be the ruler of "The world's only superpower".
McCain should throw it in now, as he has no chance they say. Still he always has his oven-chip business to fall back on. My kids love them...
...sorry couldn't resist that cheap jibe - according the topic the respect it deserves
Simon, our civil service isn't terribly different I don't think... there are several hundred "at will" employees that will change with the administration, but tens of thousands that won't.
Sad news that Mr. Obama's grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, did not live to see her "son" elected president. Tomorrow will be a bittersweet victory for him, poor guy.
On a different note I'm hearing this awful "joke" from some of my coworkers. Too disgusting to tell the joke, but it's about St. Peter not knowing who Barack is at the Pearly Gates... first African-American president (who only lives five minutes after either election or inauguration).
I really get angry when I hear it, because this is nothing but intolerance of different people. How can people claim to love their country and countenance such an act that would set us back fifty years and set off riots and mayhem all over the country?
These same people would not let their children repeat filthy talk just because they heard it, but keep all this hatred and intolerance of others alive, seemingly fascinated with it. Otherwise decent folk are just letting the worst kinds of ideas and people push a lot of their buttons.
Barack is going to need all people of goodwill everywhere praying for him.
My prayers and offerings today, including a tobacco ceremony, it being appropriate for Turtle Island, are all for the intentions of the people of the USA as they go to the polls.
I have never in my life been so glad to have an election day here. I will be happier tomorrow when it is over. My morning started off with someone I know calling and trying to change my vote. Then my husband starts in because he thinks she has changed my vote. And then it's all about Amendment A and how I should vote etc.... etc...
So, I went, I voted and I'm not telling anyone I know who I voted for and how I voted for the Amendments. And as it goes..........they are all being pissy about it because they all think I must have voted other than how they told me to vote. My husband is being so combative.....Bless his heart! No matter how I voted someone will be flipping out...
Give me a break! They need to Totally get over themselves.
Thank you for allowing me to get that shempa off my chest.........I feel a bit better now.
I hope everyone is having a Great Day!
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited November 2008
.......Who did you vote for......?
Naw, just kidding....
Right now, It's so close, it will be interesting to see the results. if you tell me who you voted for, I'll be convinced they'll win, because it's YOUR vote that counted - !
I'm watching McCain's concession speach as I type. I've been on pins and needles all day alternating between a racing heart and nervous butterflies to a bit of terror that things might somehow go terribly wrong. I can't even tell you how relieved I am.
FINALLY!
After 8 miserable years and two miserable elections the American people finally got out and voted in the big numbers democracy deserves.
This concession speach by McCain is particularly beautiful in comparison to the campaign he ran.
I'm SO relieved!!! It's time for change. May heaven bless the U.S. and its first African American president.
Comments
Ben
KoB, if I have to spell out the corruption that is rampant in the Republican party with all the favors done for corporations and other rich people, then you simply haven't been paying attention. Halliburton anyone? The Republicans would sell their own mothers if they thought they could get a decent price. Again, not that the Democrats are much better. I'm not a fan of government or politicians in any way, shape or form, but you've got to live with the world as it is, not the fantasy you'd like it to be.
Palzang
As for the corruption, it is definitely rampant in this current administration. Maybe not in some of the places people think there is, but it was rampant. The changes to bankruptcy laws to favor big businesses, the loans to rescue large corporations, most recently several of the mortgage companies who authorized loans that never should have been, a lot of this is the direct result of politicians on both sides pandering to big business.
Pally, there is a solution. Vote Green or Libertarian. Or Independent. Take this out of the 2 party system, and make the politicians earn your vote, instead of the special interests' money.
Ben, it's not that Buddhism requires us to be one or the other, but that we need to be active in politics. Otherwise, special interests will win. I personally like Obama for that one reason, he's getting a lot of people my age and younger to vote, when normally the under 30s wouldn't vote. They don't want to think about the issues, because it's easy to feel you don't make a difference. Now there's an inspiring candidate out there dragging them in. If he were a little more conservative, he's make a nearly perfect president.
The fact remains that if more democrats are elected and especially if a democrat makes it into the White House, my taxes will go up. Government will get bigger and as Barrack Obama has said in more words than this, "Handouts, handouts, handouts."
I can't vote for democrats because I'm opposed to them on just about all their major stances.
I've never understood everyone's animosity towards "special interest groups." They exist for good reasons. Everyone has an agenda to advance and those groups serve to represent those agendas. Be they gun rights advocates, PETA, and many more. There are people that lobby tirelessly for things we benefit from just so we don't have to do it ourselves.
That being said, Barrack Obama is the most liberal senator in the country and certainly the most left-wing candidate we've had from either party in recent history. I don't see what's so special about the youth of the country getting involved. If "getting involved" means they all want higher taxes and more governmental control of our lives, then I would really rather they be apathetic and just stay home.
LOL
More generally, while many people (on both sides of the aisle) run for office because they want to make the world a better place, politics tends to attract people who are at least partly into it for fame and power. And power tends to corrupt even the best people over time. Legislators from both sides of the aisle have more to gain from maintaining the status quo (e.g. rules or policies that are favorable to incumbants, earmarks, etc) than fighting eachother.
Ben
I think your point is a very important one, Ben, particularly in a political system that uses periodic elections to choose their rulers. Over here, Lord (Dr David) Owen has published what looks like an interesting book about what he calls "the hubris syndrome". He uses the Greek term to describe what happens to politicians when they achieve - and retain - power. Although I haven't read it yet, I have it on request at our library and I heard Owen discussing it on the radio. It made me wonder about the whole concept of 'ruling' which seems to be getting confused with 'governing'.
There is a long piece that I am writing on this particular subject but I won't bore you with that now.
The truth is that, as you say, electors tend to alternate our rulers but my guess is that we would like continuity of good governance. Perhaps we change our rulers so often because these people tend to interfere with government.
I agree. But he is better than the alternative I believe. I just hope he balances his ticket out with someone like Romney.
political discussions leave me stone cold.
And it doesn't matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.
Whatever they say and do now, always changes once they hold the strings.
Being a politician usually becomes an end in itself instead of a means to an end and the high principles and ideals with which people enter into the system, evaporate in the scramble to keep their seat.
I'm back, by the way. Hello everyone
For those of us who despise the whole business of "political parties", this might be of interest, from the US Department of State website:
One wishes that Washington, with his dislike of political organisations, could have prevailed, rather than Jefferson and Hamilton who preferred their own arguments to the good of "we-the-people".
I loathe Politics. it seems to make Noble men Ignoble...
I used to have a great deal of respect for Ken Livingstone... being Mayor seemed to have gone to his head, and exaggerated certain characteristics I feel would have been better either suppressed or channelled elsewhere....
And I'm sorry, but where there is high office, there is corruption of one kind of another... be it scandalous or subtle, people become tainted by greed and desire.
I loathe Politics.
Liberals can hold my strings anytime!
Many admire the British system of publicly financed, short elections, but the American system does have its own virtues. Perhaps drama is one of them. It might be expedient for us to change the constitution and have a one-term presidency serving for seven years, and thereby lessening the huge amount of time that is spent on active presidential politicking.
For me, the key thing in politics is not to take it personally, but with a qualified nonchalance, that not only makes allowances for different folks to have differing views, but also is not completely disinterested in questions as to why people might subscribe to their particular* ideas or associations. (*I first wrote "peculiar" ideas or associations, until I remembered I am now in the 21st century where that word no longer has the meaning of "particular," as it did just some 90 years ago.)
The Germans have a nice word for this qualified nonchalance, sort of a disinterested Interestedness: Der Spieltrieb, most succinctly expressed in English as "Play Instinct." It's about throwing oneself into "the fray' with a thoroughgoing sports-instinct that knows that it's all only a game and it's only the rigorous and honest playing of it that really matters, the end "score" being more of a footnote than a "final outcome" in the true sportsman's heart.
In the end, it's the politics of the nation that brings people together and allows them to work for the common good in times of crisis. And towards that end shared memories of Abraham Lincoln, JFK and MLK and Jimmy Carter and, yes, even Hillary Clinton, will do us no harm at all if our hearts are pure.
So, I'm in for some distraction and cheering and, I hope, a joyous celebration of a Democratic victory in November. If between now and then some dirty politics soils the sleeves of some politicians I shall expect them manfully or with womanly poise to bear it well. There's a lot of people living miserable, desperate lives who would gladly change places with them if they could.
What an absolutely wonderful post! You should write a blog if you don't already.
I loved this and agree wholeheartedly:
It also has great meaning for me at this particular time because I've been doing a lot of thinking about the 'process being more important than the outcome' and how this is true of so many things in life. I hadn't yet considered it's truth in regard to the political process and I thank you for reminding me of this important dimension which I'd left out of my musings.
Now, several states have dropped the "winner take all" format for casting electoral votes, including California and Texas, both moving to a "by district" format, with only two of the electoral votes going to the overall winner. The question that raises is now whether or not that balances out, or did one side just gain a huge advantage for years to come.
Reading the papers, listening to the radio and surfing the Internet has convinced me that politics is a filthy and damaging activity, unsuitable to grown-up humans. I would therefore suggest that we revisit the discussions by the US Founding Fathers and ask:
"Is it appropiate to have a head of state who is a member of one particular political party or faction?"
Think you are mistaken about this. Where did you read about such a "change"?
Not a native, but I have been in California for about 40 years.
You are thinking of the changes made by the Democrat party regarding its primary. I do not recall if the Republicans made any change for its primary.
The Presidental general election rules would have to be done by changing the California constitution - and that has not happened. So it is still winner take all. Only Maine & Nebraska have the proportional system for Presidential elections.
Unfortunately, dear Pilgrim, we here in the States have only one person filling the two positions of Head of State and Head of the Government. We don't have a Queen and Prime Minister, nor both a President and Prime Minister. Would be a bit tidier if we did.
Politics can indeed be pure poison if we let it enter into our souls. I, however, enjoy it as sport (which in large part is laughter at silly slogans and ideas).
I believe one can be civil and refuse to let the political poisons seep in, to the extent that, through heartfelt compassion, he or she mindfully respects the beauty and real nature of all one's compatriots —however far they may err from the truth at times. And indeed, if we are sincere we'll know that lies will be answered efficiently and soundly if our side alone is completely safe and secure in the truth, if that's ever possible. I believe that only an individual soul can be pure and "one-pointed" in the truth and that parties and institutions will always somewhat compromise the truth, stifle it with rigid pronouncements, and by virtue of their sheer power run roughshod where a rigorous person would not tread.
We are a political species of animal, as Aristotle said. Choosing positions and, yes, taking sides is just what we political creatures do. But as long as we're doing politics, I think we might as well have a little fun along the way ---just so long as we remember who we are as human beings and what one thing above all others we are called to do: to seek justice. If we lose not sight of this our calling we will do well.
YO YOGAMAMA!
Love is a beautiful thing, and having a warm and appreciative feeling for our NEXT president is something I wish on everyone.
It sure will be nice to have a president who's smart as a whip and comfortable with who he is.
I do not believe that South Carolina will vote the way we should, but I'm counting on North Carolina and Virginia. (Yes, even poor ole North Carolina, that valley of humility between two mountains of conceit, namely Virginia and South Carolina!)
On the other hand, Obama strikes me as perfect presidential timber. He doesn't get ruffled, he actually demonstrates the ability to learn from his mistakes, and he just seems like someone I'd enjoy sitting down to lunch with or playing a little pickup b-ball (if I was still able, that is). This really should be the most lopsided election in history, and I think the electorate is gradually coming to that realization.
Palzang
There's got to be something SERIOUSLY wrong with someone who doesn't.
I'll admit. I'm diseased.
McCain 08!
Yes, well, we've already established that, haven't we! :rolleyes:
Palzang
http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/palin-hillary-open/656281/
Simon, I'm actually watching on YouTube nowadays the old British comedy "Yes, Minister" - Sir Humphrey cracks me up.
I don't have a vote, but I'd think I like Obama more.
You do realise that "Yes, Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister" (like "Father Ted") are documentaries, don't you? Gritty realism.
I'm reliving British comedy from the 80s like 'Allo 'Allo because I cannot get any modern ones without a cable subscription to BBC e.g. My Family (I watched it while I had it on free preview). Nevertheless, the humour's always great despite the different times.
I'd vote for any politician anywhere for the subsidy of British-style comedy! Lol.
BTW, Ajani, have you found the BBC website? You can download or stream old programmes.
McCain should throw it in now, as he has no chance they say. Still he always has his oven-chip business to fall back on. My kids love them...
...sorry couldn't resist that cheap jibe - according the topic the respect it deserves
On a different note I'm hearing this awful "joke" from some of my coworkers. Too disgusting to tell the joke, but it's about St. Peter not knowing who Barack is at the Pearly Gates... first African-American president (who only lives five minutes after either election or inauguration).
I really get angry when I hear it, because this is nothing but intolerance of different people. How can people claim to love their country and countenance such an act that would set us back fifty years and set off riots and mayhem all over the country?
These same people would not let their children repeat filthy talk just because they heard it, but keep all this hatred and intolerance of others alive, seemingly fascinated with it. Otherwise decent folk are just letting the worst kinds of ideas and people push a lot of their buttons.
Barack is going to need all people of goodwill everywhere praying for him.
I just say this, regardless of who he is, nobody shoots my boss while I have anything to say about it
and...
Obama and McCain - Dance Off!
So, I went, I voted and I'm not telling anyone I know who I voted for and how I voted for the Amendments. And as it goes..........they are all being pissy about it because they all think I must have voted other than how they told me to vote. My husband is being so combative.....Bless his heart! No matter how I voted someone will be flipping out...
Give me a break! They need to Totally get over themselves.
Thank you for allowing me to get that shempa off my chest.........I feel a bit better now.
I hope everyone is having a Great Day!
Naw, just kidding....
Right now, It's so close, it will be interesting to see the results. if you tell me who you voted for, I'll be convinced they'll win, because it's YOUR vote that counted - !
Those who voted SMART won the day.
FINALLY!
After 8 miserable years and two miserable elections the American people finally got out and voted in the big numbers democracy deserves.
This concession speach by McCain is particularly beautiful in comparison to the campaign he ran.
I'm SO relieved!!! It's time for change. May heaven bless the U.S. and its first African American president.
Shame on them for putting pressure on you like that. Tell them it's a secret ballot for a reason.
Sheesh!!