The Republican and Democratic parties have divided the American people over fundamental moral values, they have failed to rectify longstanding national problems, and their existence chiefly benefits special interest groups, politicians, and mega-corporate executives. As George Washington wrote, the constant alternation of two parties in the federal government would be a “frightful despotism.”
For a number of years now, respected pundits have lauded the American two-party political system as an excellent balance between the dictatorship of a one-party system and the instability of a multi-party system. Yet the two-party system has caused our country great harm. The Republican and Democratic parties have divided the American people over fundamental moral values, they have failed to rectify longstanding national problems, and their existence chiefly benefits special interest groups, politicians, and mega-corporate executives. Most unfortunately of all, however, the two-party setup does not represent the people of the United States.
Many people believe that political parties are essential in a democracy such as the United States. These individuals claim that since a democracy encourages dissent and disagreement, it is only natural that such differences of opinion will find expression in organized factions. But this strain of thought clashes with the judgment of our nation’s founders. In his Observations on History, Benjamin Franklin wrote that parties engender confusion. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay warned against the evils to the general public that a “spirit of faction” would cause. And George Washington refused allegiance to any political party during his eight-year service as first president of the United States.
Despite these early statements against partisanship, opposing factions emerged at the end of the 1700s representing two different opinions about the role of the federal government. The Federalists urged a strong central administration that would dominate the states and ensure national unity, while the Republicans believed that the individual states should have more power. In fact, the form of government officially established by the Constitution was a federal republic, so these parties were emphasizing the importance of either national or state power. Alexander Hamilton found himself in the Federalist camp, whereas Thomas Jefferson sided with the Republicans — although neither prominent national founder held the rigidly partisan or doctrinaire outlook typical of many American politicians today. Moreover, the chief disagreement of these early parties was over the distribution of power within the United States government; their members agreed on most moral, economic, social, and foreign policy issues such as slavery, domestic trade, the family, and isolationism.
During the 1800s, the parties evolved and grew further apart, especially over the issue of slavery. Federalists changed their name to Republicans and opposed slavery and the secession of the South, while the heretofore Republicans became Democratic-Republicans and declared support for slavery and secession. At this stage, one party was championing a grave injustice which most Americans instinctively understood was evil. The Democratic-Republicans received backing primarily from wealthy Southern landowners, who insisted on keeping slaves for cheap labor. After Republican president Abraham Lincoln waged the Civil War, declared emancipation, and reunited the South, the Democratic Party remained the faction of Southern landlords’ continued rebellion against the North and repression of Black political rights. However, in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Democrats also gained support from blue-collar workers in Northern cities as the Industrial Revolution created a new underclass. Meanwhile, Republicans attracted backing from the new class of wealthy Northern capitalists and from supporters of Black civil rights nationwide.
Around the turn of the twentieth century, the importance of economic and foreign policy issues increased. The Republican Party came to stand for Northern farmers, retention of the gold standard, fiscally disciplined government, and isolationism, while the Democratic Party represented Southern landowners and Northern laborers, a flexible money supply, growth of the federal government, and foreign engagement. During the Cold War, the two parties achieved a significant level of bipartisanship, agreeing on the necessity of confronting Communism and promoting freedom abroad. Another major change occurred in the 1960s, when Democratic president Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law. From then onward the Democratic Party took up the “liberal” causes of civil rights and urban workers, leading the “conservative” faction of farmers, limited government and big business — the Republican Party — to dominate the South.
Another element was added to the American political landscape with the social upheavals of the 1960s and the Supreme Court’s decision of Roe v. Wade which legalized abortion in 1973. When a number of Democrats who had favored the abandonment of traditional social and moral guidelines came to realize the bitter failure of those upheavals, they converted into social “conservatives” and found a new home in the Republican Party. President Ronald Reagan emerged as the standard-bearer of these new Republicans, who established their party on the firm foundation of God’s Law and strove to restore our nation’s identity as a Christian country. The end of the Cold War signaled the arrival of two more simultaneous factional changes. One was President Bill Clinton and the “New Democrats,” who championed unrestricted globalization and free market economics alongside social spending. The other change had been planted during the Reagan administration, hibernated under the Clinton administration, and blossomed fully after the events of September 11, 2001: the ascendancy of neoconservatives within the Republican Party. Led by President Bush, these individuals likewise championed unrestricted globalization and free market economics, but they also demanded an aggressive military response to “Islamic” terrorism with vast increases in military spending and in the size of the federal government, as well as cuts in social spending and foreign economic aid.
We can learn important lessons from this condensed review of American partisan history. One of the reasons for the constant switching back and forth between parties appears to be that the country has different needs at different times. The American people chose Republican candidate Abraham Lincoln because of his firm stand against slavery during a critical time in the nation’s history. They selected Democratic runner Franklin D. Roosevelt and his increased government spending to mitigate the effects of the Great Depression. In 1980, they chose Republican candidate Ronald Reagan in reaction to economic stagnation and moral decline. And in 1992, American voters picked the Democratic contender Bill Clinton as a result of economic recession.
But though our country has different needs at different times, political parties are not the proper instrument to satisfy these needs. According to George Washington, the constant alternation of two parties in the federal government would be a “frightful despotism.” The main reason for this alternation, especially in the past few decades, is that neither party is adequately solving the key problems America faces.
Two factors explain this failure. First, each party represents some of the policies America needs. For example, the Republican Party traditionally stands for the right to life of each human person from conception to natural death; a free marketplace; limited government; a strong (but not bloated) national defense; secure borders; fiscal responsibility; and strict interpretation of the Constitution. The Democratic Party traditionally stands for the right of the poor to government assistance; the rights of ethnic and religious minorities to an equal place in our society; regulation of big business and trade; protection of the environment; multilateral nuclear disarmament; and increased foreign economic aid to impoverished countries. However, the US really needs both sets of policies. We need pro-life laws and multilateral nuclear disarmament, tax cuts and deficit reduction, a free market and social security nets, not one or the other.
The second factor explaining the failure of the two-party system is corruption. When a new president is elected, people anticipate that he will get things done. When he fails to meet even reasonable expectations and his administration becomes plagued by scandal (as has happened all too often in recent decades), people turn with hope to the other party, which generally does not improve matters much. This is because most members of both parties have been corrupted by special interests. Our last three presidents have been mega-corporate moguls whose ownership of major industries presented flagrant conflicts of interest. In addition, wealthy and vocal lobby groups have bullied our senators, representatives and president into enacting policies that benefit a few large companies at the expense of the average American citizen.
For example, President Bill Clinton was elected in 1992 on a platform that featured tax cuts, economic growth for everyone, and an ambitious social welfare program. Although the economy did grow, Clinton broke other promises by instituting the largest tax raise in American history, keeping social spending to a minimum, and permitting corporations such as Wal-Mart, Microsoft, and McDonalds to reap the lion’s share of gains. Then in 2000 President George W. Bush was elected on a platform that featured the right to life, tax cuts, free-market economics, secure borders, and fiscal discipline. Although Bush has generally held to his pro-life pledge and did sign into law some token tax cuts, in September of 2006 he declared support for the Plan B contraceptive pills for minors. Furthermore, President Bush has allowed big businesses such as Wal-Mart, Microsoft, McDonalds, Halliburton, Boeing, Verizon Wireless, and News Corporation to choke the “free” market; has pandered to illegal aliens; and ran up the largest federal budget deficits and national debt in American history. Both presidents ended up serving the interests of mega-corporations first and foremost.
The two-party political system does not accurately represent opposing viewpoints of the role of the federal government as it did in the young United States. Though it was a bad idea to begin with, since the latter part of the last century the system has become decrepit with corruption and has fallen sadly out of touch with the average American. Most of the Republican and Democratic candidates allege certain principles and make attractive promises during their campaigns, but upon entering office compromise overtakes principle like a weed and promises are thrown to the wind. Unfortunately, the current corrupt political climate is hostile to honest, traditionally-minded candidates with unwavering principles from Middle America such as “Average Joe” Schriner, Mike Huckabee and Sam Brownback. In general, only those individuals who habitually cater to — or are susceptible to manipulation by — hawkish pressure groups have a chance at federal public office.
Despite the manifest failure of the modern Republican and Democratic parties to deliver, however, well-defined groups of American voters across the map of the United States continue to choose congressional and presidential candidates along party lines because no viable alternatives are in sight. These dedicated factional adherents are stuck in the rut of the two-party system. Economics has long vied with fundamental moral convictions as a major factor determining political affiliation. In the US today, richer individuals (who generally dominate rural areas) tend to vote Republican, while poorer individuals (who generally dominate the cities) tend to vote Democratic. These choices are based largely on the economic and moral policies that the parties stand for and on the hope that new candidates will do a better job than their predecessors. It is true that some Republicans and Democrats in Congress keep their campaign promises and actually work hard to deliver significant pro-life victories or greater socioeconomic equality, and it is those few exceptions that keep hope alive.
On the other hand, contented middle-class individuals (who generally dominate suburbs and small towns and comprise a significant minority of the American people) tend to hold a more independent, traditionally-minded outlook and are more likely to spread their votes around based on fundamental moral convictions as well as their common-sense perception of local and national needs. These are the “swing voters” to which enterprising candidates of both parties direct so much of their campaigning energy.
The degree of distinction between the two parties is a matter of controversy. To figure this out, it is helpful to distinguish between theory and practice. In theory, the Republican and Democratic factions are ideological opposites, with Republicans focusing on traditional values and responsibility while Democrats are grounded in progressive values and opportunity. But in practice, thanks to the endemic corruption of the system, there is little difference between parties. Republicans turn out to be not really Republican, and Democrats turn out to be not really Democrats: both sets of politicians operate together in a hazy and confused middle ground defined by special interest groups. This has been clearly demonstrated on a number of occasions, such as the overwhelming Congressional approval for war in Iraq in 2002, the Republicans’ passage of a bill that would have provided federal funds for embryonic stem-cell research involving abortions in 2006, and the refusal of Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to consider impeaching President Bush. All of these decisions were driven by mega-corporations, which stood to profit immensely from them. Even though President Bush vetoed the embryonic stem-cell act, soon afterward he accepted limited access to contraceptive pills for minors in order to mollify the big business executives.
Some might point to these occasions of crossing party lines as examples of bipartisanship. However, selling one’s fundamental principles to money-hungry American firms does not make for true bipartisanship. Real bipartisanship involves consistent agreement on fundamental, non-negotiable moral values such as the right to life and frequent compromise on the wide range of negotiable issues such as national security, economic policy, environmental protection, domestic poverty relief, and foreign aid. But instead of the way things should be, the pressure of the unrestricted free-market ideology has inverted values. Republicans and Democrats treat the negotiable issues as the most crucial of all and generally are absolutely unbending on them, whereas the fundamental moral values elicit disgraceful compromises and persistent disagreement. After all, big business tycoons do not like to have their enormous profits curtailed by the Ten Commandments, and they demand a totally unregulated market in order to reap those profits.
The two-party setup in the United States has severely divided our nation. Having names and labels for different political persuasions can be helpful, but they have too often led to pigeonholing and name-calling which hampers a free exchange of ideas. “Republican” and “Democrat,” “conservative” and “liberal,” “right” and “left” have degenerated into terms used to ostracize and vilify the opposition and to stifle discussion of topics deemed politically incorrect. A private citizen or political candidate who opposes the war in Iraq should not be dubbed a “radical leftist” any more than a private citizen or political candidate who advocates illegalizing abortion should be denounced as a “right-winger.”
Moreover, the true meanings of the terms “conservative” and “liberal” have been obscured. In modern parlance, a “conservative” is someone who defends fundamental moral values and wishes to preserve traditional national ideals, and a “liberal” is someone who disputes fundamental moral values and wishes to radically change our country around. But these meanings are inadequate. The words originally referred to political approaches, not to a person’s moral values or lack thereof. “Conservative” basically means someone who applauds the status quo, while “liberal” means someone who wishes to effect change. Neither conservatism nor liberalism is good or evil per se; it depends on what specific policy you wish to maintain or to alter. Continuing a bad policy such as torture of terrorist suspects is just as detrimental to our national well-being as changing a good policy such as the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research involving abortion would be. Beneficial policies need to be maintained and harmful policies need to be changed. Thus in the original sense of the words, few if any human beings could be described as completely conservative or completely liberal.
Political factions tend to be driven by ideologies that, in their members’ pursuit of particular goals, obscure rather than clarify the truth. Indeed, truth itself has been politicized. Inconvenient truths (such as the inability of embryonic stem-cells to cure diseases) are derided as falsehood, while falsehoods that make a few people rich (such as the impossibility of conducting a dialogue with terrorists) are glorified as absolute truth. Nowhere are these destructive elements of partisan politics more evident than in the meteoric rise of the neoconservative ideology following the terrorist attacks of September 11. This intolerant, extremist, and totalitarian belief system seems to have become a religion for many people, yet it is a deception that worships the false gods of national security and an unfettered free market. It was cunningly crafted by a handful of rich American tycoons to justify an aggressive foreign policy that enables them to engage in the age-old practice of war profiteering, to expand their globalized business operations across the world, and to exploit more and more human beings without hindrance. In contravention of history, it insists that terrorism is an act of war rather than a criminal tactic employed to draw a government’s attention to real grievances, and that only all-out armed force can “defeat” terrorism. Its view of the terrorist threat is based on mistaken assumptions, numerous fallacies, and blanket denials of many important facts that contradict their view.
Although it masquerades as patriotic, the neoconservative ideology and its loyal adherents have done tremendous harm to the American political landscape. Neoconservatives have viciously attacked their opponents, twisted moral values, and used false guilt to silence opposition. They are utilizing the ancient strategy of divide and conquer to destroy American public debate and ultimately to dominate the world. Their ability to find common ground with Americans of other opinions on negotiable issues is nil. In the pursuit of greed and power, they are willing to exacerbate partisan divisions among the American people and make them forget their nonpartisan heritage.
According to our nation’s founders, it would be better to have no political parties at all. Individuals should form their opinion on each individual negotiable matter through a careful review of all the relevant facts and without pressure from a corporate-controlled media, comfortable politicians, wealthy pundits, celebrities, or mega-corporate leaders. If that were to happen, if Americans were to discard ideologies and agree on the fundamental moral values, they would find much common ground on the negotiable issues. Instead of constant bickering and division, we would begin to experience true reconciliation and unity.
With each Congressional partisan victory and each new presidential administration, the newly elected have vowed to make a fresh start precisely because the previous faction led America to a dead end. The Democratic Party is now taking advantage of the myriad failures of the Bush administration and of Congressional Republicans to shore up their image as the faction that America desperately needs, the party that will rescue Americans from the clutches of right-wing insanity and deliver than a brighter future in 2009. For Americans weary of Republican mistakes and desirous of substantial changes in many political areas, the carrot held out by Democratic candidates looks tempting. It would be easy to accept this carrot and elect Democrats to Congress and the presidency alike. But if Americans choose this easy route next year, they will find that it leads to a dead end. A Democratic triumph next year will simply turn out to be a repetition of recent political history. How long will Americans dance to the tune of this dishonest and corrupt two-party scheme? Choosing the easy route will not get us anywhere. Instead, we should make known loudly and clearly our intense desire for candidates whose integrity is unsullied by a web of political connections and whose records are unsullied by corruption (such as “Average Joe” Schriner, Mick Huckabee or Sam Brownback for president), and then write the name of one of those candidates on the ballot in state primary elections and again in the November 2008 election. Otherwise, Americans eight years from now will again be whining about the dishonesty, corruption and ineffectiveness of Washington, D.C.
The “frightful dictatorship” and corrupt farce that is our two-party system should be dismantled. Parties give us temptations to attack opponents, become demagogues, and garner followers, distracting us from seeking the true good of the country. If we nevertheless wish to belong to a particular group of Americans with a clear identity, let us unite with all Americans of good will. Instead of saying, “I am a Republican” or “I am a Democrat,” let us rediscover the heritage bequeathed to us by our wise and farsighted national founders and try to grasp what it really means to say, “I am an American.” The United States was established by our founders as a nation that is too great to be defined by just two colors. Interestingly, the American flag contains some red and some blue, but the color most evenly spread thruout the flag is white. White can be thought of as a mixture of all political shades, and thus as a symbol of unity. Unity on the basis of the fundamental, universal moral truths enshrined in the hearts of all Americans and willingness to compromise on negotiable issues is what America needs now more than ever.
Read more articles by Justin Soutar
I agree that we need changes and we should not call ourselves Dems,Libs,Reps or cons.
Transparency is needed from earmarks to campaign donations.
Civic education should be mandatory in all schools.
Term limits should be mandatory for all elected
Anything to be voted on should be published ahead of time and written in clear understandable terms.
Just off the top of my head, I am now an American solely.
Comment by jprairie | August 30, 2007
Well what a heartwarming, unifying cry against the evil, evil, evil, evil, evil bastards of capitalism. Can't we all just get along? All you need is love. Now please join me in an old Negro spiritual as we all join hands and work together for the common good.
Give me a break.
The reason there is division in this country now is the same reason there has been historically since its inception: people don't all think alike, and have very different ideas of what is "good" for America. There are fundamentally different assumptions among ideological groups and individuals that cause this division. Someone who believes that the government should tax the current generation of workers to subsidize those who are not working, and then continue the cycle eternally, are fundamentally at odds with people who want to reduce the size of the government, lower taxes, and encourage personal initiative and responsibility. You really cannot have your cake and eat it too - regardless of if there's no parties, 2 parties, or a hundred parties. You highlight these fundamental differences and then go on to say that they are incidental trivialities, exploited by the greedy, capitalist, war mongering neo-cons (the scourge of our political system that are solely responsible for dividing the nation and preventing fair minded Democrats and Republicans from getting along in perfect harmony), that we should all just "get over" to work toward the "real" issues. But what are the "real" issues? Who decides? You? What if your "real" issues are fundamentally at odds with what I see as the "real" issues? Why then we're right back at square one, aren't we? Congratulations, you've discovered that a country of 300 million people has differences of opinion. Oh, and capitalism is like way bad and stuff. What a brilliant analysis.
Comment by Patrick Mulligan | August 31, 2007
Speaking as a self-identifying conservative, from my viewpoint, there is today very little difference between Republicans and Democrats.
Except for a few flagship issues in which they differ(important for the appearance of difference), the common view of both parties would include ever larger government, increasing loss of liberties, expansion of American Empire and interventionism around the world, globalism, trade policies designed to benefit government/corporate unions, and the merging of the US, Canada and Mexico.
I have not left the Republican party, it has left me.
And you mention Huckabee and the like, with not one mention of Ron Paul, (who may fit what your ideal Republican candidate appears to be from your writing better than any other candidate in either party.) This is truly puzzling.
Another article speaks of Republican national candidates purposely positioning themselves as "insurgent outsiders" opposing both Republican and Democrat insiders. I don't want elected officials who remake and reposition themselves according to some Rovian calculation; I want people who really are what they say they are.
Truly, the great majority of politically engaged Americans seem to think (if you follow the major pundits) that there is a large divide between parties, but in my estimation this has been increasingly used as a tool to divide the American people and make them think each has the moral high ground, when in reality, the underlying truths these positions appear to be based upon are an empty shell.
What ever happened to government of the people, by the people, and for the people?
Comment by mskeels | August 31, 2007
Patrick, good set of comments.
For those mature enough to recognize that there will be differences of opinion, just like we will see people embracing similar opinions banding together, we will probably continue to have political parties. Is two the right number? Probably not, particularly when they act so much alike.
Perfect harmony? Had that in the garden of Eden then that damn snake came along with snack food!
Comment by Mickey G | August 31, 2007
Mr. Soutar:
Under your plan, would federal funding for sandals for gay ex-nuns with a foot-fetish be OK? What about the deductibility of your mortgage insurance interest?
“…opposing factions emerged at the end of the 1700s representing two different opinions about the role of the federal government.”
My questions above point out that just about everyone perceives the federal government as the agent to hand out the “goodies” in whatever form they take. According to The Wall Street Journal, there is also a significant portion of the population that is willing to endure government-instituted hardships (e.g., higher taxes) if the same hardships (or greater ones, particularly) are inflicted on “the rich”.
Also, eliminating political parties will not help because the problem is not limited to the federal government. I have seen this same phenomenon at the local government level (even on homeowner association boards of which I have been an officer) were there are no political parties. (I recently attended a county regional advisory board meeting that turned into a knock-down, drag-out conflict over the wording of one simple sign.) Nor is this limited to democratic government. The Catholic Church is experiencing a similar problem since it gave the laity more say in Church matters, and I’ve noticed that it all centers around what members perceive the role the Church to be:
“Results since the (Vatican II) Council, seem to be in cruel contrast to the expectations of all, beginning with those of John XXIII and Paul VI. … The Popes and the Council Fathers were expecting a new Catholic unity, and instead one has encountered a dissension that – to use the words of Paul VI – seems to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction. A new enthusiasm was expected, but too often there has been boredom and discouragement instead. A new leap forward was expected, but instead we find ourselves facing a process of progressive decadence. … It must be clearly stated that a real reform of the Church presupposes an unequivocal turning away from the erroneous paths that led to indisputably negative consequences.” – Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
By changing only the names, Cardinal Ratzinger’s observation could easily apply to our society in general.
Comment by sedonaman | August 31, 2007
I agree with your basic premise, but disagree with some of the details. You greatly simplify the matters of neocons and terrorism. Many, perhaps most, neocons are not the imperialistic corporate stooges you portray them to be, but genuine Wilsonian idealists. It still makes them wrong, in my view, but the matter is far from your monochrome portrayal.
Likewise, I tear my hair out over our huge, multiple blunders of the Iraq war perhaps even more than you do. But you are flat wrong when you assert that terrorism is a criminal tactic. Citing history, you seem to be stuck in its pre-1960s days. You ought to read up on 4th generation warfare.
Times have changed. Now, though not 50 years ago, terrorism is war. Which does not necessarily mean that we are appproaching this war correctly or competently.
Comment by Takuan Seiyo | August 31, 2007
Takuan Seiyo:
Good points, and I whole-heartedly agree that terrorism is war; however I disagree that terrorism was not war 50 years ago. I tear my hair out, too, when I hear people say it is a new kind of tactic. There is nothing new about terrorism; it has existed as long as war has. The Geneva Convention recognizes that terrorists are unlawful combatants and, as such, the “common enemies of mankind.” President Abraham Lincoln promulgated as General Orders No. 100, INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD, commonly known as the "Lieber Code" in 1863, which addresses this issue:
Lieber Code, Art. 82: "Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fighting, or inroads for destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind, without commission, without being part and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with intermitting returns to their homes and avocations, or with the occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers – such men, or squads of men, are not public enemies, and, therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates." http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/c4d7fab1d847570ec125641a00581c23?OpenDocument
Treatment of such “men or squads of men” has traditionally been very severe: NO QUARTER.
Unfortunately, we have encouraged terrorists by treating those captured better than a POW (legitimate combatant) would be. This sends a message that we don’t really mean business.
Comment by sedonaman | September 1, 2007
I appreciate the response to my article. Thanks for all of your comments.
I agree with Patrick Mulligan and Mickey G. that differences of opinion will always exist in our society. We can disagree on affirmative action, on taxes, on military spending, on foreign aid, on social security, immigration policy, etc. The problem, as I attempted to articulate in the essay, is that Americans disagree over issues which are fundamental to the nature of our country. Are we a Christian country or not? Is abortion an act of murder or a woman's right? Is marriage solely between a man and a woman, or not? Is it constitutional to display the Ten Commandments on public property, or not? Arguments over these issues indicate a national identity crisis–but it is corporate CEOs and lawyers who are encouraging and provoking these arguments to their own advantage. We must retain the foundation of fundamental moral values which our founders built, or we cannot be a great nation.
I'm sorry I failed to mention Ron Paul in the article. I wrote this piece in June when I had not yet heard of him. Yes, he does represent my views in many important areas. I caught this omission before mskeels pointed it out. However, I agree even more closely with "Average Joe" Schriner on the issues.
Sedonaman's question is insulting so I will not answer it directly. The main purpose of the federal government is to promote the common good, not to spoil lazy people with goodies. Government should complement, not replace, the charity of private citizens for the deserving poor.
I also agree with Takuan Seiyo that many neoconservatives are well-intentioned Wilsonian idealists. They are sincere but sincerely wrong.
Terrorism is a crime according to the Lieber Code. Terrorists "shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates", i.e. as criminals.
Mr. Mulligan, I do not condemn capitalism anywhere in the article. What I do condemn is capitalism without any ethical, moral or financial restraints. The common good requires a modicum of regulation.
Comment by Justin907 | September 4, 2007
Thanks for all of your comments.
Of course Americans are going to disagree over less important issues. What we need to agree on are the fundamental moral values. Are we a Christian country, or not? Is abortion a heinous act of murder or a woman's right? May the Ten Commandments be displayed on public property, or not? Is marriage soldely between a man and a woman, or not? Corpoate CEOs have fueled these arguments to their own advantage, and as a result we have a national identity crisis.
Sorry, I didn't mention Ron Paul because I had not heard of him when I wrote this article. Yes, He does represent much of what I stand for, although I agree more closely with "Average Joe" Schriner on the issues.
Taukan Seiyo is correct that many neocons are well-intentioned idealists. They are sincerely wrong.
Patrick Mulligan, capitalism is not evil. What is evil is capitalism unhindered by ethical, moral and financial restraints.
Finally, terrorism is a crime according to the Lieber Code. Terrorists "shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates", i.e. criminals.
Comment by Justin907 | September 4, 2007