Comments on: The politician’s hagio-biography Wed, 13 Apr 2016 01:13:45 +0000 hourly 1 By: OneOfTheSheep Wed, 10 Oct 2012 03:13:32 +0000 I respectfully disagree; and yet, at the same time, suggest that neither of us is “wrong”.

We each see and experience life through the “prism” of our personal life experience and inseparable values and expectations. What each of us “see” is ALWAYS different than someone else. A good example would be the jury that decided the O. J. Simpson case.

Our perception is often unpredictable because of some mental “wild cards”. The challenge of dealing with “life” through a fog of ever-changing quantities of various hormones make adolescents, women of child-bearing age and, in particular, pregnant women illogically emotional. What you see is what you get, for this moment in time. Tomorrow may be different. Or not.

Parents who demonstrate faith and piety by example hope their children will follow in their footsteps. But some children don’t like going to Sunday School and/or church, and resolve they will NOT do these things when they can make their own decisions. Others reach perhaps a premature conclusion that religion makes no rational sense simply because all young people have a fundamental sense of being immortal.

As maturity and an increasingly logical thought process molds an individual’s character and values the certainty of youth evolves from black and white absolutes to the rich “color of life with indescribable nuance. In the process, some return to religion out of fear of “things unknown and unknowable”. Others rediscover true and lasting religious feelings and renew their affiliation with organized religion. But even among the latter, some deliberately choose a church of different dogma than that in which they were raised. The individual “prism” through which life is perceived we share with no one else. It is absolutely unique.

And so, in above context I would suggest that mature voters do NOT demand very much at all. They want to believe that the person who gets their vote is a reasonably intelligent person who has something in common with them. If he’s rich, we may want to see humility and generosity as appropriate to circumstance. If he’s brilliant and dazzling in public, we may want to see that he cares and can work with those who are not.

We want him or her to be “up to” that which we are not. They are to be our chosen “champion”, to do what we hope we would do “for us”. We want to see priorities, wisdom and effectiveness together with a willingness to compromise on those issues that do not fundamentally threaten America’s long term viability.

Has America ever produced such people? Well, George Washington was offered the title of “King” and turned it down at a time few others would have simply because he believed that was the “right” thing to do for his country. I would not call such a man “ordinary”.

I look at Ronald Reagan as that extreme rarity who, whether you agreed with him or not, generally left negotiations with the honest respect of his adversaries. He was that rare person who did not see a “win-win” outcome as a kind of defeat. I would not call such a man “ordinary”. As was often said of Jimmy Stewart…”people just seem to like him”.

People like these are rare, like diamonds. We don’t see their like often. But hope springs eternal; and so we look for them every day. I see no difference whatsoever between what Britain or America need in their next leader. Expenditures must be brought within such revenue as tax incentives and disincentives extract from the current economy.

Do these things right and the inevitable result will be gradual reduction in government debt. Only on such a path will rising economic confidence bring about such “growth” as is possible. The new “normal” is that it takes fewer and fewer people to do what MUST be done even as populations groow and “productive employment” is ever more elusive and sought ever more desperately.

Today Washington is like “memory foam” without the memory. It shifts it’s shape constantly to pressure applied here and there, but the size, mass and trajectory towards fiscal chaos never changes regardless of the “party in power”. To “do these things right” requires a leader able to convince citizens that his/her “plan”, whatever it is, is in the best interests of a majority. They must create the consensus by which they will act

“We, the people” have been ignored for far too long by our political elite. Like FDR and his “fireside chats”, take us into confidence. Explain where we are, where you would take us, and make us believe it’s where we must go even if we don’t want to. When “we, the people” are treated with such respect, we sometimes do the unthinkable…and become willing to work together for the common good!

But all this is for a future election. The dominant parties today in the United States have provided voters only a choice between bad and worse.