This Week: EDITORIAL: Books tore us apart, they can bring us together | Local author Steve Watkin’s Stolen by Night | UMW Theatre’s production of Matilda.
As usual, Leo Watkins breaks things down rather nicely. The two-party system in a democracy works when those who don't get enough votes to win an election remain the loyal opposition. One of our parties has forgotten that. The result is that when an election does not go their way, insurrectionists storm the capitol and those already inside the chambers of government try to bring down the system from within. There is too much at stake for fools to be taken in by so-called third-party candidates and waste their vote "on principle."
After being thoroughly repudiated by the voters of Spotsylvania County the decent thing for Mark Taylor to do is resign. If he has any sense of fairness he will not continue to take over a quarter of a million dollars a year for a position for which he is not qualified, and for a performance of which the majority of voters strongly disapprove.
Apparently there's now a limit on comment length. You think they would let you know what the rules are somewhere.
Anyway - short version - if you are continually compromising with the uncompromising - eventually you'll find yourself in a place you no longer recognize. And being represented by Tara Durant, when either Joel Griffin or Monica Gary is who you preferred.
So maybe your plan isn't as smart as you think, eh?
Now I'm curious what the parameters are. So I'll try posting the original comment this way, as a work around. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't.
I went to the grocery store the other day. As I often do. NO matter the store, the transaction's pretty much the same. I choose what I want, walk to the counter, pay for it, leave.
On the rare occasion something is wrong, I return, we talk about it - attempt to reach a satisfactory consensus - and consider the matter resolved. If not, we both have known options for resolution. Suit, complaint, courts.
That resolution, though not perfect, is built upon tenets of trust. Things that are given. So built into the process, we rarely think about them. We don’t need to.
That money is a satisfactory tender. Laws are applicable. We have a mutual desire for success.
The food they sell me isn't laced with an unexpected poison (fentanyl as compared to alcohol, sugar, or nicotine). They will not rob me on the way out of the store. I will not try to steal the item without payment.
It works. Mostly. Modern capitalism is built upon those intangible trusts. From them, we all profit.
But what if one of us has proven themselves, time and again, to be untrustworthy? Who has goals beyond mutual benefit?
Would we approach the transaction the same way with a kidnapper, terrorist, or enemy? Someone who wants something more than to just make a profit. Who has other aims rather than just our mutual success?
What then?
Is it wise to approach the transaction the same way?
Time and again, many - myself included over the last 30-40-50 years, have tried to apply those same rules of marketplace consensus, respect, and compromise you describe to the political arena.
Yet, increasingly, over that time – whether they call themselves the Republican Party, conservatives, Christian nationalists, Tea Partiers, John Birch Society, MAGA, or whatever; they have increasingly realized that they are most successful when they operate in that system, with the stated goal of destroying it.
What has morphed from the original Republican narrative of being conservative, and pro-business, yet realizing that the social constructs inherent in 20th century American democracy have been a core part of their success, has now become a structure – where at least on paper – they are looking to destroy the 20th-21st century American democratic republic we all depend upon.
What then?
When you are seeking to compromise with the uncompromising, how do you do it? When you are dealing with those who are not looking to work within the system, but rather to use your faith in the rules of that system to destroy it, and place you under their power.
In a way, it's ironic. In that, often, though they see themselves as independent - and therefore are contemptuous of our form of government - they are the ones most dependent upon it. The school teacher, firefighter, cop, or soldier who is anti-government - yet gladly takes a government paycheck every week. Who enjoys much better medical care, paid time off, defined retirement benefits, etc. as a member of that government than they would as a common laborer in the system they claim to despise.
Also, the business owner, farmer, builder. Getting low cost loans to improve his land because he is polluting his neighbors with his activity. Tax write offs, subsidies, oil and tax credits. Etc. Access to public roads underwritten by those very taxes they despise. The deficit didn't explode because working people got their tax payments lowered to 15%. They still pay over 1 dollar out of every 20 for Social Security whereas a rich man quits paying once he gets over $150k. Which happens for someone like Elon Musk about what, January 3rd? They don’t mind welfare, they just don’t like it for poor people.
A country boy can indeed survive, long as his dole check comes every month.
And let's not forget the most holy. Definitely let's don't forget them. Competing with the private sector with gyms, daycares, coffee houses, etc. All while enjoying tax free status. Why do they receive that, when - as you note - one of the first commandments of our Bill of Rights is that Congress should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion," - so why do they get a monetary pass on their weight room?
Yet they are all the most contemptuous and detesting of our way of government. “Do not hold us to any standard, or any law, but don't you dare touch our tax status.”
Liberty University owns about half of greater Lynchburg; 'cause God needs a Division 1 football team, eh? Really? Is that really what Jesus would do, if He could have gotten the tax breaks. I ain’t buying that. Something is wrong with that picture.
And don’t forget the Republican state legislatures. The states that consistently vote to tear down the federal system are the ones who typically receive the most money from it. Which was why Mitch McConnell quieted down pretty quick when Chuck Schumer offered to have states only receive from the federal government the money they paid into it. Fact is, Republican states are welfare states.
So the question is, is your suggested meek and trusting method of compromise with the uncompromising in the best interests of those of us who do believe in the America of today?
It's certainly more enjoyable. Pleasant. And tempting. I can see why you and others like it. It is the path of least resistance. Yet, often time, the easier way is not necessarily the best way. I wish it were, but it isn't.
When time and again, you compromise with the uncompromising, eventually you've moved so far in their direction - you no longer are where you thought you were.
Best example I can give is immigration. I think of my views on the matter, and they mesh perfectly with the ones that were expressed by HW Bush and Reagan in their debate for the Republican nomination in 1980:
I have pretty much kept those views my whole life; views of compassion, honesty, and pragmatism regarding how we treat a whole class of citizens - and yet - whereas 40 years ago - they would have landed me solidly in the Republican camp - now days I would be run out as an apostate. A, dare I say it, liberal.
Yet, I haven't moved an inch. So who moved?
Likewise, Obamacare was originally a nationalized version of the Romneycare plan that had been successfully implemented in Massachusetts.
Suggested as a compromise, which Democrats and independents accepted - when they really wanted the guaranteed healthcare that the rest of the first, as well as most of the second world enjoys.
Yet Republicans, rather than accepting the compromise that was based upon their very own ideas - look to undercut it every chance they get. Is that good faith?
As usual, Leo Watkins breaks things down rather nicely. The two-party system in a democracy works when those who don't get enough votes to win an election remain the loyal opposition. One of our parties has forgotten that. The result is that when an election does not go their way, insurrectionists storm the capitol and those already inside the chambers of government try to bring down the system from within. There is too much at stake for fools to be taken in by so-called third-party candidates and waste their vote "on principle."
After being thoroughly repudiated by the voters of Spotsylvania County the decent thing for Mark Taylor to do is resign. If he has any sense of fairness he will not continue to take over a quarter of a million dollars a year for a position for which he is not qualified, and for a performance of which the majority of voters strongly disapprove.
Apparently there's now a limit on comment length. You think they would let you know what the rules are somewhere.
Anyway - short version - if you are continually compromising with the uncompromising - eventually you'll find yourself in a place you no longer recognize. And being represented by Tara Durant, when either Joel Griffin or Monica Gary is who you preferred.
So maybe your plan isn't as smart as you think, eh?
Now I'm curious what the parameters are. So I'll try posting the original comment this way, as a work around. Maybe it'll work, maybe it won't.
I went to the grocery store the other day. As I often do. NO matter the store, the transaction's pretty much the same. I choose what I want, walk to the counter, pay for it, leave.
On the rare occasion something is wrong, I return, we talk about it - attempt to reach a satisfactory consensus - and consider the matter resolved. If not, we both have known options for resolution. Suit, complaint, courts.
That resolution, though not perfect, is built upon tenets of trust. Things that are given. So built into the process, we rarely think about them. We don’t need to.
That money is a satisfactory tender. Laws are applicable. We have a mutual desire for success.
The food they sell me isn't laced with an unexpected poison (fentanyl as compared to alcohol, sugar, or nicotine). They will not rob me on the way out of the store. I will not try to steal the item without payment.
It works. Mostly. Modern capitalism is built upon those intangible trusts. From them, we all profit.
But what if one of us has proven themselves, time and again, to be untrustworthy? Who has goals beyond mutual benefit?
Would we approach the transaction the same way with a kidnapper, terrorist, or enemy? Someone who wants something more than to just make a profit. Who has other aims rather than just our mutual success?
What then?
Is it wise to approach the transaction the same way?
Time and again, many - myself included over the last 30-40-50 years, have tried to apply those same rules of marketplace consensus, respect, and compromise you describe to the political arena.
Yet, increasingly, over that time – whether they call themselves the Republican Party, conservatives, Christian nationalists, Tea Partiers, John Birch Society, MAGA, or whatever; they have increasingly realized that they are most successful when they operate in that system, with the stated goal of destroying it.
What has morphed from the original Republican narrative of being conservative, and pro-business, yet realizing that the social constructs inherent in 20th century American democracy have been a core part of their success, has now become a structure – where at least on paper – they are looking to destroy the 20th-21st century American democratic republic we all depend upon.
What then?
When you are seeking to compromise with the uncompromising, how do you do it? When you are dealing with those who are not looking to work within the system, but rather to use your faith in the rules of that system to destroy it, and place you under their power.
Again, what then?
In a way, it's ironic. In that, often, though they see themselves as independent - and therefore are contemptuous of our form of government - they are the ones most dependent upon it. The school teacher, firefighter, cop, or soldier who is anti-government - yet gladly takes a government paycheck every week. Who enjoys much better medical care, paid time off, defined retirement benefits, etc. as a member of that government than they would as a common laborer in the system they claim to despise.
Also, the business owner, farmer, builder. Getting low cost loans to improve his land because he is polluting his neighbors with his activity. Tax write offs, subsidies, oil and tax credits. Etc. Access to public roads underwritten by those very taxes they despise. The deficit didn't explode because working people got their tax payments lowered to 15%. They still pay over 1 dollar out of every 20 for Social Security whereas a rich man quits paying once he gets over $150k. Which happens for someone like Elon Musk about what, January 3rd? They don’t mind welfare, they just don’t like it for poor people.
A country boy can indeed survive, long as his dole check comes every month.
And let's not forget the most holy. Definitely let's don't forget them. Competing with the private sector with gyms, daycares, coffee houses, etc. All while enjoying tax free status. Why do they receive that, when - as you note - one of the first commandments of our Bill of Rights is that Congress should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion," - so why do they get a monetary pass on their weight room?
Yet they are all the most contemptuous and detesting of our way of government. “Do not hold us to any standard, or any law, but don't you dare touch our tax status.”
Liberty University owns about half of greater Lynchburg; 'cause God needs a Division 1 football team, eh? Really? Is that really what Jesus would do, if He could have gotten the tax breaks. I ain’t buying that. Something is wrong with that picture.
And don’t forget the Republican state legislatures. The states that consistently vote to tear down the federal system are the ones who typically receive the most money from it. Which was why Mitch McConnell quieted down pretty quick when Chuck Schumer offered to have states only receive from the federal government the money they paid into it. Fact is, Republican states are welfare states.
So the question is, is your suggested meek and trusting method of compromise with the uncompromising in the best interests of those of us who do believe in the America of today?
It's certainly more enjoyable. Pleasant. And tempting. I can see why you and others like it. It is the path of least resistance. Yet, often time, the easier way is not necessarily the best way. I wish it were, but it isn't.
When time and again, you compromise with the uncompromising, eventually you've moved so far in their direction - you no longer are where you thought you were.
Best example I can give is immigration. I think of my views on the matter, and they mesh perfectly with the ones that were expressed by HW Bush and Reagan in their debate for the Republican nomination in 1980:
https://www.bing.com/videos/riverview/relatedvideo?q=bush+reagan+debate+immigration&mid=CBA21940F3C7644CEE18CBA21940F3C7644CEE18&FORM=VIRE
I have pretty much kept those views my whole life; views of compassion, honesty, and pragmatism regarding how we treat a whole class of citizens - and yet - whereas 40 years ago - they would have landed me solidly in the Republican camp - now days I would be run out as an apostate. A, dare I say it, liberal.
Yet, I haven't moved an inch. So who moved?
Likewise, Obamacare was originally a nationalized version of the Romneycare plan that had been successfully implemented in Massachusetts.
Suggested as a compromise, which Democrats and independents accepted - when they really wanted the guaranteed healthcare that the rest of the first, as well as most of the second world enjoys.
Yet Republicans, rather than accepting the compromise that was based upon their very own ideas - look to undercut it every chance they get. Is that good faith?