Oh, yeah, BevD?

"34.--If we had no pride we should not complain of
that of others.

132.--It is far easier to be wise for others than to
be so for oneself."

La Rochefoucauld, Maxims.

Since you have not met my demand to show me some credentials, what say we stick to discussing ideas instead of engaging in unsolicited psychological profiling? Nevertheless, you did me a favor by giving me feedback (you think I’m kidding but I’m not), so let me again say “thank you” for caring enough to posit your arguments and to correct me in my foolishness. Also, I apologize for misunderstanding your comments on the poetry slam contestant and judging you unfairly.

Now, let’s take some of your statements and examine them. In your original critique, you said,

“Everyone thinks he is the one who is loyal only to principles and reason and not to the fallible individual, but principles and reason are the affairs of humans and will always be what the individual says they are and will always be one of the individual's self interest compromised with society's interest.”


The first assertion in the above sentence is not true, BevD. Keeping in mind we’re discussing politics, many people are not very thoughtful when it comes to principles, even if they believe they care about them. Many more give lip service to principles but lack insight into what they really believe; and, this type often discovers when the chips are down that their principles actually didn’t run very deep. A good example is the character of Kurtz in “Heart of darkness” In the world of politics, reason is often used primarily to rationalize ones actions, often after the fact (perhaps the abundance of attorneys in the political world is a factor here). However, in every camp, some minority of individuals truly are committed to core values. Effective use of reason requires that one be scrupulous in testing the truth of ones assumptions, ever mindful of the fallibility of human cognition (see previous comments about developing an accurate map). Finally, there are two types of people, plain fools and fools who realize they are fools. I aspire humbly to be among the latter.

“That great army you see, those "new people" are as far ranging in beliefs, in principles, in reason and in self-interest as they've always been and I hope, will continue to be, because the alternative is unbearable - who will decide those principles and reason that will rule the "new people"? You? A politician? A mob? The majority? What will happen to those individuals who step outside of your vision of reason and principles? Reason and principles are as fallible as the individual who makes them.”

Yes, exactly so. My post argues that grassroots movements such as the supporters of B. Hussein Obama have the potential to empower their members to hold candidates accountable. Perhaps you have been watching the HBO special on John Adams. John and Abigail were highly concerned about powerful people who had insufficient accountability; and, their conversations contributed to the presence of checks and balances in our Constitution (feel free to correct any historical inaccuracies you spot). However, the accountability in our governmental system seems to have broken down. A huge percentage of US voters believes we should get out of Iraq and the Democratic majority in Congress has been used by Bush and Cheney the way Gov. Spitzer used that call girl. The optimism in my post stems from my belief that coalitions of voters may be able to increase the accountability of government officials and reduce the influence of the wealthy and connected. Some one has to be in charge, don’t they? Who do you think it should be? On the one hand, you argue for the altruistic nature of people (which often is potentiated by witnessing disaster); yet, you seem to believe that people who organize in order to influence political causes are necessarily going to pursue narcissistic agendas.

“Your concept of the millions with the money and the networks to enforce their will upon society is as tyrannical as the millions with money and networks are now, and the only hope we have is that there is a fallible individual to recognize tyranny in all its forms, even that of the "new people…”

I'm really not seeing how you think political networks are going to impose their will on the country. Are you talking about the manner in which Sen. Obama has nearly secured the Democratic nomination? Wise people understand that compassion and justice for others is also self-interest and that the objects of greed and lust don’t satisfy our appetites but rather leave us feeling empty. My vision is of people who care getting involved, identifying leaders who appear to have “the right stuff,” and viewing part of their role as supporters being to stay informed and hold the leaders accountable. Technology can serve an important role is helping democracy work better. I see Sen Obama’s movement as having many of the qualities I’m looking for. He is an inspiring leader whose success depends upon retaining the support of those millions of small contributors who also love to get involved in his mission. This appears to me to be democracy working better than I’ve ever seen it in my 55-years of life.

We could discuss your other remarks having to do with susceptibility to spin, the way Ramesses got more credit than he deserved, etc; but, it’s late and I need to get to bed. I’ll just add here that certainly everyone can be manipulated and it is important to be skeptical and to utilize sound research methods in coming to any major conclusions. Of course, if one is omniscient, one doesn’t have to be bothered with the challenges of testing ones hypotheses.