Democrats & Liberals Archives

Good Faith Governance

North Korea is a good distraction for Republicans from their troubles with Mark Foley the way your daughter getting run over is a good distraction from your dog getting shot by the neighbor. Both events present to us a legacy of promises unfulfilled, and boasts made hollow by the failure of their theories to reflect reality. If we are to truly triumph this election day, we Democrats must avoid repeating their mistakes.

For years, the Bush Administration and the Republican Congress and Senate have told us that their leadership was better than everybody else's was. Unfortunately for them, Americans took that seriously. Unfortunately for this country, Americans took them at their word. Fortunately enough, Americans seem to be correcting both mistakes. The real question, and the fair question to boot, is whether or not Democrats will actually do any better. Democrats must prove themselves good as their word.

If the votes go our way as we believe they will, it is our obligation, and the only strategy that makes good sense. The Republicans have spent over twelve years telling America that we have no business running the country, that we are bad on defense, spendthrifts who can't be trusted with Congress's purse-strings, tax maniacs who will take everything people have at the drop of a hat. Faced with such negative impressions, we do ourselves little good by walking on eggshells trying to avoid the appearance of fulfilling those stereotypes.

We should acknowledge, though, that a past generation of our leaders did do things that justified such a skewed image of the party as a whole. Looking at today's congress, I cannot help but recall the mess that got us kicked out of the majority. Even now, though, I hear rumors of Democrats taking over where the Republicans left off. I find this a sorry state of affairs for those people, and for our party, if they happen to be leaders. The truth is, such behavior would not only ignore the lessons of the Republican's fate in the 2006 election, but would even more foolishly ignore the troubles that got us kicked out in the first place.

The battle to defeat the Republican Congress will continue until we can guarantee that the generation of Republican leaders that lead us down this garden path are out of majority power permanently. It will continue until our own people show themselves especially worthy of the privilege of elected office, in comparison to those we are replacing. Right now, our potential rise to power is founded more on the failures of our rivals than of any great achievements of our own. If we equal their ineptitude, we will not only share their fate, but validate their claims that as bad as they were, we were worse. It will be a pathetic thing to win power with such a clueless mindset, and lose it so quickly afterwards. If we have any ambitions for the White House in 2008, we'd better not waste the opportunity this upcoming election presents. As we earned our political fall from grace in 1994, we must earn our restoration to power, in both the legislative and executive branches.

The politicians on our side must realize that we will not permit such a farce, that if they continue to thwart the return of our party to power with their behavior, they will find themselves on the business end of a negative vote. We should be willing to hand the seat over to a Republican temporarily, rather than suffer the presence of a corrupt senator or representative. Our principles should extend beyond the hope of good government towards the reality of it.

America needs good faith governance, leadership and government it can believe in. Natural disasters should not be used as opportunities to educate people about the virtues of limited government. A failure of defense on two fronts should not be spun as brilliant strategy, despite their obvious results. We need a government that doesn't go to war without a decent reason and decent evidence for the need. We need a government that sends us to war without hobbling our soldiers with politically originated limits on manpower, strategy, and even the truths they'll admit to. Americans need to know that when the nation needs the sacrifice, it will ask for it, rather than let problems compound and complicate the pursuit of good policy, both foreign and domestic

America needs a government that asks for it to pay now for the benefits it gets now, rather than saddling the country with the illusion of low cost government, and the reality of high priced debt. Americans will only set taxes and the size of government with any kind of realism when they are faced directly with the out of pocket costs of their government. when deficit spending is the rule, there is no bright-line difference between responsible and irresponsible spending. The Democrats must end that, or else any plans for the productive use of government on America's behalf will be a pipe dream at best.

Americans need to know that we will bring back the free-market as it was supposed to be run: with the rule of law in place, with our corporations will be held to a new degree of honesty and scrupulousness regarding their finances, and that speculation and trickery will take a backseat to productive business practices. Americans need to know that their interests come first. We need to restore America's trust in business, and business's focus on giving something to its community and it customers for the money it earns. There is no entitlement to profit in a capitalist economy, and a capitalist economy only works when people know what they're being sold, and acknowledge the truth of what they're selling. It only works when the parts of our economy don't grind at each other and break in the absence of effective regulation and disclosure.

Americans need to know that we have plans, that we're not simply governing 90 days ahead like the Republican leadership. Years of ruthless Republican dominance has made for an easy excuse not to come up with detailed solutions that would never see the light of day, but after November, we will no longer have that excuse. We will be in charge, and we must make the distinction between ourselves and our rivals. The days of easy politics are over, come November. We had better be prepared for it.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at October 10, 2006 8:05 AM
Comments
Comment #187473

Yes Stephen Carl Rove Called up the little man From North Korea and ask him to test a Nuke Bomb so that the Foley story would leave the front page of the New York Times.Its Sad But True.Tomorrow he is calling the little man from Iran to ask him to Nuke Isreal to Get off the front page the Fact that you beleive Mumbo Jumbo.

Posted by: PETRO at October 10, 2006 4:56 PM
Comment #187477

Stephen,

As usual, another excellent article. There are a couple of things that I did not completely agree with. One is: Winning both houses in November would certainly give us more responsibility for the future - but not full responsibility - we still would have to deal with the incompetent son of the founder of the Bush Dynasty and the Supreme Court that he has packed.

However I am also concerned about what the Dems will do with power. I do not believe that the country can continue to stand Republican failures. So we have to stop the Republicans, but as soon as we do, we are going to have to stop ourselves - the Democrats. The reason for this is that the system is corrupt and corrupting. Until we have public financing of elections, our Presidents, Senators, and Representatives both Democrat and Republican are going to swim in the corrupting influence of the $$$special $$$interest sewers and their are going to smell like crap.

Posted by: Ray Guest at October 10, 2006 5:04 PM
Comment #187478

Sorry I wrote:

sewers and their are going
It should read: sewers and they are going…

Posted by: Ray Guest at October 10, 2006 5:08 PM
Comment #187480

Good Faith Governance, eh? I would be more inclined to allow for the Democratic Party to govern in good faith if I had seen any ‘good faith’ effort to oppose the attacks on the Constitution (habeus corpus, checks-and-balances, torture, unwarranted wire-tapping), the dismantling of the oversight capabilities of the government (FCC, SEC, FEMA) through political appointments of cronies and thugs, the writing of laws by lobbyists (Bankruptcy Act, Medicare perscription bill), or a Iraqi policy that mirrors the desires not only of the Iraqi people, but the American people as well, instead of plutocratic, imperialist bromides about fighting illegal wars ‘better’.

Make no mistake—the government we are witnessing has been enabled by the Democrats, through ineffectual oppostion, lackluster ideas, stagnant integrity, and a criminal silence.

We are now inching our way closer to a military ‘solution’ to Iran’s nuclear program. Where are the Democrats? There has been no national discussion of options, no insistence that any military force must be okayed by Congress.

There has never been a declaration of war since WWII by Congress—and how many police actions, interventions, humanitary or otherwise, have we been involved in? Why don’t we just pretend to have a nation of laws, a Constitution? Because that is all it is—one very large, adult, pretend game.

Hey, I got an idea. Why not also pretend to be the party of the working classes, defender of the sick, the elderly, the halt and the lame? Why not embrace some programs that will bamboozle the Middle Class into believing the party is fighting for them? Unfortunately, the poor, are onto the Dems—but the middle class is still hoping for a homerun from a punch-and-judy, .220 hitter with three career homeruns—all of them hit in high school with your eyes shut.

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 10, 2006 5:12 PM
Comment #187493

PETRO,

I find your comments very entertaining if albeit totally lacking in substance. They are like twinkies - poison - pointless - but delicious. Stephen never said that Rove called the “little man.” Stephen only said that the Bush Regime creates so much bad news that they often benefit when the new bad news pushes the old bad news off from the “front page.”

Posted by: Ray Guest at October 10, 2006 5:44 PM
Comment #187504

Tim Crow-
Do I have to spell everything out? I think what I wrote of in general covers those topics nicely. This is a short blog entry regarding a philosophical approach.

I acknowledge implicitly that this party has become too passive, that it needs to start gearing up for the real fight ahead. It needs to take up the responsibilities that this entails, and folks like me will damned if we accept from Liberals and Democrats what we berated in Republican and Conservatives.

This is a post warning of the necessity to turn things around. This is not a call to return to the status quo, even that of the time when we once had the majority

But you don’t take what I write seriously, and that’s a shame, because we agree on much more than you think. Next time ask me what I believe would be included in those approaches.

PETRO-
It’s quite ironic, if you think about it: Republicans like you and the president are about set to try and milk more political mileage off of the threats facing our country, even while your past approaches have contributed to our current problems.

What’s not ironic, but is quite annoying, is this red-herring technique of acting like we’re conspiracy nuts. Care to back up that silly charge? If we want to talk about overly conspiratorial thinking, the GOP thinking regard liberals qualifies far more. After all, you folks allege that we’re collaborators with practically every convenient threat to America.

What’s sad but true is that people actually believe such terrible things about their own fellow citizens, even when it benefits only those who enjoy seeing America divided over silly crap.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 10, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #187529

Stephen:

“But you don’t take what I write seriously, and that’s a shame, because we agree on much more than you think.”

I know we agree on much—that is why I call you to task in backing a party whose ideals and integrity have been compromised and corrupted. You’re of the opinion that the party is capable of ‘good governance’, of moral precepts that guide policy formulation, in short, that it still has integrity. I have very serious doubts about the Democratic party, in the guise it now takes, of truly representing the working classes, the ‘uncool’ and the ‘losers’ of this little neo-con-opted morality play we laughingly call free-market capitalism.

If indeed, your essay is a call to arms, then I’m all for it. But, I must admit that the party has drifted from it’s moorings—and the New Democrats of Clinton and Lieberman and Biden are not where the real Democratic party is. I think most thinking party members feel this, not just the ‘crazy lefties’ of which I seem to be a member. There was a time in the not-to-distant past when I was only moderately left of center in the Democratic Party. But the DLC and their Congressional buddies cured me of that.

The New Democrats believed that a new reality had appeared in the late eighties—that most Americans were successful enough, and had enough of the American Dream that the old, ‘inflamatory’, leftist rhetoric of the thirties and forties was no longer applicable. What we’ve witnessed in the last six years, is a re-emergence of the necessity to question the Horatio Algier, pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps assumptions the Center and the Right promulgate. The Middle Class, that great political amalgum of the Unwashed, is being squeezed, quietly, inexorably. Corporate profits and productivity are zooming, the Middle Class is being left behind. In fact, it has been since the mid-nineteen seventies. The simple fact of the matter is, wages are stagnant, and energy, health care, housing and food costs are skyrocketing. And the income inequity keeps getting bigger and bigger, and more and more people are falling into the economic cracks. There are way too many working people in this country that are busting their collective asses, doing the right thing, playing the game, and have little to show for it. Seventy-five per cent of the people that declared bankruptcy from medical bills the year that the lobbyist-crafted bankruptcy bill was passed, had medical insurance. Yet nineteen Democratic senators and 73 representatives voted for it. That isn’t lack of governence, or pragmatic politics—that is moral bankruptcy on full display.

You cannot tell me that the Democratic Party hasn’t tacitly supported such economic policy. They haven’t been losing elections because of the Evangelicals—it’s because the working class has been betrayed.

If I did not take your writing seriously, believe me, I wouldn’t bother responding. There is much dross on this blog. Your writings do not qualify—even remotely.

I suspect my calling you on your positions as a Democrat mirrors an inner battle that I have had for five-ten years now. Is the Democratic Party worth fighting for and saving from it’s corporate demons, it’s compromising it’s support of working-class roots, it’s union base, it’s populist economic message that was the backbone of the party?

Everything evolves to engender new realities, to correct mistakes, to make room for new ideas. But this country now has two parties—one centrist,corporatist and mildly Right, and one corporatist, hard right neo-con party. Nobody has to tell me this isn’t my dad’s Democratic Party. But I suspect more than a few luminaries of the party’s history would have left after witnessing the lack of guts, gumption, principle and leadership we have witnessed over the last ten years.

So, I don’t question and criticize your positions to be obtuse or belligerent. I truly question your positions to test whether you really can’t see that the Democratic party and what it stands for hasn’t been compromised and corrupted. I think a man of your talents and integrity should be outside of the party, not shoring it up.

Besides, I don’t see anyone from the Left calling the Dems on their lack of focus and principles. So, I guess it’s my job to be difficult. It’s nothing personal.

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 10, 2006 8:54 PM
Comment #187546

Tim Crow-
I have a very non-linear view of parties. I think they are a nice, placid exterior pasted on a very dynamic, very chaotic environment.

I look at things in terms of critical states which can emerge when people find their desires for or needs from the government frustrated.

It is out of such a perspective that I give my advice to Democrats: Don’t simply take the Republican’s place, do some good for the American people, because their frustrations with government are what are driving this dynamic wish for change. It’s not us. It’s not the liberal priniciples in general.

To get people on board with our agenda, we must both adapt our agenda to what people want out of a government, and what they need. Folks need to believe that there is a good reason to move towards Democratic and Liberal positions. They need to be motivated. They need to have satisfaction, if not gratitude motivating them to come back to our policies.

One reason I believe the Republicans are in trouble now is that they overestimated the growth and degree of conservatism in the country. I think Democrats have a great deal of room to grow policy into, not to mentions some demand for changes in policies to boot. That’s an opportunity we should take advantage of immediately. We should take a deep breath and let ourselves be liberals again.

We have to encourage the average Democrat, both declared and undeclared, to move towards these kinds of policies ahead of their leadership. Eventually, (hopefully not too eventually) the leadership will get our point, and remember what it was to be a majority party.

The political change of this country will not happen all at once. It never has. The surfaces have hid the tensions and forces that really bring these changes about, making them seem instant, but the truth is, these events are not the product of just those decisions.

This party has been compromised by its years in the wilderness, but it can be redeemed, changed, shifted towards a new future.

I have presented the opinion I have in hopes that dedication in the readers and others will help in some small part to turn the tide. I can’t change everything with one article, but hopefully, we can all help with our efforts.

As for doing these things inside or outside of the party? Well, if you define party in terms of the formal structure? Whatever’s to your taste.

The Democratic party, though, is more than just the formal organization you see. It is also, and in many ways mostly the informal society of people behind it. Some want to change from the top down. I believe it’s best to change from the bottom up, dealing with the top through the deepest, and perhaps most powerful structure of the party.

Otherwise, we may just find ourselves working against history, rather than with it. My approach is radical, even if its ultimate goals are no such thing.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 10, 2006 10:34 PM
Comment #187552

Stephen:

Your 10:34 post is acknowledged. I’m afraid I am unable to respond to it this evening.

Which is just as well—instead of leaping at initial impressions, I’ll have time to mull your thoughts over.

Thanks for the response.

Posted by: Tim Crow at October 10, 2006 11:20 PM
Comment #187590

A general comment:
On the subject of rejecting both parties, I think that’s a fairly futile gesture at the moment, and in many ways an irresponsible approach. The truth of the matter is that regardless of what one says, most people identify with one party or another.

We talk about campaign finance, but that’s a red herring when you really think about it. We have had the capability and still do to say no to an expensive ad campaign and vote down a candidate. Campaign financing is about marketing costs, and it doesn’t work on a public that keeps itself independently informed.

The real issue here is voters not turning out, and when they do, voting not to express their sentiments about how they should be governed, but to spite the other side.

Americans should understand that unless they are willing to consider alternatives, they cannot punish bad government. That is why I have advocated that Democrats be willing to vote for Republicans when the party fails to give them good choices.

Performance is the name of the game, and given what we got we have the full right to demand more. Ultimately, the question here is whether we let the outrages slide, or whether we start sticking up for ourselves. My message to my fellow Democrats is don’t make the same mistakes that the Republicans did in letting things slide or if you’re a politician in the party by doing things Democrats will be forced to defend from this awkward position of having rejected such behavior from the opposition.

Let’s not wait for political ideals to materialize, lets start making good choices for ourselves now with what we got.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 11, 2006 8:48 AM
Comment #187649

what you said was true. But what you DIDN’T say, is the reason we can’t get the job done. Business has been unlawfully subverting the Generally Accepted Accounting Standards since Reagan. Business and government have literally outlawed unions in our country. The playing field in the market place is way out of balance. The oligarchy has all the power and the people who built this country with their hands have no power. Democracy can’t work when working people have no power. The free enterprise system is NOT a free enterprise system if working people have no power.

The democratic politicians, like you say, will only talk about fighting an illegal war “right”. And then they make statements like having “funding for the benefit of the middle class”. But we have to tell it like it really is. Its not even complicated. But we can’t beat around the bush about it.

Posted by: james w fisher at October 11, 2006 2:29 PM
Comment #187662

James W. Fisher-
Despair is slavery. Yes, things are bad, but just complaining about that solves nothing. We have to make it clear to anybody who sets foot in the Chambers of Congress or the White House that its our way or the highway, and then put them on the nearest on-ramp for obscurity if they don’t choose our way.

If we are faced with a candidate that is only marginally better than the other, we choose them, and make our wishes known to them. Bit by bit, if we have the will, we can force the selection of a congress more compliant with America’s wishes and interests.

If we do nothing, though, the simple patterns of power will take over, and our prophecy will fulfill itself. People have to care, and act along the lines of what they care about.

As for the Democratic Party politicians? To put it simply, like all others, they are expendable. The current crop of Democrats are not necessary to the return of good liberal politics to the forefront. They either help us, or they can go. I think I made such points clear. The party is more than a bunch of politicians, liberalism is more than some old guard of incumbents.

I’m not one of those who believes in the complete rejection of incumbents as being a sound plan, but I have no great attachment to incumbency either. I think people should take advantage of primaries to ensure that we aren’t simply forced to vote for the same guy by an unopposed candidacy. The will of people has to have some way to vent through our party, or else it will suffer the fate that the Republicans are dealing with now.

We either become the change, or we become victims of it.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 11, 2006 3:09 PM
Comment #187790

O.K. Stephen Let me get see if I understand what you are saying.Kick out The Democrats But don’t Vote for Republicans.Kick out Republicans but dont Vote for Democrats.Win The War but Do not kill any body.Support the Troops but don’t support the war.Defeat the enemy but fight to give the enemy The upper hand by letting Larry King interogate them.And last but not least Weaken the president but demand that the President be strong when dealing with Iran,North Korea.Sounds Like a plan to me.

Posted by: PETRO at October 12, 2006 12:56 PM
Comment #187850

PETRO-
1)Democrats that don’t govern right are no different in my eyes from Republicans who fail at it. I am willing to replace them, and I believe that’s a better approach than letting the problems these kind of scumbags represent fester like the GOP have done.

2)Conversely, I can tolerate Republicans when they stand for principles of good government, rather than merely a naive, disorganized, politically motivated hodgepodge of ideology.

3)You know you’re in trouble when you rely on body counts to tell people you’re winning. It’s the most optimistic approach because the tally can only go up.

We killed hundreds of thousands of soldiers in the Vietnam war, won nearly ever battle. But winning wars is about attaining strategical objectives, and if you plan them right, you don’t have to get many of your own soldiers killed, or take out many of the opposition’s to win.

That said, you should go back and read through my posts. I’m pretty honest about saying that a higher body count would have been acceptable if progress had been made and made permanently. It’s not the enormity of the sacrifice that gets people, its the reason its having to happen at all: Dishonesty and negligence on the part of the administration. Most people, if you ask them, acknowledge the need to bring Iraq back to full security and autonomy. But they do not believe that this war was the right course of action, and with good cause.

4)We support the troops, especially in this dark hour. We’ve been telling your President and his party to get on the ball making things easier for them, increasing their chances of bringing victory out of this mess, but you folks haven’t listened. You’ve been too busy feeding your own egos on what great supporters of the war you are. Unfortunately, you folks place an all too high emphasis on morale, and faith-based war fighting, abstracting the psychological aspects of war from the practical, and failing to provide material support, while you pat yourselves on the back for your moral support.

5)As for interrogations, I believe in getting results. Results to me mean both engaging in humane treatment of our enemies, and doing what it takes to get them to talk. Only the limits of imagination require that torture be the goto means of interrogation. Give the guy an operation, speak about the Quran, play on organizational rivalries, and you can often get better information than you could by beating the shit out of people.

6)As for weakening the president? He rejected us first, and he continues to reject those people who come to question his policies and his judgment. He’s the one who rushed into a war of choice without getting his facts and his planning straight. He’s the one who had us invade without a plan B. He’s the one who continues to use strong rhetoric with our worst enemies, but not back it up. The president was weak to begin with, and only made himself weaker by his own actions.

It’s a depressing thing to realize, to be sure, but if you don’t face it, the legacy of the Bush Administration will be a GOP needlessly repeating his mistakes to prove they weren’t mistakes in the first place.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 12, 2006 7:17 PM
Comment #187958

Stephen,

First off I think your post a good dose of reality for the Democrats. It is good advice that should be required reading for any new elected official regardless of party affiliation. They can merely exchange the philosophies for those that match their own.

Re your response to Fisher, I agree with your take on despair. Your position on primaries and incumbency is an ideal one, but not necessarily a good one. Incumbency advantages both in the election and the governing processes make a less than ideal incumbent more attractive than a replacement. The problem that the anti-incumbency movement faces is that we all see problems with the whole of Congress, but our individual representatives are there to serve our communities, and for the most part they do that better than serving the country as a whole.

Re your response to PETRO: It is representative of a trend that I have seen in your responses to those that disagree with you. It is much more caustic than it need me. There are a lot of personal messages embedded that are not necessary to complete the overall thought argument. It seems unlike you.

Are you feeling your oats as you get ready for a landslide in November or are you fundamentally changing your view that those that disagree with you have become more than merely the opposition?

It was more telling because at the top of the post, you say “I can tolerate Republicans when they stand for principles of good government, rather than merely a naive, disorganized, politically motivated hodgepodge of ideology.” You follow that up lower down with “You’ve been too busy feeding your own egos…” and “you folks place an all too high emphasis on morale…” and “but you folks haven’t listened…”.

While I think some of your criticisms are valid. I don’t necessarily think that all of those that disagree with you on the various issues of today do so out of some idealogic basis. When you result to this level of debate you fall prey to the same problems that Paul and Eric do when they resort to arguments based on emotions. The most critical among them presuming to understand the thought behind the less articulate of those that disagree with you.

I take exception to your writing style and not your message here because I think in general your writing style is part of your message. I believe that one of the things that you have been trying to convey is that you offer logical, reasoned responses to problems and that by extension so does the Democratic Party which is in juxtaposition to the “ditto heads” on the right. Resorting to the tactics of the other side seems to be contrary to the message in your initial post.

I take you at your word when you say that you intend to hold the Democrats to the same standards that you hold the Republicans. I hope that you will hold yourself in support of a majority government to the same standard that you have held defenders of the majority government today.

Finally, back to the original post, it seems like the logical next essay after this one is to take on those Democrats that you believe won’t live up to the standards to you have expressed above and recommendations or the voters represented by those Congresspeople to vote for their opponents. If that is an unreasonable request, an alternative would be a critique of the platform of the Democrats and where it meets or does not meet your standards for good governence.

As a Republican that has been forced to live with a Congress that doesn’t meet my expectations, I would like to see a more concrete yard stick for how to gauge the success of the Democratic Party in meeting the expectations of their base as well as a model for how to evaluate my Party if and when it returns to the majority.

Posted by: Rob at October 13, 2006 12:10 PM
Comment #187973

Stephen,

Another side note, the blinding support of an idealogy that you find so distasteful in Republicans today is something that those of us who grew up in the 80’s and the 90’s learned from the left.

While I think most of the left has shed itself of the political correctness that was in vogue in the late 80’s/ early 90’s. They’ve done so largely as they have had to become more pratical as an opposition party trying to weigh in against the excesses of a majority. Conservatives as they became the majority developed their own brand of political correctness.

As the Democrats and liberals move back into the majority, I think your words of wisdom should include a warning against developing too high a reliance on philosophy because that’s what seems to be the apex of the political movements over the past few decades.

Posted by: Rob at October 13, 2006 12:52 PM
Comment #188475

Rob-
I’m a bit of a paradox. Though my modus operandi is calm, logically constructed prose, I am motivated by quite a bit of anger, frustration, and annoyance. I prefer to channel that emotion, but it’s there, and sometimes it washes over into the content.

I do believe those things I said, to be sure. I do think the Republicans have become overconfident about their status as defenders of the realm, and protector of America’s purity of purpose. I do believe that the Republicans place far too high a value on moral support, while neglecting the more crucial values of material support. Equipment shortages have plagued this mission, support for our soldiers has never been so rare to come by. Never the less, the soldiers have become a political fulcrum by which many on the right leverage their arguments. To be quite frank with you, I think that’s a real cheap deal. Support, to me, entails more than just a pat on the back.

I’m not neutral in my feelings about such things. It angers me that Bush has sent good soldiers into battle the way he has. It angers me that my party gets roasted for its “disloyalty” year in and year out by the Republicans. I’ve never been anything but loyal, and I’m sure the loyalties of most Democrats lie with their country.

In my research for my theories on storytelling, some of which you may have encountered in my analyses of political communication, I learned that neurologists have found a deep connection between rationality, and emotion- our reasoning and our feelings are not separate. I’ve found that passion is the best driver when writing. To be rational is simply to be passionate while making deliberate choices. Frustration can lead to the passionate force of the argument being channeled in an unstructured way, to the material getting more caustic.

I understand, and in fact agree with your point. I don’t do much good with such material.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 16, 2006 8:33 PM
Post a comment