1) Pragmatically… more concerned with practical results than with theories and principles.
2) Idealistically… somebody who aspires to or abides by high standards of moral principles.
3) A combination of both.
4) Some other method.
|
1) Pragmatically… more concerned with practical results than with theories and principles.
2) Idealistically… somebody who aspires to or abides by high standards of moral principles.
3) A combination of both.
4) Some other method.
3.
But the questions are:
What is the correct proportion of 1 and 2?
Who gets to decide what are "practical" results?
Who gets to define what is and isn't "high standards of moral principals?"
Therein lie the arguments.
Apply that to the questions facing the founders who set-up government in America; what was their consensus?Quote:
Originally Posted by kindj
Crow this is an interesting continuation of the discussion you and excon had on my Afghanistan posting . The answer is that no one... NO ONE would have accused FDR of a contradiction in WWII ;aligning ourselves with the devil Joseph Stalin to defeat the devil Hitler . No one would have suggested that Roosevelt had abandoned or even compromised his principles of defending freedom.
It is absurd to say that President Bush is abandoning the principles of the Bush doctrine because for pragmatic reasons he has an alliance of convenience with Pervez Musharraf ,or the less than freedom loving Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan .
They did whatever it took to create the nation... and that included making a black 3/5th a person.Quote:
Apply that to the questions facing the founders who set-up government in America; what was their consensus?
Occasionally I try to warn people that for every Camelot there is a Mordred . Mordred can destroy Camelot if it is built rigidly on a house of unbending principles just by pointing out the contradictions and condemning Camelot when it doesn't live up to it's ambitious lofty standards .
I agree, Tom, but that don’t stop pundits from saying it. Still today I here anti-Americans pointing out how America joined force with Soviet Russia and imply that somehow we were wrong to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Politics is above all, negotiation about how we shall live together; understanding of politics as a management of conflicts (which etymologically makes sense). Monarchies have always been explicitly based on some sort of metaphysical rule; they always associated closely with religion. Anytime we allow ideologies to intervene in the political process, we compromise its integrity and substitute polemics for negotiation.
Concepts such as justice or fairness are not essential, sure people can inject them, and often do to justify democracy, but they are not necessary; democracy simply reflects the immanence of the crowd in the city. It's up to the crowd to decide, if the crowd wants to vote for a dictator, they are free to do so.
Hello DC:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
I vote for number #4. How about following the Constitution? You don't have to be real smart to do that. It's written for dummies.
excon
That’s like answering the question, “How do you make Beef Stew” and you answer “Start with beef Stew”.:confused:Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, DC:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Yes, I know you're confused. Let me see if I can help.
The Constitution isn't government. It's a RECIPE for government, just like beef stew ISN'T a recipe.
If you HAD a good recipe for beef stew, like our Constitution is a good recipe for government, AND YOU FOLLOWED IT, good beef stew would result. - just like good government would result if we followed the Constitution.
You don't have to be pragmatic. You don't need theories and principles. You don't need to be idealistic. You don't have to have a high standard of moral principles.
You just have to follow instructions.
excon
What a great Philosophy… :DQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, DCQuote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
Thanks, but I can't take credit for it. It was our founding fathers idea.
excon
What idea?Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Despite excon's glib response, the answer has to be #3.
First of all, the Constitution is NOT a suicide pact. There are times when pragmatism and survival have to take precedence over the ideals of the Constitution. Lincoln understood this, and that's why he suspended Habeas Corpus during the Civil War and jailed members of Congress who actively stood against the running of the war, both under his Presidential War Powers. FDR understood this, and that is why he interred Japanese Americans, also under his War Powers. Bush understands this, and that is why he uses the NSA to listen in on conversations among terrorists, tracks terrorist money transfers, etc.
In my opinion, the correct way to run a government is the way Ronals Reagan did it... with a sensible mix of idealism and pragmatism. The idealism was evidenced in his speeches. Some of his most notable quotes include:
Quote:
Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today's world do not have.
Quote:
I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.
Quote:
The ultimate determinant in the struggle now going on for the world will not be bombs and rockets but a test of wills and ideas-a trial of spiritual resolve: the values we hold, the beliefs we cherish and the ideals to which we are dedicated.
But at the same time, Reagan is also the guy whoQuote:
I've spoken of the Shining City all my political life. …In my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.
- funded research into the SDI system,
- deployed the Peacekeeper and Pershing missile systems,
- revived the B-1 Bomber project that was canceled by Carter,
- increased funding to the military,
- invaded Granada to fight against Leninist communists and Cuban regular army forces who had staged a coup,
- supported the mujahadeen of Afghanistan against the Soviet Union, even though he knew they weren't very nice people,
- sold weapons to Iran to support the Contras in Nicaragua as part of his anti-communist operations,
- signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act to control illegal immigration,
- actively worked against the Soviet Union to eliminate it as a threat.
Reagan wasn't a fool and he understood the threats that existed at that time and was active in protecting the country from those threats. He was idealistic in that he wanted America to be that "shining city" he spoke of, and inspired the nation to strive for that, but also knew that the shining city could not exist without protecting itself through pragmatic, sometimes morally and idealistically offensive actions.
In my opinion, Reagan had the perfect mix of idealism to inspire the nation and pragmatism to protect it from threat.
Elliot
Hello again, DC:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
I don't know. What idea/philosophy where you complimenting?
My guess is that it's the idea the founding fathers had that government isn't anything more than glorified garbage men. That they DO the tidying up, and keep things working. That idea?
In order to do that job well, you don't need to be pragmatic, have theories and principles, be idealistic, or have a high standard of moral principles. You just have to follow instructions – those instructions contained in the Constitution. That's all the Constitution is, is an instruction manual.
When I hire my garbage men, I don't inquire about their morals, because picking up my garbage has nothing to do with morals. I just give them instructions.
Running the government has nothing to do with morals. It has to do with following instructions - the instructions contained in the Constitution.
If ANYONE needs to be pragmatic and have a high standard of moral principles, it should be the ones who hold POWER. As the Constitution was written, that would be US – you and me.
Today, however, as a direct result of those powers being stripped from us over the last 200 years, the GOVERNMENT now has POWER over us – not the other way around.
The questions you asked about morality and things, would only be asked by someone who believes THAT status to be NORMAL and usual, and the way it's supposed to be.
It isn't, and I don't.
Given your original inquiry, the better way to govern, is to follow the Constitution. It ISN'T too late.
excon
Was the ‘instruction manual’ hatched whole and complete, given to us by God? How did it come about, what ideas are behind it, that was, and remains the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, DC:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_crow
It was?
See, that's the problem. I'm not smart enough to figure out what you're REALLY saying.
excon
Yep that Constitution.. even a child can do it.
That's why 3 founders wrote 85 essays dissecting the various aspects of the Constitution so the people could understand it.Federalist Papers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaQuote:
The Federalist Papers serve as a primary source for interpretation of the Constitution, as they outline the philosophy and motivation of the proposed system of government. The authors of the Federalist Papers wanted to both influence the vote in favor of ratification and shape future interpretations of the Constitution.
Agreed, Tom, nothing was more hotly debated than as to whether to ratify the constitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Interestingly enough John Jay in Federalist paper No. 2 penned an assumption… “Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.”
Now, was this assumption concluded Pragmatically, Idealistically, or in some other manner?
The only "idealistic" political parties, movements, or governments are *LIBERAL*... the natural heritage of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine. John Adams and many of the founding fathers of the American Republic who were men of the Enlightenment. The idea that "We the **people** form the government for *our benefit*....**not** some Divine Right King or some Religious Poobah. That We the People are all created equally and that we are entitled to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Very Liberal, all about the people.
Fascists favor power in the hands of a single Chief Executive who rules for the benefit of Corporations and Military. The fascists propagandize against the minorities in their society, like people of color in America, like Jews in Nazi Germany......FASCISTS "IDEALS" are policies of exclusion WHICH ARE NO IDEALS AT ALL!! Fascists have no high ideals except in their fantasies.
The *only* possible idealistic government is liberal government. All other philosophies of government such as libertarian, communist, conservative, fascist, theocracy, monarchy and so forth, are government of the strongest oppressing the average people, and often abusing the average people. MIGHT MAKES RIGHT, so to speak.
With that settled, government must be pragmatic...deal with real problems in a real world but not on the backs of "We the People" in favor of Divine Right, Militarism or Corporatism.
Elliot,
Ronald Reagan is the most *overrated* President in the history of the Republic.
Notice that you list mostly MILITARISTIC kudos for that man... you didn't mention that he reversed all the conservation measures regarding oil made by Jimmy Carter and set up irreconcilably on the course ending where we are today... embroiled in Resource Wars for Oil and victims of a Fascist Movement, Bush and the Bushies.
The Soviet Union was teetering and ready to collapse because it was already a failed economic and social system. Very Failed. It was America's cold war policy to totally avoid a hot war and just gradually bury the Soviet Union with our superior wealth and escalating national defense weapons... and so it worked.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:03 PM. |