The Two Sides

2003-12-4 16:10:00

John C:
It takes two to tango. One side can't engage in a war all by itself. I believe it was the conservatives who declared a "culture war" a number of years ago.

JJ:
That's why I gave the possibility of either side creating the rebellion. I have never heard of this culture war you mention. Do you have any reference on it? Was it some lone individual who mentioned it or a group or what?

John:
In the meantime both sides, through their hypocrisy and antics, have managed to alienate a large share of the population. The so-called moderates or undecided have correctly guessed that they no longer have a voice on either side.

JJ:
I'm fairly moderate on many issues and think I have as much voice as anyone (if I put my attention on it). I don't always get my way, but no one does in any system.

John C:
It's a battle between the ideological die-hards on each side. And when things get so bad in this country that those in the middle can no longer stomach it, they will seek change, but they won't get it because the Republican-Democrat axis has locked them out of the system, without legal or political recourse.

JJ:
I do not understand how anyone can be locked out of the system as long as we have free speech and can channel our resources in any direction we choose. If you feel locked out there is always ways to go around the system.

Take President Reagan. He got a huge tax decrease through a democratic congress. How did he get many members of Congress to vote on something they were strongly against?

How do environmentalists get their ideology enforced that the majority often scream about?

In a free society one is never locked out as long as there is freedom to act. You do not need to be in the majority to get things done, even thought it is much easier.

John C:
This mock battle between the left and the right is just a smokescreen to hide the real struggle -- or the struggle which is yet to emerge.

JJ:
I do not see this as a smokescreen. The battle is always between the left and the right, even though the left and the right are always in different points of the pendulum.

John C:
Neither side would dare destroy the other because they define each other and they need each other to survive. When the real struggle emerges, a lot of people will be caught by surprise.

JJ:
If what we have now is not the beginning of the real struggle I would like to know what is. I think if you look back ten years from now that you will see that the problems in the near future will be branches and extensions of what is now at play.

No one expects either side to be destroyed. I think most expect power to sift between the two sides for a long time to come.

John C:
Back when we were having the "cold war" between East and West, some visionaries warned us that the real threat was from terrorists, not the Communists. Our leaders ignored warning this until we received our wake-up call on 9-11.

JJ:
Totalitarianism was and a real threat and still can dominate unless we are vigilant.

Terrorism was not as great of a treat in the past because we now have much more destructive weapons that they can get their hands on. We should have woke up 5-10 years before 911.

John C:
If there is a civil war in this country, and I agree that it is a very real possibility, I don't think it will be between the liberals vs. the conservatives, but between the two-party oligarchy which has had this country by the "short and curlies" for way too long, and those people who don't like the direction either party is taking us, and who see that all the legal remedies are blocked.

JJ:
However it turns out it will be the liberals against conservatives. I believe the tension between the two parties will increase after the next election. I will say this. When the molecular politics is introduced both parties will rebel against it. In this case those supporting molecular politics will be the liberals and those against it will be conservatives (for the status quo).

Quoting JJ:
If Dean (or someone else) wins and attempts to take away additional freedom of speech - such as implementing the Fairness Doctrine that is talked about - (or increasing taxes) then the conservatives could rebel.

John C:
As if to imply that the other side is interested in restoring freedom or speech or further cutting taxes. I'll believe it when I see it.

JJ:
The tendency fluctuates, but I do not see the Republicans at this time talking about anything that will limit speech, excepting the handful who followed McCain in campaign finance reform - which was mainly supported by the Democrats.

This desire though to institute the Fairness Doctrine by controlling speech is very troubling. A handful of Republicans. would support this, but most of the Democrats would for it would silence talk radio.

I don't care which side it is that is speaking there should not be laws regulating speech, especially political speech.

John C:
I guess the difference between you and me is that I don't see those as two extremes. I see them as two sides of the same coin, appearing to differ, while trading off wins and losses over trivia, and at the same time cutting little backroom deals to incrementally chip away at our freedoms, while increasing the power of government at all levels.

JJ:
But the two sides of the same coin bears entirely different images with different philosophies. Some of the differences are trivia, but some are huge, such as free speech and freedom to spend our money as we choose.

Both sides have their problems and we go through cycles where one will be closer to the middle way than the other. In the Fifties and Sixties the Democrats were closer. Now I think the Republicans are. In another 20 years it is likely to shift again.

Of course both sides of the equation always looks on the other as the extreme, but after a generation or two passes the real truth is seen. For instance, most are finally looking at the Fifties and the Sixties with a much more accurate prospective than those who were living in them.