2004-7-31 11:15:00
John Writes:
I liked the idea of finding common areas of agreement and also of balancing the sometimes-conflicting needs of both sides. I think this "emotional civil war" needs to be toned down before real bullets start flying.
I just wanted to add a few comments for your consideration.
I go along with the teaching of King Mosiah in the Book of Mormon that the majority voice of the people will usually make the right choice, but as he says, there is a chance that the people could will make the wrong choice, and if they consistently choose evil over good, that nation is in trouble.
JJ:
This is correct. But if we have a case where the majority support evil one will usually find a situation where the people are ill informed or indoctrinated by the State over a period of time.
There is a dominating good in the majority, as a whole, that may not see the quantum leap ahead, but are willing to take baby steps in progression.
Then once in a while a visionary leader, like Kennedy, can make this majority support something like going to the moon.
John C:
You mentioned supporting the freedoms outlined in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Do you think this covers freedoms listed in the Declaration of Independence, or should that document also be mentioned?
JJ:
Good point. I've added it.
John C:
In (13) you denounce the use of the term "extremist", but in (14) you use that term. If one reads carefully, one can see the distinction, but I don't know if the average person quickly reading this could see the differences in the way you apply that term. Perhaps a bit more clarification or use a different term. I agree that labeling an opponent as an "extremist" or a "Nazi" is a distortion, but maybe you could make the distinction between CALLING somebody an extremist, and someone actually BEING an extremist. And that if a person truly IS an extremist, it is correct to label them for what they are.
JJ:
Good point, but the trouble is both sides see extremism where there is none, yet they believe they are correct. What we want to encourage is for the person to describe the problem and solution rather than to just label the other as an extremists for political purposes.
I also make an allowance for "good extremism" with the wording as follows: "If I happen to have extreme views which I believe to be of value to will seek to persuade by education rather than by law or force."
I've altered the word on this to avoid confusion.
John C:
I know you are trying to steer clear of the controversial issues, but here are a few things you might consider adding, unless you have already determined that they would be too divisive.
JJ:
What we are trying to do is to find common ground where both sides will say "I agree with this." The idea is to push them toward a mindset where they realize they have more common ground on values and issues than they thought and thus create a step in healing the great divide. The issues you bring up are good ones that need a solution, but the solution will usually come down on one side or another where close to 50% will grumble.
I'll make a few comments to illustrate my point.
"Immigration policy."
One side wants a liberal immigration policy largely because most immigrants vote for them and the other wants restrictions because they do not receive many votes. Both need to do what is best for the country rather than the party which is one of the precepts in the Principles of Unification.
"Marriage, children, and family. Divorce."
Again conservatives and liberal have very different views on this matter.
"Rights of States vs rights of Federal Government."
Again there is a division. Conservatives generally want States Rights and traditional liberals want more federal power.
"Gay rights. If not marriage or civil unions, then what?"
This is a very hot button issue that the two sides will not agree on for some time, but does need to be resolved.
"The need for an educated, involved electorate so that the views of the majority (not just the motivated few) are represented."
Here you are on to something where both sides could agree.
I cover this somewhat in item 12 which deals with the very important subject of history which both sides give lip service to.
"I accept and support the idea that we can save ourselves much grief by learning from the mistakes of history so we do not repeat them. It is therefore of extreme importance that the youth be accurately taught, without censorship, national and world history in a way that is of interest and will be absorbed by them. I will oppose all those who revise history in distorted fashion for political gain."
"Right to ownership and control of one's own land."
I personally agree with this, but most environmentalists think that the government should have more control than you to protect species and the environment.
"Gun rights."
Another issue where there is strong division.
"Laws which do not punish people for crimes actually committed, but laws which seek to protect us from our own stupid acts. For example: seat belt and helmet laws. Can we strike a sensible balance between government responsibility and personal responsibility?"
Again, close to half the people think we need laws to protect us from ourselves. Educating the public will help solve this issue.
"The conditions under which it is appropriate to intervene as we did in Iraq."
Again, a very divisive issue.
"The conditions under which it is appropriate to court world opinion and seek allies, and when it is appropriate to go it alone."
Universal agreement would be difficult on this and some guidelines are good, but some judgment must always be allowed for the future circumstances are difficult to foresee.
Take a look at the world in 1940. It was Britain (with some U.S. support) against the whole world. We definitely didn't want to court world opinion at that time, but who could have predicted the situation back in 1935?
John C:
I'm not asking you to take any particular stand on these issues, but to take a balanced perspective on these issues as you have on the other issues.
JJ:
Any stand taken on most of these issues will not be considered balanced by a third or more of the people.
The situation we have on these issues is the mind (Aquarian Age) against the emotions (Piscean Age). They must be resolved by the use of incoming energies of wisdom and reasoning while at the same time providing some emotional comfort. The next two hundred years will bring great change and when the Aquarian energies finally dominate we will look back on this time period with wonder, something like we look back on the slavery issue before the civil war.
The answer seems obvious to us now, but it was very divisive and volatile back then.
One thing to keep in mind is that if both sides practice what they claim to believe many these divisive issues would be resolved. For instance, if one accepts the principles of freedom and the Constitution and Bill of Rights one would have difficulty opposing the right to bear arms which is clearly outlined in the Constitution.
What kind of arms is another matter. Obviously we do not want our neighbor making a nuclear bomb in his basement, but neither should we restrict him from reasonable power of self defense.
The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary. H. L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Copyright 2004 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved