I'd modify your 'core beliefs' to say 'core political beliefs.' Since I've been told before that I'm one of the last of the Romantic Idealists, I'd say that political philosophy should be a discipleship rather than a partisanship. This would mean transcending the constrictions of "party" affiliation, which is nothing more than an abstraction of 'core political beliefs.'

I hope you will note that what I said, and how you paraphrased what I said are 2 different things. let's look at what I said.. shall we?



"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Declaration Of Independence


"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The Preamble of the US Constitution

www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters.html

I'd be thrilled to discuss the concept of discipleship within these frameworks, as I also happen to think that Americans at large need to be reminded of what this nation is about. My use of the charters that founded this nation is grounded in my belief and understanding of 'the common good'. Obviously that is a matter of interpretation and perception.


ANDREW BACEVICH: "Empire of consumption." It's a phrase drawn from a book by a wonderful historian at Harvard University, Charles Maier, and the point he makes in his very important book is that, if we think of the United States at the apex of American power, which I would say would be the immediate post World War Two period, through the Eisenhower years, into the Kennedy years. We made what the world wanted. They wanted our cars. We exported our television sets, our refrigerators - we were the world's manufacturing base. He called it an "empire of production."

Sometime around the 1960s there was a tipping point, when the "empire of production" began to become the "empire of consumption." When the cars started to be produced elsewhere, and the television sets, and the socks, and everything else. And what we ended up with was the American people becoming consumers rather than producers.

BILL MOYERS: And you say this has produced a condition of profound dependency, to the extent, and I'm quoting you, "Americans are no longer masters of their own fate."

ANDREW BACEVICH: Well, they're not. I mean, the current debt to the Chinese government grows day by day. Why? Well, because of the negative trade balance. Our negative trade balance with the world is something in the order of $800 billion per year. That's $800 billion of stuff that we buy, so that we can consume, that is $800 billion greater than the amount of stuff that we sell to them. That's a big number. I mean, it's a big number even relative to the size of our economy. " Excerpt from Bill Moyer's Journal (Aug 15, 2008)

I see this as a huge problem. Not just due to one party, but by both parties, not just due to one administration, but a succession of them..and the American public for not being viligant and pro-active in our civil responsibilities. By all means let's engage in debate after debate about what is 'the common good' and then let's act from a concensus.. but I have lost confidence in a lot of (not all) people working on 'behalf' of this nation.

I'm not going to be drawn into a line by line debate of the Constitution to use as a weapon against one party or another, just as I do my best not to be sucked into using the Bible as a weapon. Yes, we are going to view how to run this country differently, yes, we are going to disagree on what is 'the common good'.. but that's the point, and that was the intent behind the charters of this nation.

Well excuse the hell out of me. I wasn't trying to twist your words around to be used as a weapon or anything. I was merely trying to reissue an invitation to expand upon the concepts you had introduced in an effort to get away from those who would hijack this thread with partisan turd tossing.


Well, I guess I can't argue with that. Nor is there room to. Harrumph! Harrumph! Time to move to a discussion about partisanship.

I suppose it doesn't matter, since our "core beliefs" are the accumulation of our life experience and if we express those beliefs politically, then I suppose those become our "core political beliefs."

I also understand why the word "discipleship" might be rather useful since we have many people who, when they hear the word "partisanship" react as if they had heard "Niagra Falls!" (see: 3 Stooges)

Perhaps we can split the difference and say "discipleship" describes ones adherence and strength of conviction regarded certain principles of political thought, whereas "partisanship" might refer to how strenuously one promotes those principles in face of political opposition.

. o O (Time to pause a moment and gather reaction)

In a signing statement appended to the preamble, George Bush said "In times of necessity it shall be lawful for the President to declare that the Constitution is neither established nor ordained."

I like that, shows initiative and leadership.

Just like The Intelligence Authorization Act of 2005, which was passed to restrict the President's employment of military force in Colombia. Its objective is to keep the United States military out of Colombia's civil war with narco-terrorists, which is pretty reasonable, I think.

Section 502(c) reads: "No United States Armed Forces personnel or United States civilian contractor employed by the United States Armed Forces will participate in any combat operation in connection with assistance made available under this section, except for the purpose of acting in self-defense or during the course of search and rescue operations for United States citizens."

President Bush signed this into law, but also added a signing statement nullifying the law that he had just signed. It asserted (bold mine): "The executive branch shall construe the restrictions in that section as advisory in nature, so that the provisions are consistent with the President's constitutional authority as Commander in Chief, including for the conduct of intelligence operations, and to supervise the unitary executive."

President Bush is pretty sharp -- it's like "You're out! I didn't say 'Simon Says!" It's like making a promise with your fingers crossed behind your back, sort of... he approves the bill, but he reserves the right to ignore the bill whenever he feels he wants to. Pretty darn clever if you ask me.

You should see what he has to say about the bill of rights!

But I digress. What is partisanship? If it's defined as generally promoting and/or adhering to the principles of one group, it's one thing.

If it's defined as blindly obeying any whim of a favored group, it's another.

Is it partisan for me to back liberal or Democratic causes? Not if I believe in them. But many on the left want to withdraw our support of Israel, which I do not. If I expressed anti-Israeli sentiments because some in my party did, I would be blindly partisan, and not true to myself.

Many on the left back affirmative action. I say affirmative action has done it's work, and it's now time to phase it out and phase out its requirements. If I said otherwise because of partisanship, I'd be a liar.

So probably partisan for cause is good, and partisan against belief is bad.

WHOOO HOOOO! After a final (maybe) round of partisan Bush-bashing Dax decides to join the discussion. Ain't it great?

(ahem) I agree with you, Dax, about how partisanship may or may not be a bad thing depending upon the goal. To fight for what you believe is right only makes sense. If one gives in on an issue that one believes to be a representation of ones core beliefs, it would make me question just how firmly ones beliefs are, either in the issue or at the core.

It's also important to understand that issues are not always easily divisible upon lines of "us" and "them." I remember hearing a pundit years ago, who was castigating the penchant of television news departments to simply ALL issues, as evidence by their dicussion show promos stating, "Join us as we present both sides of the issue."

The pundit was asking why do people always assume there are ONLY two sides to every issue? Many issues can involve several valid viewpoints and suggested solutions.

Dax mentioned blind partisanship, which I think is the real issue here.

"Blind" partisanship, where one embraces a philosophy or set of beliefs by rote, and automatically rejects everything in conflict with the given belief set without thought or examination. It is a substitute for thought and judgment, in which one forgoes all analysis and weighing of options and outcomes. It is hooked into emotion rather than logic.

Blind partisanship says "You are with us or against us", and does not permit partial agreement. One must swallow the whole pill, or be an enemy to be crushed as completely and viciously as possible.

A good teacher - teaches his disciples how to think for themselves...