by Roger
O'Daniel's
I dearly wish that our political celebrities would combine their observations with insight and season them liberally with understanding. I also wish that they would learn the lessons of history so they would be less inclined to repeat past mistakes.
Maybe we should think about our communication style with these people. Could we pattern our approach with the insight and understanding of where they came from and how they grew up? How can we make the national defense issue “up close and personal” to a people who are more prone to run away from responsibility than face it squarely and deal with it effectively? An attitude adjustment requires disposition. How do we help lawmakers and US voters become disposed to listen and be open to ideas that are different from their own?
Allan West recently published the following comment in an Internet piece:
“Forty years ago, 72% of the House of Representatives and 78% of the Senate was made up of lawmakers who served in the armed forces. Today just 20% of House members and 18% of Senators have served. Those who have served in the military have a better understanding and a deeper comprehension of issues involving national security, armed services and veteran issues – issues that if not more important now, are just as critical as they were 40 years ago.
“When I served in Congress from 2011-2012, I was one of only four black Republicans to serve in the United States House of Representatives in nearly a century. In the Senate, there have been only two. As the demographics of the U.S. population shift, it becomes ever more critical to increase representation by not only black, but Hispanic and Asian American leaders as well.”
My Own Observation
“40 years ago” equates to the 1960s, or about 20 years or so after WW-II. I remember that we had mandatory military service (the Draft Law) in the 1950s. This also was about the timeframe that the news media started branding people with names like “Hippies”, “Yuppies”, “Flower Children”, and “Generation-X” just to name a few. Their parents were labeled “baby boomers.” Our nation was in a turmoil of clashing value systems and ideological rebellion. No wonder the US House and Senate was packed with Military veterans back in that day. That also might explain why many present US politicians in office now are allergic to anything military. Those “60 something children” grew up.
Occasionally, I tune in to BBC’s airing of the British Parliament. The Speaker faces a large aisle that ends with the door to the room. Members face each other, not the Speaker (who seldom speaks). The Labor Party and socialists sit to the Speaker’s left and the Conservatives sit on the Speaker’s right. The members address their remarks to the Speaker instead of the members across the aisle. They rant about the misdeeds and ideological faults of the members across the aisle instead of useful dialog. The Speaker is the referee of a verbal warfare called a “debate.”
The US Chambers of both houses also have a Speaker facing a much narrower aisle. Unlike the British Parliament, the Conservatives sit on the left side of the aisle and the so-called “Liberals” sit on the right. The members face the speaker, not each other. At one time, the conservatives were liberals over the issue of slavery. The Democrats supported slavery. The word “liberal” originally was a brand name for a change agent. I no longer know what the word “liberal” means because both sides of the aisle seem to be change agents for opposite causes.
Should the Republicans and Democrats switch sides? I do not think so, especially if we revert the definition of the word “liberal” back to its original meaning. The Republicans basically respect their oath of office and want to pattern the present government on the mandates outlined in the US Constitution. They want to restore the three-leg stool that supports the US Constitution:
On the other hand, the Democrats consider the US Constitution an obsolete document urgently in need of revision or outright replacement. Meanwhile, they ignore its original concepts and substitute an informal replacement that they call their “living constitution.” They advocate a parliamentarian republic modeled after Canada and the European nations.
Their principles and foundation are reflected in the Obama campaign flag that he wanted to fly in all government buildings in 2010 instead of the official American flag we use today to identify ourselves to the rest of the planet.
Veterans pledged a solemn oath when we joined the US Military. That oath had no expiration date or terms for dissolution.
Our nation is in peril of destruction from within. This is one of those times in our history when we face a determined enemy from within our nation that threatens the survival of our nation even more than our foreign enemies. I cannot remember a time when our mission to change the minds and spirit of our nation’s lawmakers and citizens is more important than now.
Placation and appeasement are not and never were viable options. Ever try to appease a tiger? We do not look like a worthy opponent; we look like lunch.
I dearly wish that our political celebrities would combine their observations with insight and season them liberally with understanding. I also wish that they would learn the lessons of history so they would be less inclined to repeat past mistakes.
Maybe we should think about our communication style with these people. Could we pattern our approach with the insight and understanding of where they came from and how they grew up? How can we make the national defense issue “up close and personal” to a people who are more prone to run away from responsibility than face it squarely and deal with it effectively? An attitude adjustment requires disposition. How do we help lawmakers and US voters become disposed to listen and be open to ideas that are different from their own?
Allan West recently published the following comment in an Internet piece:
“Forty years ago, 72% of the House of Representatives and 78% of the Senate was made up of lawmakers who served in the armed forces. Today just 20% of House members and 18% of Senators have served. Those who have served in the military have a better understanding and a deeper comprehension of issues involving national security, armed services and veteran issues – issues that if not more important now, are just as critical as they were 40 years ago.
“When I served in Congress from 2011-2012, I was one of only four black Republicans to serve in the United States House of Representatives in nearly a century. In the Senate, there have been only two. As the demographics of the U.S. population shift, it becomes ever more critical to increase representation by not only black, but Hispanic and Asian American leaders as well.”
My Own Observation
“40 years ago” equates to the 1960s, or about 20 years or so after WW-II. I remember that we had mandatory military service (the Draft Law) in the 1950s. This also was about the timeframe that the news media started branding people with names like “Hippies”, “Yuppies”, “Flower Children”, and “Generation-X” just to name a few. Their parents were labeled “baby boomers.” Our nation was in a turmoil of clashing value systems and ideological rebellion. No wonder the US House and Senate was packed with Military veterans back in that day. That also might explain why many present US politicians in office now are allergic to anything military. Those “60 something children” grew up.
Occasionally, I tune in to BBC’s airing of the British Parliament. The Speaker faces a large aisle that ends with the door to the room. Members face each other, not the Speaker (who seldom speaks). The Labor Party and socialists sit to the Speaker’s left and the Conservatives sit on the Speaker’s right. The members address their remarks to the Speaker instead of the members across the aisle. They rant about the misdeeds and ideological faults of the members across the aisle instead of useful dialog. The Speaker is the referee of a verbal warfare called a “debate.”
The US Chambers of both houses also have a Speaker facing a much narrower aisle. Unlike the British Parliament, the Conservatives sit on the left side of the aisle and the so-called “Liberals” sit on the right. The members face the speaker, not each other. At one time, the conservatives were liberals over the issue of slavery. The Democrats supported slavery. The word “liberal” originally was a brand name for a change agent. I no longer know what the word “liberal” means because both sides of the aisle seem to be change agents for opposite causes.
Should the Republicans and Democrats switch sides? I do not think so, especially if we revert the definition of the word “liberal” back to its original meaning. The Republicans basically respect their oath of office and want to pattern the present government on the mandates outlined in the US Constitution. They want to restore the three-leg stool that supports the US Constitution:
-
Separation of power,
-
Balance of power, and
- Limitations of Power.
On the other hand, the Democrats consider the US Constitution an obsolete document urgently in need of revision or outright replacement. Meanwhile, they ignore its original concepts and substitute an informal replacement that they call their “living constitution.” They advocate a parliamentarian republic modeled after Canada and the European nations.
Their principles and foundation are reflected in the Obama campaign flag that he wanted to fly in all government buildings in 2010 instead of the official American flag we use today to identify ourselves to the rest of the planet.
This is a variation of the campaign logo, represented by the
blue and white symbol in the upper left corner. The three curved blue stripes
represent Canada, the (about to be former) United States and Mexico. The rising sun represents the future America with
three provinces. The outer circle
represents a one-world government. As
Obama said, “There are no States but the United States.” His vision involves the dissolution of a
confederation of States. Are those red
stripes blood? If so, whose blood?
My source for its symbolism is The Post American World. This book was
in the President’s hand as he prepared to board the Presidential Helicopter in
2009.
Veterans pledged a solemn oath when we joined the US Military. That oath had no expiration date or terms for dissolution.
Our nation is in peril of destruction from within. This is one of those times in our history when we face a determined enemy from within our nation that threatens the survival of our nation even more than our foreign enemies. I cannot remember a time when our mission to change the minds and spirit of our nation’s lawmakers and citizens is more important than now.
Placation and appeasement are not and never were viable options. Ever try to appease a tiger? We do not look like a worthy opponent; we look like lunch.
No comments:
Post a Comment