Blog, Week #2 -
Concepts Behind Politics
Your writer will conclude this blog by going back to the discussion of generalism, specialism, and pragmatism from the first blog, as far as it is relevant to the presidential candidates that are campaigning at this time. But your writer will devote this blog to a discussion of issues of character. There has been a lot of ill will in our presidential race. And to witness it is just shocking. So should this behavior of judging and insulting one another, displayed on the part of the candidates – should it be considered an issue?
To your writer, it seems that the intensity of disagreements between our candidates is in actuality a very significant and very relevant flaw, a flaw that roots in character, and one that, at the least, merits alteration. It also seems that these terribly heated disagreements should be regarded by Americans as having their source in something psychological, something internal on the part of the contestants, that just has to be transformed into virtue before the vices' destructiveness really gets out of hand. And that is not to mention that this view is no less than intensely reinforced by something that has been all over the media as of late; many voters plan to vote for the candidate that they hate the least instead of the one they like the most.
Onward, then, what happened to the spirit of other presidential races wherein the people involved have found the dialogues to contain more substance, less competitive “scariness” and have found the campaigns – perhaps even to be somewhat entertaining or interesting? Should not a good citizen enjoy a chance to make a study, to be refreshed with regard to how he/she feels and thinks about the issues, to be refreshed with regard to what their family and friends think about it, and to be refreshed in the process of finding why someone has risen to the status of no less than presidential candidate? What happened to the cozy feeling of sitting on the couch while viewing the big debates on TV, having only as much as a little bit of trouble deciding who to dislike and who to vote into the presidency – this marginal trouble being present because both candidates are virtuous in their own ways and because they faithfully represent their constituents without going to extremes? What happened to prior presidential races wherein the citizens didn't have much more than a lesser measure of discomfort in looking from the perspective of such objectivity – in order to be aware of all relevant arguments, as a good generalist would? Shouldn't a presidential race be considered an opportunity to mobilize and unify into larger causes, kind of like identity groups?
The question is, what is happening to our candidates and their assistants, to our most important Americans? As far as character goes, it seems that the late Michael Jackson had song lyrics reflecting a common-sense fix-it, sounding something like: if you want to make a change, look at the man in the mirror. In order to make it possible to reference all of this reasoning and possibility later, it will be labelled, the Spirit of the Underground.
Moving on, the opposite of this inspiring Underground, to argue further – this negativity that's so common right now in our campaigns – is it a reflection of the strong differences among social groups in our American reality of identity politics? Has it not been broadcast in the media, for example, that there is a lot of racism in both major political parties towards the two identity groups, Jews and Blacks? Does this problem of hatred stem from individuals or have its source in something deeper, like the American people as a whole? Isn't this intense, rampant hostility inside and outside of the debates, and among campaign parties, candidates, and other citizens – the citizens that are so highly important at this stage of the presidential race – isn't this hostility as serious and unfortunate a societal problem as the worst kinds of racism? Aren't the kind of people that espouse so much hatred as has been displayed here, aren't they one of the small groups for whom the judgement is that there just aren't enough vital resources available for them, for their cause, partly because their problems are psychological? All of this reasoning, then, leads to a big question: assuming that the emotion behind this presidential election is a reflection of the goings-on in the lives of citizens all over the nation, assuming that the problem is from something deeper, what could be solutions?
Now, that question is for each individual reader to answer, hopefully with some depth, by him/herself! But one partial answer is that going into the next few years of American politics how we deal with small and, especially, larger identity groups that contain the smaller ones inside them – as an important piece of strategy – how we deal with all these smaller groups is going to be important. How Americans and our American government allocates vital resources, like man-work hours, money, and other assets – that will be important. And to specialize more in the answering of this question of resources, as far as their placement goes, strategy will be vital.
That is, for example, how our government uses the strategies of finding ways to deal with America's needs; how one effort, one kind of action, crosses over from one issue through and into the next, one group's needs into others, effectively covering or touching on more of the issues at once – that kind of thing will be important. Finally, then, the real nature of the next president as one of the driving forces that is behind it all – covering not just favored interests – but large proportions of interests, large proportions of citizens – his/her character will be one of the bigger influences during the coming presidential term. Is the outcome of this election as important as the idea of having another Civil Rights Movement in order to heal the wounds of identity groups – as well as to heal these groups' affiliates, friends, admirers? Which candidate values the true Spirit of the Underground?
Concepts Behind Politics
Your writer will conclude this blog by going back to the discussion of generalism, specialism, and pragmatism from the first blog, as far as it is relevant to the presidential candidates that are campaigning at this time. But your writer will devote this blog to a discussion of issues of character. There has been a lot of ill will in our presidential race. And to witness it is just shocking. So should this behavior of judging and insulting one another, displayed on the part of the candidates – should it be considered an issue?
To your writer, it seems that the intensity of disagreements between our candidates is in actuality a very significant and very relevant flaw, a flaw that roots in character, and one that, at the least, merits alteration. It also seems that these terribly heated disagreements should be regarded by Americans as having their source in something psychological, something internal on the part of the contestants, that just has to be transformed into virtue before the vices' destructiveness really gets out of hand. And that is not to mention that this view is no less than intensely reinforced by something that has been all over the media as of late; many voters plan to vote for the candidate that they hate the least instead of the one they like the most.
Onward, then, what happened to the spirit of other presidential races wherein the people involved have found the dialogues to contain more substance, less competitive “scariness” and have found the campaigns – perhaps even to be somewhat entertaining or interesting? Should not a good citizen enjoy a chance to make a study, to be refreshed with regard to how he/she feels and thinks about the issues, to be refreshed with regard to what their family and friends think about it, and to be refreshed in the process of finding why someone has risen to the status of no less than presidential candidate? What happened to the cozy feeling of sitting on the couch while viewing the big debates on TV, having only as much as a little bit of trouble deciding who to dislike and who to vote into the presidency – this marginal trouble being present because both candidates are virtuous in their own ways and because they faithfully represent their constituents without going to extremes? What happened to prior presidential races wherein the citizens didn't have much more than a lesser measure of discomfort in looking from the perspective of such objectivity – in order to be aware of all relevant arguments, as a good generalist would? Shouldn't a presidential race be considered an opportunity to mobilize and unify into larger causes, kind of like identity groups?
The question is, what is happening to our candidates and their assistants, to our most important Americans? As far as character goes, it seems that the late Michael Jackson had song lyrics reflecting a common-sense fix-it, sounding something like: if you want to make a change, look at the man in the mirror. In order to make it possible to reference all of this reasoning and possibility later, it will be labelled, the Spirit of the Underground.
Moving on, the opposite of this inspiring Underground, to argue further – this negativity that's so common right now in our campaigns – is it a reflection of the strong differences among social groups in our American reality of identity politics? Has it not been broadcast in the media, for example, that there is a lot of racism in both major political parties towards the two identity groups, Jews and Blacks? Does this problem of hatred stem from individuals or have its source in something deeper, like the American people as a whole? Isn't this intense, rampant hostility inside and outside of the debates, and among campaign parties, candidates, and other citizens – the citizens that are so highly important at this stage of the presidential race – isn't this hostility as serious and unfortunate a societal problem as the worst kinds of racism? Aren't the kind of people that espouse so much hatred as has been displayed here, aren't they one of the small groups for whom the judgement is that there just aren't enough vital resources available for them, for their cause, partly because their problems are psychological? All of this reasoning, then, leads to a big question: assuming that the emotion behind this presidential election is a reflection of the goings-on in the lives of citizens all over the nation, assuming that the problem is from something deeper, what could be solutions?
Now, that question is for each individual reader to answer, hopefully with some depth, by him/herself! But one partial answer is that going into the next few years of American politics how we deal with small and, especially, larger identity groups that contain the smaller ones inside them – as an important piece of strategy – how we deal with all these smaller groups is going to be important. How Americans and our American government allocates vital resources, like man-work hours, money, and other assets – that will be important. And to specialize more in the answering of this question of resources, as far as their placement goes, strategy will be vital.
That is, for example, how our government uses the strategies of finding ways to deal with America's needs; how one effort, one kind of action, crosses over from one issue through and into the next, one group's needs into others, effectively covering or touching on more of the issues at once – that kind of thing will be important. Finally, then, the real nature of the next president as one of the driving forces that is behind it all – covering not just favored interests – but large proportions of interests, large proportions of citizens – his/her character will be one of the bigger influences during the coming presidential term. Is the outcome of this election as important as the idea of having another Civil Rights Movement in order to heal the wounds of identity groups – as well as to heal these groups' affiliates, friends, admirers? Which candidate values the true Spirit of the Underground?
Proudly powered by Weebly