Why a Republican victory may be good for Democrats

Two years ago, it was all about hope and change. No different now. Many people hope that the change to a Republican Congress will change things for the better. If the Republicans do not deliver, disillusionment will set in, followed by apathy, as those who hope for a balanced, middle class dominated America will see that dream vanish.

With the emphasis on no strings giving to the poor and regulation of anything that moves, we cannot survive as a democracy with anything other than an incredibly robust economy. If taxation and regulation stifle growth, we will sink from the weight of government and poverty. Can the Republicans face the heat from turning us around, from requiring the poor to man up and government to shrink in size and control? Think of the coalition of those who will oppose this in print and at the polls.

I am Woman

Many Republican women are running for office this year. These women have deep credentials and strong passions about our country. Carly Fiorina, Meg Whitman, and even Linda McMahon all have experience running major corporations. Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell bring enthusiasm and down home common sense. And yet, these women are painted by the media and even by some women as being "unworthy" of public office. An October 22 political story on NPR highlighed how stupid and mean they are. The poster child for stupidity remains Sarah Palin.

And yet, these women have something to say, and what they are saying is resonating with many voters. One could claim that calling a woman stupid or mean is, well, stupid and mean. Ad hominem attacks neither raise your virtue nor prove the validity of your position.

One would almost like to see a debate between the stupidest Republican woman, Sarah Palin, vs the smartest Democrat woman, Nancy Pelosi. Or the meanest Republican woman, Linda McMahon, and the meanest Democrat woman, Barbara Boxer. Now, either of those would be fun! What about a double header pay per view?

Israeli Apartheid

BrotherBrain shared with me information about a meeting that opposes Israel for its policies that tend to maintain Jewish control of the government and keep the Palestinians living in the "occupied" areas as second class residents. Some would argue that it is unfair for the Israelis to act in such a way.

This truly is a situation of Israel's own making, mainly due to the mercy Israel has shown to its enemies. Make no mistake. Those who surround Israel are its enemies. None is willing to openly state that Israel has the right to exist within secure borders as a Jewish state.

Israel (or anyone else) cannot treat enemies as friends. And yet, Israel made the first mistake. Enemies are to be defeated, demoralized and if necessary, destroyed, and the sooner the better. In waging moral and merciful wars, Israel has made an error that both Machiavelli and Aristotle would have found unforgivable. Now, the enemies are playing "victim" on the world stage. The world looks at it and says "If they were really enemies, Israel would have taken them out. So, Israel must be subjugating them with poverty, discrimination and hard labor."

There is no reason why Israel should allow anyone who wants to be a citizen to be one. The power of a nation to choose who will be a citizen, who can vote, and who can hold office is absolute, as no one form of government will work for all groups of people, nor is Israel's situation appropriate for that approach. Only those with no knowledge of political history would see this otherwise. Unfortunately, the time to wipe out the enemy has probably passed for Israel, so tough choices may be needed by them and by us all.

and your point was...

Playmate Centerfold. Professional wrestler. Rock musician. Priest. Telemarketer. Every term that you can use to describe a person brings up a set of opinions and emotions in your head. You don't even need to meet them or talk to them. You know what they are by their label.

For a liberal, the word "conservative" or "Republican" conveys the following descriptives:

1. Stupid

2. Selfish

3. Scared

4. Unsophisticated

If you are trying to speak with a liberal/progressive, these are the words that describe their internal world view of you, even before you open your mouth.

You probably think you can see Russia from your back yard; you want to keep all your money, even if giving a tiny amount would prevent a baby from starving; you are frightened by anyone who is not exactly like you; and you probably think opera is a TV talk show host.

These attributes can not be seen in the liberal/progressive because, well, they are not conservative/republican.

If you think you have been to all 57 states, if you feel it is just fine to golf 52 times in less than 2 years while many are jobless, if you are afraid to stand up for protesters in the street of Iran, and if you consider a Naval health aide a cor p se man, you still can't lose your cred.

A liberal/progressive who sees any validity in anything said by a conservative/progressive is characterized as either a sell-out (doing it for personal gain) or as being psychologically disturbed (since once a liberal, always smart and sophisticated).

DocBrain thinks that the only way to influence a liberal/Progressive is to begin with their own self assumptions: that they are smart, selfless, brave and sophisticated and to get them to use their own skills to create holes in their own theories.

Left Behind

The horror. You are a progressive liberal. You wake one day to discover that you are just not totally left enough. Your colleagues, compatriots, and comrades tell you to hit the bricks. So ended Juan Williams stint at NPR.

The Progressive movement is based upon principles and principles are based on beliefs, not fact. These beliefs are defended with passion and zeal, not practicality. Juan violated a belief system as strongly entrenched on the progressive left as any orthodox religious cult. He dared to say how he felt, and that feeling was not "correct". Much like the Nazi in the Indiana Jones movie, he chose his feelings....poorly. Time to be destroyed! Or, at least, confined to a psychiatrist's couch for re-indoctrination.

A feeling is often both genuine and fluctuating, depending on subtle clues that add or subtract. It differs from an opinion, which is often deeply held and defended against all challenges. Juan's admission of a "feeling" is certainly different than clumsy distortion or subtle shading of news data to tell a story with a specific conscious or subconscious framing, as is quite common on NPR. Indeed the group CAMERA has been quite vocal in the past about the distortions in NPR reporting on Israel.

Juan made the fatal error. He assumed that conservatives should be spoken to, that they could be influenced by teachable moments. This flies in the face of the ad hominem attacks on the intelligence and compassion of conservatives that are the bread and butter of the progressive left. This, more than anything else, put Mr. Williams on the hit list (did I leave a letter out of the word before list?). Indeed, as soon as they could, the ad hominem attacks on Juan began. But, since only a few days before he was a respected super-liberal, they just decided that he must be temporarily crazy, having been exposed to too much conservative Craptonite.

As a member of the Progressive Cult, Juan had fraternized with the outsiders and had seen some light. He must be cut off from the group.

Kool-aid anyone?

The Enemy of My Enemy

When George W. Bush proclaimed Islam "the religion of peace", there was an air of disbelief. Conservatives were upset as Islam had attacked America and liberals were upset since GWB is an idiot and anything he says must be opposed, placing them in a quandary. In recent years, conservatives have moved to oppose Islam and liberals to champion it, best exemplified by the mosque controversy near the WTC.

But lets explore Islam further. Islam favors a strict moral code for behavior and conduct, is anti-gay and anti woman's rights, issues that ring a positive note with conservatives. Islam opposes money lending for interest, again tying them to conservative values. Indeed, a conservative would find it easier to live under Sharia or Islamic rule than a liberal. A move towards more conservative values in America would make us less upsetting to the average Muslim. Indeed a conservative America would seem more like "Islam lite" than "devil". The common bond of conservatism might help reduce the tensions between Islam and America.

While the attack on America was evil, the battle against Islam could perhaps have a peaceful end if we became more conservative. This would save us blood and treasure. Our only loss would be of liberal freedoms. Liberals are often the biggest defenders of Islam at this time, even though the things that Islam opposes (women suffrage, gay rights) are liberal badges of honor. Indeed, one could argue that since women have had the right to vote, we have had more foreign wars than ever before.

So, perhaps there could be a closer tie between conservative Americans and Islam.

The Problem with Democracy

What are the best things in life? There are three.

1. Leisure: this is the time we spend pursuing things we like to do.
2. Pleasure: this is happiness, enjoyment, fun
3. Flow: this is the feeling of accomplishing things, "the zone", the mental state where you are totally absorbed and totally in control.

The rest of your life is spent in service of these three experiences. The goal is to maximize these and minimize all other things. Can you have too much flow, pleasure and leisure? Do you need some of the drudgery, conflict, suffering and frustration in order to put these into perspective? No one knows for sure. While some also include luxury as a "best thing in life" there is little evidence that this is needed, although a little from time to time can certainly be pleasurable.

People organize into societies and states in an effort to maximize these (and minimize the negatives). The goal is always to increase these goods and to decrease the bads (duty, duress and drudgery). People always look for the loopholes, the ways to beat the system, as most systems distribute the bads with the goods, the so-called freedom with responsibility. Dictatorships can increase the goods at the top and democracies that have large voting poor populations can increase the goods at the bottom. Where there is a large middle class, everything is mostly equitably distributed.

Progressivism in the USA, as championed by some Democrats and the Obama administration, has placed itself behind the increased distribution of goods to the "vulnerable", the "least of us". This is leading to a maximization of leisure in the most poor, so experiencing the bads are no longer required to obtain the benefits of society. With the exception of flow, the Progressives are giving the poorest the benefits of society. While this might seem laudable to the passionate believer in redistribution, it provides a loophole for the logical person who wants to maximize the best parts of life.

The capitalist ethic of work to achieve goods is replaced by the distribution of goods to the vulnerable, which can clearly create a race to the bottom.

This next election cycle will point to which direction our country will take and will help individuals decide how to live their lives. A society that allows the separation of leisure from effort will have reduced effort, as those who desire a good life will follow the lead of politics. If Progressivism has its way, then once a way is found to optimize flow in the unemployed, the destruction of capitalism will be complete. And then, who will fund the goods for the many?

This is precisely the issue discussed by Aristotle 2400 years ago. The modern answer, rule by the intelligensia (such as Harvard grads), is flawed because what is needed is rule by the philosophers who see the balance in things. The intelligent are often not wise, but you already knew that!

Fool's Gold

DocBrain is about to make a circular argument, but that has never stopped him before. He is going to challenge every philosopher that has ever existed. Here goes.

Principle is fool's gold. Every principle is defended against economic practicality by its adherents and therefore is a form of irrationality. Coming up with principles and defending them with emotions and facts is certainly human, but not true gold, as nearly every principle can be defended, and each one places you at odds with others who hold opposite principles. Then, the discussions usually become wars as principles mingle with passions and beliefs.

The only truth is a mixture of principles, an economic, logical, scientific, outcomes based approach that leads to a win-win (or a lose-lose) outcome.

Principle is best used in games, as a way to strengthen and at the same time exhaust our passions.

Nowhere is principle better shown as defective as in politics, where principles are used to divide people who should be united in advancing the ideal society. This does not mean that all the positions that need to be considered have already been voiced. A rational government that fits the population will be the best, not the one based on bumper sticker platitudes. The political process needs to be matched to the society it serves in order for the people to live the best of lives. Many in America, for example, remain committed to democracy, which is rapidly becoming unstable in our society, mainly due to the change in makeup of our population.

The democratic republic of America, RIP?

The foundation of the Republic required those dedicated to the cause to pledge their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. In the US today, can we say that this is the common pledge that all take and believe in? When the rich are asked to part with their fortune and volunteers are asked to part with their lives, all that is left for the rest of us is to provide our sacred honor, to live honorable lives. Can a person be a real American who does none of these? Can a government that takes from the rich and doesn't honor their sacrifice truly be a government of the people? Can a university that doesn't allow recruiters for a volunteer military on the campus truly honor those who place their lives in harm's way to defend the rest of us? Can a person who takes from the government and doesn't try to get off the public dole truly be an honorable person?

The USA has become so diverse that unity of vision and purpose has been lost. Perhaps we have become too diverse a population to remain a democracy. In "Politics" Aristotle predicted that as differences increase, the unity required for a democracy is lost. The struggle for power becomes faction vs faction. This is true in today's America. Will the experimment end, or will we find a new unity?

More to follow in future blogs, but for now, as always, comments are welcome!

Health Care 2030

What will health care be like in 20 years? While there will likely be advancements in surgical techniques, biologicals and even in some basic pharmaceuticals, the largest change in the USA will be in personal freedom. As we each become responsible for paying for the health care of others, there will be a tension between those who pay and those who receive care. As long as both groups are the same, all will be OK. However, if the groups are different, we will see one of the two scenarios.

1. Domination by the receivers of care. Freedom of lifestyle, with failure to take care of yourself being blamed on your provider, pharma, big business (for selling you things that are unhealthy). Your options for enjoyment of life will be reduced by regulation of things external to you, but you will still be free to live as you want.

2. Domination by the payors of care. Your freedoms will be limited, with fines and even imprisonment for failure to live the healthy life. You will be measured. Your life will be monitored. Any activities that subject you to increased health risk that might increase costs will be prohibited. A fine for not exercising in the right way and in the correct amount. Penalties for fatty foods (or whatever else the government decides you may not eat).

When each person's hand is in another's pocket, these are the only two possibilities. Likely, it will be a combination of both.

But, health care will be "free".

String Theory

There are few things that are completely, absolutely, unilaterally free. The love of a parent for a child is just about all there is. Most everything else has something attached. You may not see it immediately, but it is there. There is always payback, responsibility, consequence (intended or otherwise). For some, there is a prerequisite, for others, it is down the road. Even those who give you something free may not know it yet, but at some time in the future, there will be payback. The only alternative is the collapse of the system.

More to follow.

How will you vote?

If you are more comfortable with the way you have voted in the past than encouraged to make a change, you will vote the same in the future.

If you are more passionate than logical, you will vote according to your passions. If you are more logical, you will determine what is the best vote for you, practically speaking.

Those who are worse off now than 2 years ago, or who anticipate that the laws enacted over the past 2 years are likely to increase personal hardship in the future are likely to vote Republican unless they have an illogical passion driving their vote towards Democrats. Similarly, those who are better off now than 2 years ago, or who anticipate that the laws enacted over the past 2 years are likely to decrease personal hardship in the future are likely to vote Democrat unless they have an illogical passion driving their vote towards Republicans.

Most voters seem to choose by habit (comfort) or by passion (who energizes them with rhetoric).

DocBrain finds it refreshing to see Tea Party members being concerned about the true economic impacts and the impractical approaches of government. While the Tea Party seems opposed to Democrats now, it is really opposed to anyone and anything that uses government to create friction or harm within the practical, economic sector of private American life. The Democrats have become the emblem of the passionate, principle-driven lawmakers, who would sacrifice the comfort of the many for the benefit of the few. The principle of helping the vulnerable is not a practical one in isolation, and true courage is not reflexively following this principle, but understanding the whole issue logically and finding a practical solution. This is the core problem the Democrats have come up against as their chickens are coming home to roost. The Democrats say that their programs have not had enough time to work, but of course that is absurd as their programs are neither logical nor practical, so they cannot work efficiently, if at all. The answer to problems is not to feel the passions and act on them, but to understand problems and practically solve them. The Democrats, in relying on passions and not on logic, have actually declared war on segments of America. The concept of demonizing segments of the population is not only illogical, but actually justifies those holding the opposite position. There is truly no logical difference in saying that the fat cats owe the rest of us their money and saying that the poor should be placed into forced labor camps. Both are emotional, principled positions, although one principle may resonate more with you than the other.

DocBrain believes that the Democrats have helped all of us to see what is really important by showing us how bad a government can be. The Republicans, should they win the day, will have to man up and approach problems practically and logically if they expect to keep their victories.