dshields
Member
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2007
- Messages
- 419
I wanted to share an email thread that has gone on between an acquaintance/neighbor of mine. I think this might benefit those who are having similar debates about "electability" .
I felt VERY compelled to respond to this on Principle..
Lets see how he responds..
I have struck a cord with him!
His response. I can consider this a success in that we are moving away from the electability consideration.
As you can see by his latest reply, a little massaging of the 2nd issue and he is a good fit. Here is my response..
More to come!
I hope this helps in your discussions with friends and family..
Dave
###Email sent from an acquaintance to a group list###
Subject: Please consider electability when you vote on the 29th
Hello,
Sorry to touch the taboo subject of politics but I have really struggled as to who to chose in our upcoming Primary election. As you know, I'm normally one to have an opinion early, and usually a strong one for that matter. Not so this primary. I have really struggled as to who to support, some what because none of the candidates have really inspired me.
However, after tonight's primary, I think I have decided to support John McCain. Fear not, this will be the only email you will receive from me during the primary season. With that said, PLEASE consider a candidate's electability in the general election when you vote. McCain may be a little caustic at times but he really appeals to independent voters , the ones who actually decide our elections.
PLEASE don't make the same mistake I feel I made in 1996 and still regret to this day. That mistake was supporting Bob Dole over some of the less conservative candidates like Lamar Alexander, who I maintain could have beat President Clinton. The political system we live in is winner-takes-all, in respect to the Executive Branch of government.
Like one of my previous boss used to always say, "less of something is more than a lot of nothing". I do not mean to diminish Senator McCain's accomplishments with that last statement. I simply want to drive home the point of electability with our current system.
Thanks for your time and feel free to share contrasting points of view!
--
Sincerely,
Brian
I felt VERY compelled to respond to this on Principle..
#MY RESPONSE#
Brian,
Unfortunately, I will have to disagree with your logic. I will not go as far to endorse a candidate, but the spirit of the Caucus and Primary election process is to choose candidates on issues and principles. Electability should be your absolute last consideration since you comprise your platform when you make that a consideration. In my opinion, this would be truly throwing away a vote when you let outside influences such as the media or other people without the cognitive ability to consider the issues on their own merit decide for you.
I would argue your points about Dole, on the principle that you voted on your conservative beliefs and did not let electability play a role in your decision process. Electabilty along with polls are media's tools to control public opinion and influence voting, don't fall prey to this. This has been the media attempt to "herd" voters to consistently more leftist platforms, and I would definitely consider McCain a strong turn in that direction.
Let me quote one of our greatest thinkers Benjamin Franklin, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Let me explain the connection of this quote to electabilty. Using electabilty as a primary deciding factor over facts, issues, and principle, require you to throw away your personal instincts, opinions, and logic to accept someone else's beliefs and LACK of principles. The day electability rules our elections, we will have essential given up our Republic in exchange for the opinions of the few (media / private organization) to determine our leaders. This is not far from Communism.
As I mentioned, I will not endorse a candidate for the sake of discussion on principle, but I would HIGHLY encourage you to search your own conscience and ask yourself if you really felt REGRET over your decision on principle and issues or do you like many simply wish we had won in 1996. I for won will NEVER make a decision on consensus again, and encourage you to use principle and issues as a means of making decisions. I would rather fail on our true platform than to endorse something that doesn't resemble it.
Sincerely,
Dave Shields
Lets see how he responds..
###HIS REPLY###
Dave,
thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate and value them.
Who do you think is a more conservative candidate than McCain? who are you supporting at this point?
Brian
###END###
I have struck a cord with him!
###My Second Reply###
Brian,
Let me preface this with the fact this election cycle has personally been a roller coaster and not as calculated as my previous email may lead you to believe. It has been a roller coaster because I have been struggling with the very same argument that you obviously are. I personally believe, that there is an effort to slowly shape this country in to being run by a minority (the elite) through their influences in the media and in public opinion.
That being said, by people voting for those who seem, at least according to polls and media, to be front runners fall prey to this. Gradually, rather than move the actual voting base they change the platform for which they support. This erosion has occurred since the nomination of Barry Goldwater in 1964. Core conservative beliefs have been redefined by the media through polls and opinion. Reagan was a great Conservative but he had his issue in respect to some of our traditional conservative values, however they were not as significant of a departure as we have today. The one thing of note about Reagan is that he was able to fight wars without firing shots, today that is not the case.
With all of this being said, I have spent a lot of time personally reading things like the "Federalist Papers" written by Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay during the formation of our Republic. Naturally, this includes several opinions of our founding fathers such as Jefferson and Franklin who are two of my personal heroes. Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin established our country on a few principles beyond what is touted today such as Freedom of Speech, Religion, etc. To be honest, these were simply considered Liberties taken for granted at the time. The true reasons were things such as commodity back currency or currency that is controlled exclusively by the representative government, unlike today being that the Federal Reserve is privately held and not overseen by elected officials. Another principle established by Jefferson himself can be encapsulated in this quote "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none." I think it is very clear that our current Foreign Policy does not enforce this principle nor do most of the candidates up there.
Before I disclose who I support, I wanted to just discuss some principles with you. I would in someway contradict my last email to you if we at least didn't take the chance to discuss some issues of our time and at least come to a consensus of what our platform lacks and where we have truly gone astray as a party.
What are important issues to you today?
Dave
###END###
His response. I can consider this a success in that we are moving away from the electability consideration.
##His Second Reply###
1. Abortion (although I am only opposed to post-conception birth control) - Roe v. Wade is a horrible decision that serves a precedent of legislation from the bench. I personally favor a constitutional amendment to greatly restrict abortion but know that I am in the minority in my beliefs. Therefore, if it can not be decided at a Federal level, then the states should decide.
2. National Defense - I do believe that our foreign interests have to be protected. Much of our prosperity that Ron Paul-types champion is the result of the "entanglements" that they oppose.
3. Spending and taxation - I can't stand the entitlement society we have created. However, at least the democrats are honest enough to raise taxes to pay for it today as opposed to the Bush-types who simply put it on the tab for our children to pay
4. Judicial Appointments
5. States rights - Our Federal Governement is WAY TOO BIG!!!
###END###
As you can see by his latest reply, a little massaging of the 2nd issue and he is a good fit. Here is my response..
###My third response###
Brian, these are good issues. Here are some thoughts..
1. I agree with your opinion on Abortion and strongly agree that it is a terrible act in itself. I think the injustice of Roe v. Wade isn't just the opinion of the ruling but the fact that it is used to restrict states from freely deciding their own laws on abortion. By this principle I would disagree with a constitutional amendment since this undermines "State Sovereignty" and ultimately the ability to "vote with there feet" which is a strong premise of State Rights. Ultimately, you and I have arrived to the same conclusion.
2. I would disagree on this stance on principle. To be honest, this is probably the one stance I stood very firmly on in agreement with what you just wrote but have come to a different conclusion over time through research. I know your background is military, but humor as I attempt to explain my opinion.
First the the augments on principles of a Free society and the Economic feasibility.
A lot of empires in the past including that of Britain, Spain, France, and Rome to name a few, have all tried to use they're success at the time as a nation to shape the world in to their image, if you will. Similar to this concept we attempt to spread democracy through our foreign policy. I personally feel that the representative government concept for which this nation is founded coupled with a free society is the best system know to man, however, at the same time you can't make someone believe this especially when they are not born to it as you and I have had the privilege of. The reason why we don't speak French, Spanish, or proper English today is that this concept is flawed at the core assuming that you support the concept of a free society. Not only is the concept flawed, it is unattainable because of the long term economic impact due to the drain war and large military deployment has on a society. The best way to see this example in the past is Rome. They expanded beyond their abilities as a society to support their desire to spread the "Republic" to all corners of the known world. They're currency became debased as ours is today and their economy faltered depriving their foreign policy the resources it needed to continue let a lone the ability to defend Rome itself. I think we both know what happened to Rome.
In this vain, I believe we are not unlike Rome.It has only been about 60 years since we departed from the Jeffersonian concept of Foreign Policy but if you look, the burden of our foreign policy is annually increasing and is having a staggering impact on our economy to the tune of 1 Trillion and growing annually. First off you have the devaluation of the dollar. In order to bring this in to perspective we need to contrast our dollar to a fixed price asset such as gold for the sake of this discussion. If you go back to 1934, a barrel of oil was $1.50, likewise, an ounce of gold was worth $35.00 and could buy essentially 23 barrels of oil if my math is right. Today, an ounce of gold can purchase 8.75 barrels of oil where it costs $100 for a barrel of oil. If you conclude that the increased price of oil over the past 74 years in relation to gold is about 300%, you can probably contribute the majority of that to increase in demand from USA, China, Russia, and India specifically. However, in comparison to the dollar, there has been nearly a 6500% increase in cost, if we minus the demand increase of 300% that is still 2200% inflation of the dollar from 1934.
When a government spends beyond it's ability, it will do two things, print money and borrow money (9 trillion dollar deficit today) to finance itself. I have to ask you, under what conservative principle would a deficit like this be allowed? Secondly, under what conservative principle would printing money beyond the requirement to maintain proper supply relative to our annual GDP growth be allowed?
Philosophy aside and just on economics alone, our current foreign policy is unsustainable long term. I think this is part of the beauty of what Jefferson and Franklin both concluded when they came to their own conclusions on foreign policy.
If you look at the philosophical issues, it is pretty cut and dry. How could your dually support liberty at home and have a foreign policy that could be considered oppressive by those subject to it aboard? Furthermore, our current war on terror has brought about things such as the "Patriot Act" and "The Home-grown Terrorism" bills that indirectly though war have weakened our liberties.
The word Patriot has been redefined by our media and especially by conservative radio pundits as "one who essentially blindly supports the government and it's action without question. especially when at war." Ironically, this is a 180 degree departure from it's original definition. In fact, our founding father would have been considered "home-grown terrorist" by the British. Why would we allow such laws to be created that would outlaw the actions that our own founding fathers took leading up to the Revolution? A true patriot is "one who is ALWAYS skeptical of the government and questions is actions and motives and is willing to take action to defend personal liberties when threatened". These infractions on our liberties can be tied to war.
The last point I would like to make is at what point does our enforcement of democracy abroad end? Again, I have asked myself these very questions which is why I have come to some of my own conclusions with the help of Jefferson, Franklin, Hamilton, and Madison of course! At what point do you conclude that people have to learn and obtain things on their own?
3. I agree 100%. I think entitlements ultimately need to be phased out. Our current foreign policy which depends on heavy government intervention can be likened to our current entitlements system, in that it is unsustainable economically long term. When people become depending on government, productivity on a whole decreases since motivation to succeed is penalized through high taxation and redistribution of wealth. Honestly, if we can change our foreign policy and ultimately phase out our entitlements, there would be no need for income taxes, which by the way, make up less than 50% of our total federal government proceeds.
One quick point about redeploying our military to domestic bases versus foreign bases, imagine having half a million new consumers spending money domestically rather than abroad?
The other MAJOR issue and probably the biggest elephant in the room at the present time is our devaluation of the dollar combined with the already stimulated, yet slowing economy. Our national deficit is 9 trillion dollars, would you not love a credit card with a line that big?! We pay half a trillion a year or more just to service that debt alone before we begin paying our bills. We need to restore strength to our dollar and we need to SERIOUSLY look at how we stimulate our economy, in that we shouldn't be. The other issue is money created with in the Federal Reserve when it decreases interest rates. This has been used as a traditional economical stimulus by increasing the money supply, however it has created a dangerous addiction that is showing it's ugly face in the credit market let alone the value loss to the dollar.
4. I agree with Judicial appointments in that they need not legislate law through Judicial ruling but merely interpret law as they were intended. We need Judicial appointments that embrace this concept and not certain social or economical beliefs.
5. I also agree 100% with States Rights. There should honestly be very little Federal Law. This was one of the corner principles of a Republic and representative government. With the ability for people to vote with they're feet they can live in states that support the principles and laws they support. This in a since creates competition between the states, and like in the free market society, only the best laws will survive, which is my book will be very few.
Other current issues that I believe are impacted indirectly by the above topics are immigration. Building a fence is one thing, but if you entitlements the entitlements they receive when here illegally, you would take away the carrot which draws them here.
Some thoughts,
Dave
###END###
More to come!
I hope this helps in your discussions with friends and family..
Dave
Last edited:
