----- Original Message ----- From: "Deborah Harrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2002 7:15 PM Subject: Re: [Brin-l] Re: Attack Iraq, Alone If We Must
> --- Dan Minette wrote: > <major snippage> > >I also get the feeling that many on the > > list are extremely > > individualistic and think that loyalty to party, > > church, civic groups is for chumps. > > Mmm, I'd say that _unquestioning_ loyalty to any large > group of people is not chumpish, but naive. That wasn't really what I was talking about. I was thinking more about the increasing disconnect in American society. It goes with the discardable society. For example, there use to be a lot of employment loyalty. Companies would keep productive employees if the company was profitable. Now, a profitable company lays people off to become more profitable. People stuck with political parties, joined clubs, joined long standing recreation teams. IIRC, there is a book on the disappearance of this called Bowling Alone. This has even spread to churches. "Church shopping" for a place that meets one's needs is very common. People moving to a new town shop churches in 5-6 denominations to find one that meets their needs. We are very consumer oriented, not only in buying, but in relationships. Its not even what have you done for me lately; its what will you do for me tomorrow? Loyalty to someone doesn't mean being blind to their faults. It means sticking with them, even with their faults. Sticking with someone doesn't mean you will agree with what they do. For example, a loyal friend of someone who has a drug or alcohol problem might very well be part of an intervention. I think >I can't > think of any big group that doesn't have it's fair > share of jerks and/or idiots; last time I recall > seeing it, wasn't the "bad apple" proportion of any > population about 8-10%? Loyalty doesn't mean blind acceptance of anything anyone does. > I am very loyal to my friends and my principles, but I > will not place boundless trust in any organization or > group; I have not seen any that merit it. Boundless trust is one thing. Sticking with them, even when you know they mess up, even though sticking with them means tough love is another. I'll give an example that disturbs me. The last 4th of July a friend of mine at an elite school was watching the 4th of July celebration in NYC. This friend was disturbed by the other graduates of that school mocking the folks who emotionally singing patriotic songs. Now, as the Democratic leadership stated in arguing with Bush, patriotism does not mean blind acceptance of what the leaders of an organization says. But, it might very well mean taking nasty unsubstantiated statements (like Clinton murdering his aids or Bush wagging the dog) about one's leaders a bit personally. Going back to what started this. It is fairly clear to me that JDG is a loyal Republican. He honestly feels that their program is the better one for the US. Further, he sees Bush and others as people of personal integrity. Now that doesn't mean he thinks every Republican is moral by definition. In fact, I'd bet that he'd agree that some Republican politicians are dishonest and nasty. However, on the whole, he thinks that the Republican party represents the best choice for the US. Now, I think he is mistaken here. :-) But, I do respect his loyalty, given his viewpoint. I respect it more than I would self-righteous cynicism from someone who actually supports more of the policies that I do. So, I guess this reply isn't really to tell you I think your position is wrong; just that it addresses a different point than the one I was trying to make. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
