----- Original Message ----- From: "John D. Giorgis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 15, 2004 7:09 AM Subject: Re: Brin: some thoughts and quotes.
> So, given your opinion of Republicans - that is, given that you see > Republicans as "treasonous," "a threat to our republic", and "deadly to... > my civilization" - why would you WANT to be "balanced" in regard to such an > entity? If you truly believe all of those things about Republicans, > wouldn't you want to be inexorably opposed to Republicans? Doesn't the > situation call for "imbalance" and vigorous opposition instead? That is > the question I am struggling to understand about your position. > I think I understand his position. Let me give a quick summery of it, and David can tell me if I'm right on, a bit off but close, or nowhere near right. If I am right, it might be useful for you to see it restated by someone else. If I'm wrong, then I hope I'll learn how I'm mistaken. He sees two themes: which he calls the right hand and the left hand. Both have their advantages and their disadvantages.When the nation has a proper balance between the two of them, it is most likely to be prosperous, promote freedom and liberty, etc. I don't have the time to find his examples in the archives or to outline them in full in my own words, so let me pick a proponent of each as an example. They are Hubert H. Humphrey, and Barry Goldwater. (Goldwater, BTW, once said that Humphrey was the person who was most qualified to be president...its just that he disagreed with many of his ideas.) Humphrey espoused the left handed approach and Goldwater the right handed approach. David wants an approach that includes ideas each of these men espouse. For a long time in the 20th century, the Democratic party, for the most part, championed the left handed approach, while the Republican party championed the right handed approach. (I realize that this is an oversimplification, because David does not really believe in anything as simple as two camps) Recently however, the Republicans abandoned many solid conservative principals, like opposition to strong government and insistence on fiscal responsibility. Instead, the leadership has been taken over by people who want to return the US to a pyramid structure, where there is an elite on top that runs everything. The actions of the present administration is not truly conservative, rather its position is to favor the privileged class. Thus, while he is balanced in his approach to left handed/right handed, he does not view the Democratic party and the Republican party leadership equally well. The Democratic party leadership, for the most part, is still championing the left handed viewpoint. The Republican party leadership has abandoned its valid principals and has instead championed the desires of a small group of supporters. This is the reason he is so interested in the Libertarians. With the Republicans abandoning its principals, we need another party to promote those principals. He sees Libertarians as being able to fulfill that roll. That's my guess. As I said, David, its just my understanding, and I'd appreciate being told where understood your points and where I missed it. I realize I'm oversimplifying, but I need this to be a relatively short post. I've got a customer I need to meet in 45 minutes. :-) Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
