Politics in the shower
This morning while in the shower, getting ready for church I was thinking about an NPR segment I heard on the radio on Friday. It was about the Neo-Conservatives and their history.
The Neo-Con movement started around the 1930s among jewish and other democratic groups. At that time it had no defining name or lable but the ideology was there. It wasn't until the 1960s and 1970s that the Neo-Cons began switching to the Republican party as the democratic party was being reshaped by the anti-vietnam hippy flower power social unrest. It was around this time that "neo-conservative" became the lable given by their fellow democrats to marginalize them. Reagan's entering the oval office really closed the door for democratic neo-cons and shifted them into the republican camp. Reagan's agressive stance on the Soviet Union was really to their liking.
Anyway, that was the radio segment part. I was thinking about the parties, platforms, and liberalness/conservativeness of each. I feel it is a misnomer to call the democratic party the liberal party and the Republican party the conservative party. Its not that black and white.
On social and economic issues, the democrats are liberal. But on geo-political & foreign policy issues, they are conservative. Liberal - turn the nation into a socialist welfare state. Conservative - Keep the status quo in foreign matters and don't interfere (even with evil dictatorships, etc).
On social and economic issues, the republicans are conservative. Let market forces decide economic matters. Keep government out of people's personal lives. On geo-political & foreign policy they are liberal. Conservative - Minimal government interference. Liberal - Actively spread democracy abroad, through force if necessary.
Its kinda funny too that I watched National Treasure for the first time last night. I can't remember if it was in the film or the special features that the point from our founding fathers was that an entity (individual or nation) that sees wrong in the world and has the power to do good is not merely requested to help right the wrong but obligated to do so. For evil to win, good men just need to do nothing.
And I think that is what scares me the most about the current crop of non-interventionist movements in the US and abroad. They are willing to let thugs kill their own people to keep themselves comfortable. I don't believe in needless medling but I see the comparison between modern terrorism and the Gadianton Robbers.
The lamanites fought the robbers and purged them from their society. They probably lost a lot of lives doing so. The nephites figured they couldn't be defeated so they embraced the robbers. Doing so led to the near destruction of their entire society. You can't appease thugs and expect the problem to go away. It takes sacrifice and constant vigilance to defeat such evil secret combinations.
I find it scary that so many short sighted people would rather appease the terrorists than fight them. The islamic people are very good, industrious people. I've met a few and they are good people. What I find wrong is their own leaders. Rather than build schools to teach thier people how to become doctors, engineers, and other professions. They are left with schools of hate and dispare. The leaders are filled with corruption and line their own pockets while their own people starve. I'm pleased to see a a slow but steady shift in the moslem world. Some are waking up to the realization that the west isn't the cause of their suffering but their own leaders.
Expect to see violent clashes between the moderates and extremists. America's freedom was paid with blood. Iraq's is being paid with blood (both ours and the Iraqis). I pray that Iran's, Syria's, and the others will be less bloody but still find the freedom those fine people deserve. Our Father in Heaven's plan of salvation rested largely on agency. Christ paid with his own blood to ensure our free exersize of agency. Let us do the same for the Islamic world. Pay, with our own blood if necessary, to free them to a destiny of their choosing. Some things are worth dying for.
The Neo-Con movement started around the 1930s among jewish and other democratic groups. At that time it had no defining name or lable but the ideology was there. It wasn't until the 1960s and 1970s that the Neo-Cons began switching to the Republican party as the democratic party was being reshaped by the anti-vietnam hippy flower power social unrest. It was around this time that "neo-conservative" became the lable given by their fellow democrats to marginalize them. Reagan's entering the oval office really closed the door for democratic neo-cons and shifted them into the republican camp. Reagan's agressive stance on the Soviet Union was really to their liking.
Anyway, that was the radio segment part. I was thinking about the parties, platforms, and liberalness/conservativeness of each. I feel it is a misnomer to call the democratic party the liberal party and the Republican party the conservative party. Its not that black and white.
On social and economic issues, the democrats are liberal. But on geo-political & foreign policy issues, they are conservative. Liberal - turn the nation into a socialist welfare state. Conservative - Keep the status quo in foreign matters and don't interfere (even with evil dictatorships, etc).
On social and economic issues, the republicans are conservative. Let market forces decide economic matters. Keep government out of people's personal lives. On geo-political & foreign policy they are liberal. Conservative - Minimal government interference. Liberal - Actively spread democracy abroad, through force if necessary.
Its kinda funny too that I watched National Treasure for the first time last night. I can't remember if it was in the film or the special features that the point from our founding fathers was that an entity (individual or nation) that sees wrong in the world and has the power to do good is not merely requested to help right the wrong but obligated to do so. For evil to win, good men just need to do nothing.
And I think that is what scares me the most about the current crop of non-interventionist movements in the US and abroad. They are willing to let thugs kill their own people to keep themselves comfortable. I don't believe in needless medling but I see the comparison between modern terrorism and the Gadianton Robbers.
The lamanites fought the robbers and purged them from their society. They probably lost a lot of lives doing so. The nephites figured they couldn't be defeated so they embraced the robbers. Doing so led to the near destruction of their entire society. You can't appease thugs and expect the problem to go away. It takes sacrifice and constant vigilance to defeat such evil secret combinations.
I find it scary that so many short sighted people would rather appease the terrorists than fight them. The islamic people are very good, industrious people. I've met a few and they are good people. What I find wrong is their own leaders. Rather than build schools to teach thier people how to become doctors, engineers, and other professions. They are left with schools of hate and dispare. The leaders are filled with corruption and line their own pockets while their own people starve. I'm pleased to see a a slow but steady shift in the moslem world. Some are waking up to the realization that the west isn't the cause of their suffering but their own leaders.
Expect to see violent clashes between the moderates and extremists. America's freedom was paid with blood. Iraq's is being paid with blood (both ours and the Iraqis). I pray that Iran's, Syria's, and the others will be less bloody but still find the freedom those fine people deserve. Our Father in Heaven's plan of salvation rested largely on agency. Christ paid with his own blood to ensure our free exersize of agency. Let us do the same for the Islamic world. Pay, with our own blood if necessary, to free them to a destiny of their choosing. Some things are worth dying for.
posted by Talmage at 3:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home