"Just as a man’s actions are preceded and determined by some form of idea in his mind, so a society’s existential conditions are preceded and determined by the ascendancy of a certain philosophy among those whose job is to deal with ideas." AR

OK, I give up.

I don't want anyone to shut up.

I do want way a way to get candidates who will reduce gov't, regardless of their demeanor or how good they are at being friendly with countless people. Your comments would make sense if there were one smooth-talking politician candidate and another candidate with a program to reduce the size and intrusiveness of gov't. If only it were that easy.

People are *not* the same as their ideas, which is why ad hominem is a fallacy.

CG, you're trying to get me to shut up because I am trying to address something you don't want to look at. You're telling me that you would vote for Obama because of his professorial demeanor, and that you know it's not a good idea to vote for someone based on something like that.
I am saying that I expect you, as a rational person, to make an intelligent choice. It is not impolite for me to say that.
And, by the way, you and I are our ideas.
Edit: clarity

You're being impolite by talking about me rather than the ideas.

Regarding the ideas, my opinion is there's no problem in noticing tht politics exists and even being affected by it. The problem is getting swept up in the politics and buying into it. As to how to make it stop and get reducing gov't on the table, I don't know how to do it.

Golly, I guess I expect so much more from anyone who can read Ayn Rand and understand her. You are describing the typical voter, and I put you above that just because you are intelligent enough to be in the Gulch.

"President Obama's camera appearance- do you by any chance mean the color of his skin?"
It's not his physical features. It's his professorial and avuncular mannerisms. I could imagine meeting him at a local event.
I am not saying it's a good idea to vote based all this. People (including me) notice this stuff and vote even though no mainstream candidate promises significant reductions in gov't.

While I agree that allowing slavery into the Constitution was indeed a cancer and a massive contradiction to the fundamental ideas of the document, that was in due course corrected, properly, by amendment.

With all due respect I disagree that the slavery issue has anything to do with the current disrespect for and weakness in the Constitution as it stands today. I will keep my comments brief as they will be off the current topic, and will at some point introduce it as a separate thread.

I believe the biggest problem with the Constitution today, and an understable omission by the Founders, is as strict a separation of the government and the economy as there is with religion. I believe this type of amendment was specifically addressed in Atlas.

(Typo edited)

Thank you for answering, CG. I find this so interesting. I remember when Clinton was first running, and people would tell me that women just love him, did I like him? And my answer was, he is a complete bullshitter; can't you tell? I couldn't stand him.
President Obama's camera appearance- do you by any chance mean the color of his skin? Just curious
Edit:spelling

I agree that compromise is and was necessary to get the process started and I have read of the struggles the founders had politically and personally with slavery but one of the greatest accomplishments in the history of mankind (the establishment of a country based on individual rights) was infected with a cancer at its birth that has led to disastrous woes.

The hypocrisy of keeping slavery was the hole in the dyke that has led to the erosion of ALL the principles. It is an obvious invitation to take the document with a grain of salt instead of the most magnificent creation of the minds of the best of men.

Keep in mind they're politicians, masters as BSing and making me feel like their friend,but here goes:
President Obama's camera appearance reminds me of my friends and family.
President Clinton is a master of BS. He doesn't seem like anyone I know, but he could sell ice to an Eskimo.
Senator Baldwin grew up now far from my house and reminds me of very much of the parent of a childhood friend. When I talk to her she has an uncanny ability to remember me and something we talked about, even though I only see her once or twice a year, and she must see tens of thousands of people. She comes off very geniuine, and I truly believe she's a good person, even when I don't agree with every vote.
Elizabeth Warren comes off on TV (I never met her) comes off like my wife. They both taught law and started legal practices.

I don't buy into the artifice of a pitched ideological battle, but I'm still sucked into identifying more with Democrats, even though I have no confidence they'll protect liberty any more than Republicans.

Excellent analysis, Coaldigger. You pretty much summed up the historical events that led up to Selma. Much as I'd like to believe what we were taught about the Civil War being a glorious war to end slavery, subsequent reading in the years since my youth have led me to many of the same points you state. And you express very well my own frustration and I'm sure the frustrations of many others in this Gulch about the current state of hatred and factionalism in this country. Especially as it is so unnecessary, and a better way so clearly available.

IMCO, I think that's why Aristotle wrote separately on Ethics and Politics. Rarely do they come together.

In defense of the Founders, and to my immediately prior observation, like it or not politics sometimes requires compromise. Which is why it is at best a necessary evil. I could be wrong. And am prepared to hear an alternative, but my understanding is that the compromise on slavery was bitterly fought, but in the end had to be made to preserve the 13 colonies intact, and any hope of winning Independence.

That said, again compliments on your post.

Well said, Liberator

I have read the Powell piece several times and like others in this thread disagree with most everything he says. This so-called "dark vein" that he refers to is at best vague, but I think I get what he is implying, and I just don't see it. Either in the Republican party or in the American people as a whole. For once I think I can say without sarcasm that "there is no there, there". My agreement with his comments starts and ends with "we have come a long way...", and my disagreement starts with: "...but we have a long way to go."

I don't see that at all. What happened in Selma 50 years ago was horrible, truly racist and un-American. But to state that racism like that still exists in today's America is absurd. Unfortunately, Mr Powell seems to have bought into the current political tactic of seeing racism, or better "using" racism to dismiss out-of-hand any criticism of
Liberalism. Welcome to the Democrat party, Colin.

To say that there are no racists in a country of 300+ million is of course ridiculous also. But on a scale seen in Selma 50 years ago? Absolutely not. And I would venture to say that in that vast population there are as many Black racists, Muslim terrorists and other extremists.

And then I would question precisely what he means by "we still have a long way to go", meanwhile pointing out that we currently have a Black President and Attorney General.

I'm quite afraid that in addition to seeing a "dark vein" that isn't there, he is NOT seeing the destruction caused by Liberal/Democrat policies in destroying great cities like my hometown of Detroit, and millions of black families in the process. If by "a long way to go" he is suggesting more affirmative action, welfare and urban removal, sorry, renewal, then I would have to say, at the risk of being called racist, forget the dark vein, he has truly gone to the "Dark Side".

CG, in what way are the Democratic candidates like you?

I would like to speak for the unsophisticated, redneck masses that are sick and tired of the sham that our republic has become. The founders were very fearful of what would happen due to factions and we have realized their worst fears. We have Democrats vs Republicans, labor vs. capital, whites vs. blacks, whites vs Hispanics, blacks vs Hispanics, liberals vs conservatives, libertarians vs government and progressives against the private sector. I haven't even mentioned Wall Street vs Main Street, cops against citizens and a half a dozen more that I could think of but I have already become boring.

We unsophisticated rednecks would just like to be left alone and to enjoy a break from hating anyone.

I cannot think of a single social issue that intervention by government has caused a net improvement. Most of all, when I think about the Civil War I get pretty angry. I think that 500,000 slaughtered American young men was totally unnecessary and that the reconstruction caused more harm than a few more decades of an economically unsustainable institution of slavery. Too little was done to settle the differences between the southern and northern states and even if they split time would have brought them back into the fold. Just as bad as the lives lost was the dumping of a couple million uneducated, unskilled people totally unprepared for freedom onto the streets with no plan of how to integrate them into society. Their families had been broken up. Their men and women were kept apart and taught not to form tight family units. It was illegal for them to learn to read and write and their experience in adjusting to free America was worse than a new immigrant from Africa would have been.

If the southern planters had been left to dismantle the inefficient slave system it would have been to their advantage to have done a better job of training and integrating their workforce. The north was willing to "give" them stuff for political consideration but not willing to be involved enough to implement any real program to aid their absorption. The southern whites, having been beaten and impoverished by the war resented the give away programs, forced integration and all is not forgiven even 150 years later by either side.

I see this as bad government starting with the founders who knew better but were not able to perform up to their own standards of "ALL men are created equal". There is always a price to pay for a desired outcome and any shortcut only exacts a greater toll when it comes due.

I heard Powell speak twice at the Foothill College Speakers Series at Flint Center, Cupertino, CA, when I was a subscriber to their talks.

The first time he spoke, I was ready to support him for a presidential run. He sounded like a free-market capitalist libertarian. I was startled and impressed.

The second time he spoke, he sounded like a big-government liberal and my support and respect withered on the vine.

He may be a hypocrite. He may be playing political cards to get support so he can achieve a position of higher power in government.

Either way, I don't like what he's saying now, either. I would just like folks to take what he says with at least a grain of salt or more.

"Trust No One" works for him, too.

SaltyD: You summed it up correctly.

Herb: Well stated.

Rich: I remember that too... It was as if someone had a gun to his back... interesting.

AJ: I too have had little confidence in the majority. After the second election of "0" I lost all of it.

+1

Colin Powell's true colors came through with his endorsement in 2008 of Obama. My respect for him has diminished ever since. Thankfully he did not run for president. How he can support a Marxist like Obama and rip the GOP is beyond me.

Very possible.