Galt's Gulch

The Agenda

Posted by paulnathan2000 10 years, 2 months ago to Politics
8 comments | Share | Flag

How to fight for freedom in the upcoming election
SOURCE URL: http://www.paulnathan.biz/commentaries/183-the-agenda.html

Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • Posted by paulnathan2000 10 years, 2 months ago
    I am an Independent and have voted Republican, Libertarian, and for Democrats over the years. In my article, I obviously direct my advice to the Republicans, but not exclusively. As I stated, "The Agenda of all limited government candidates should be summed up in a word. That word is 'freedom". We, who are for freedom, fiscal responsibility, and self-reliance, must push that particular agenda. And we only need to point out that the opposition wants to move away from such ideals. This sets up the freedom-versus-government control debate – and in that debate the controllers will lose."

    All of my points were to further freedom. I don't think this is a partisan objective.

    Paul Nathan
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 10 years, 2 months ago
    Several points: what is referred to as a "hero" in the article is really a celebrity, and that's where the wheels have come off the wagon, in that we've forgotten what real heroism is; Reagan was a "Great Communicator" for exactly the reasons given, that his ideas were expressed simply, directly, and sincerely; finally, read Eric Hoffer's great little book (written in the '50s), "The True Believer: A Study of Mass Movements", and you will find that Obama would be the charismatic empty shell Hoffer describes, relying on the "Hope and Change" slogan common to all mass movements of a populist/socialist nature
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by paulnathan2000 10 years, 2 months ago
      Dr.
      You say "what is referred to as a "hero" in the article is really a celebebrity..."). Yes. Ayn Rand was a celebebrity -- and a hero. My point is that it is in the Amercian "soul" to be hero worshipers -- and not hero destroyers. That fact is exibited eloquently by the millions influeced by the hero's of Ayn Rand.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 10 years, 2 months ago
        It is human nature to admire and respect those who exert an out of the ordinary effort and succeed (or fail) publicly. Some exert such effort for ego, as most sports and entertainment achievers do. A hero, I contend is someone who takes risks (physical or reputation) for the sake of a higher goal than self-promotion.

        The egoists are nothing but celebrity. Some are also heroes, or choose to become heroes (as you point out with Ayn Rand). What I find troubling is that many today are unable to make the distinction between the egotistical celebrities of the entertainment and sports venues, who are often examples of criminal or at least immoral actions, and real heroes like a Sister Teresa.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    -
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 2 months ago
    Is this how to fight for freedom or how one side in the political contest can win?

    The article starts with the premise that we know the ideology each candidate firmly supports. Debating that ideology itself, it says, is something for scholars, not politicians. Politicians, it says, should focus on how they're good executors, moral, hardworking, and someone we can admire because we already know the ideology they'll be promoting.

    I believe the ideology is much less important. It's more like show business for ugly people. The narrative of candidates promoting an ideology is just a script the often comes in handy for politicians. In the 90s Democrats condemned Republican Medicare cuts. Republicans called the attacks Mediscare. Twenty years later, I heard them having almost the same debate, but THEY SWITCHED SIDES.

    I agree with this article saying the agenda should be "liberty". It suggests it for the Republicans, but who cares which side in the party struggle adopts? They'll probably change sides on it anyway. Someone should do it. Otherwise this article's approach needlessly alienates Democrats (like me), and could be just a tactic to fight for some politician instead of to fight for freedom.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by straightlinelogic 10 years, 2 months ago
      "It's more like show business for ugly people." Great line. I'm for a liberty agenda, but we're not going to see it out of the two parties, and we're not going to see it until after the present statist Rube Goldberg monstrosity collapses. Then liberty may have a chance.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo