I think not, short of one side destroying the other. A former Presidential press secretary lamented on air that we "must" find a way to "work together" and subordinate our special interests to the national good. Our working democracy does that to a very appreciable degree; Donald Trump has not been summarily deposed; atypical New York and California were not able to dictate the 2016 choice of President; Charles Schumer and Rand Paul have of necessity to nonviolently deal with each other in the Senate but. . .
Since 1972 American national politics have been an existential struggle with one faction - that dominated by the far left - with the indispensable help of the teeming and tragically naive leftist baby boomers (not those boomers who remained loyal) - determined to exterminate the real America and replace it with a totalitarian entity of some sort and with the other consisting of the common sense majority and its slow awakening to its mortal danger. The main philosophical difference consists first in the far left's conviction that America's political, legal, economic ,social and foreign relations spheres are all fundamentally flawed and require punishment and "fundamental transformation". The inadvertently honest Marxist Obama confirmed as much in his campaign promise to that effect and did as much in office as he could get away with to advance it (eg. his incomplete radicalization of the Federal judiciary). The far left is most motivated by its faith in goals and ideals based in the unknowable future, for which no empirical evidence is available. That's because, well, they look only to the future and disingenuously ignore the recent past in which leftists in power slew some one hundred million of their own citizens in ultimately fruitless efforts to satisfy the psychotic perfectionism which defines all radicals. And it allows them limitless dreamy license in arrogating the draconian measures they yet enact at will (eg. in North Korea) when they have the power.
The real America, defined by its painful acknowledgement of the considerable regretable aspects of our past, confirmed in affirmative remedial action such as three hundred thousand Union deaths in the Civil War, the, yes, fundamental political change embodied in civil rights decisions and legislation, in the present virtually universal social ,professional and often legal excoriation and disenfranchisement of those of mindless prejudice against racial minorities and the election and reelection of a black President in the private and anonymous election booth, maintains that this country is fundamentally good and sound and undeserving of destruction. Its philosophical basis is in comparing and contrasting contemporary America to both its past and to that of the world in its considerable variety of humane, workable systems and their demonstrably inhuman antitheses.
These views are incompatible. The far left determined on its course in the '60's, empowered by myriad baby boomers entranced by theretofore shunned Marxist professors in the colleges to which they flocked (I know, I was there as a freshman) in 1965 , who enlightened them on tragic and tawdry aspects of our history to which they had not been exposed. Trouble was, their teachers cynically gave them to believe that these outrages defined and condemned their country and, lacking the wisdom their parents had, with transcendent pain, learned through their travails in the Depression and WWII and from which they had lovingly protected their children, far to many of the boomers bought it.
The clash continues apace. The far left which dominates, motivates and dictates to, the Democrat party, has been at this since the 60's. Since the real America woke up to what they intend, since the nominations or empowerment of McGovern, Dukakis, the Clintons and Obama, we have known that this is a battle to the death. For that reason, conciliation is an impossibility. Jack
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Interesting analysis. "Never say never" is a good life philosophy, if you ask me, but it's true that the present state of affairs hardly lends itself to comity and brotherhood. Tempers are flaring, and there is really no institution left that is immune from delegitimization. Conciliation could become possible, however, if the media were to change, because it's the media that creates most people's (warped) perception of reality. A revolution in the media could be accomplished in a number of ways, and arguably one has already taken place, insofar as the mainstream media is a pale shadow of its former self, and has been largely replaced. I'm not quite ready to abandon hope in conciliation, therefore, but I also feel pretty confident in predicting that things will get worse before they get better...
Dr. Waddy: Your comments make alot of sense. If Yankees and Rebs reconciled and America is close with both Germany and Japan ( I'm a Yank and I've had friends from all three nationalities)then detente between the majorities of those on the left and right may well be possible. But in each case one side decisively defeated the other before they made up. If the far left defeats the real America there will be reconciliation all right: it will be politically correct and intensely mandatory. If the real America continues to lose respect for the MSM to the point that the MSM is reflexively disbelieved then the far left may well be relegated to the margins of our polity and culture where it began and where it may languish in futile irrelevancy. If the growing perception of the American "university" as a medieval teaching institution which sneers at the society which supports it gains wide acceptance; if the swamp is yet drained - the left may be finished. So many good people have been flim-flammed by it; if they become convinced it can do nothing good for them then reconciliation may be possible and our country can return to "sun lit uplands" (what a beautiful metaphor, thanx to Churchill)of common sense and self confidence.
Post a Comment