Columnist Glen Greenwald recently proffered a frightening line of reasoning at the root of the political and cultural "elite's" (aka the Best-and-Brightest) dismissal of the complaints of the common folk.
Compromise is the oil that keeps the government from seizing up and collapsing. If someone like Reagan was willing to work with the other side and compromise on issues like Social Security then we might want to re-consider our approach to politics.
You'll have to define "we." As a libertarian, I'm used to being on the outs with both Left and Right and given lip service when interests align.
But, as to listening, I hear what they are demanding, loud and clear. It's not the live-and-let-live that my "team," if I were to admit to one, offers. It's a series of demands that I alter my behavior, hand over my wallet, and grant their whims.
If there's a rational case for something, I am happy to hear it and go along with it if convinced. But, what rational case is there for more coercion?
I always cringe whenever politicians employ the "we just didn't explain it to you right" strategy. That's a condescending statement that really means "you just aren't smart enough to understand that we know best what's right for you." In other words, us rubes just aren't educated as much as they are. I first heard this from the Obama administration but I'm sure it's feasible that it was used prior.
Compromise is the oil that keeps the government from seizing up and collapsing. If someone like Reagan was willing to work with the other side and compromise on issues like Social Security then we might want to re-consider our approach to politics.
Is there compromise to be had with today's Left?
Used to be, Republicans and Democrats were cut from similar cloth, with relatively modest (in the grand scheme) differences.
Today's Left doesn't even respect the nation's core principles of liberty, and considers them impediments.
I think much of the same can be said of their counterparts on the right. The "true believers" infest our ideological extremes.
Oh, it's beyond doubt that the Right has a similar view of "libtards." But, I'm not of "the Right," so I get to cast a pox on both houses ;).
This morning you speak of "they" and their failings; and yet I fear "we" may be equally guilty.
You'll have to define "we." As a libertarian, I'm used to being on the outs with both Left and Right and given lip service when interests align.
But, as to listening, I hear what they are demanding, loud and clear. It's not the live-and-let-live that my "team," if I were to admit to one, offers. It's a series of demands that I alter my behavior, hand over my wallet, and grant their whims.
If there's a rational case for something, I am happy to hear it and go along with it if convinced. But, what rational case is there for more coercion?
I always cringe whenever politicians employ the "we just didn't explain it to you right" strategy. That's a condescending statement that really means "you just aren't smart enough to understand that we know best what's right for you." In other words, us rubes just aren't educated as much as they are. I first heard this from the Obama administration but I'm sure it's feasible that it was used prior.