OT: For U.S. Citizens: Emailing the President

[Jon-M]

Actually, Jim, I never thought for a moment that you meant anything offensive to anybody. Certainly your tone has been far more moderate than mine. The point I meant to make, though, is that subtleties of language unconsciously skew public discourse in certain directions, no matter what the intentions of the speaker--a fact of which the GOP thinktanks are accutely aware.
The "us-them" issue, is, I believe, a critical one, for to define anybody as "them" is to define them out of the legitimate polity and, in extreme cases, to define them out of humanity and the realm of those entitled to human rights. So, when Anne Coulter writes a book, as she has, in which she labels all liberals "traitors," it is an alarming development, not because so many people will read her book or take her all that seriously but because an insidious and intolerant idea is being introduced into public discourse that unless loudly, vigorously, and publicly refuted as being outside the pale by people of all political persuasions might work its way into the realm of unconscious assumptions as those of not so good will hasten to pick up on her statements. McCarthyism is a good example of this: many Republicans dismissed McCarthy as a buffoon, but he was doing the dirty work of the party and since they didn't step out to face him down (especially Eisenhower), he along with Mundt, Nixon, McCarran and others of that ilk succeeded in creating an atmosphere in which people were afraid to express legitimate opinions lest they be labelled "traitors."
By the way, the Democrats and liberals bear their fair share of responsibility for these developments, both now and in the past--but that is another story.
Jon Michaels

[The Weekenders]

Interesting direction in thread vis-a-vis government versus or representing the people.

I like the idealism represented by Jon M. contention. Yet think about all the turmoils of the past four decades up to now, where people use the phrase "not in my name" a lot. It usually refers to military actions, if from the left.

For many right of center or libertarian, "not in my name" includes complex, bureaucratic and totalitarian policies by government employees in spheres of education, land use, permit processes, hiring constricts etc etc. I can see the simple reduction of thinking that restricting governmental power is for the good of corporations, but for me, there are many personal intrusions into the lives of my family that push me ideologically to the right, notwithstanding new fears from the Patriot Act.

As for old Senators and a sense of their dignity and unquestioned patriotism: I think that the anti-republican and anti-Constitutional direction that the Democrat party has moved towards has led to a Conservative-Labour or even Social Democrat divide. Both Al Gore and Hillary Clinton and more recently David Souter made statements in the about "fixing" or "revising" the Constitution. The lack of any reaction from within the left makes the difference from "the old days."

Much of our perception of those older political figures cannot be divorced from WWII ethos; perhaps many were veterans but were certainly affected by that experience. Perhaps in a decade or so, we will have politicians who had direct experience in Iraq; being under attack, seeing mass graves, pondering lack of US-style freedoms etc and believing that we were noble rather than ignoble in acting there. This might change public discourse.

If it were 40 years ago, I probably would be on the Democrat side of things, but I feel that the slide to socialism, and this onerous Matrix-like corporate socialism (where we lose freedom both from govt and from corporate assault on our daily living) has pushed me into the rightist periphery. I am not a Republican, though I agree with their stated rhetoric in balance of self-initiative versus govt. imposed "help."

Anyway, if you feel the government's breath on your shoulders in trying to pursue your livelihood, etc. and have lost the ability to see it as a sincere expression of the people's intention (as I have), it will be hard to support Jon M.'s contention about the govt. being "us."

[Jon-M]

Well, actually, I'm not saying that the government IS us; what I mean to say is that it COULD BE us, if we chose to start approaching it that way. Current discourse, however, makes government "them" which means (1) "we" whoever we may be, don't have to take responsibility for it, and (2) we automatically assume that government is intrinsically the enemy or at least the problem and therefore is something that should be shrunk rather than used as a powerful tool for fulfilling collective goals (inasmuch as there are such things: surely a discussion for the American public worth having in an honest way).
Jon Michaels

[Rando7]

The "us-them" issue, is, I believe, a critical one, for to define anybody as "them" is to define them out of the legitimate polity and, in extreme cases, to define them out of humanity and the realm of those entitled to human rights. So, when Anne Coulter writes a book, as she has, in which she labels all liberals "traitors," it is an alarming development,

Consider this recent quote by NAACP chairman Julian Bond, who I'm guessing is not a conservative, while speaking of the GOP: "Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side. ". Do liberals really believe this stuff? There are extremists on both sides, it would do well for most of us to move to the center and away from them.

How about this recent erudite discussion between Democrat Pete Stark and GOP Scott McGinnis:
McGinnis: "Shut up!"
Stark: "Oh, you think you are big enough to make me, you little wimp? Come on. Come over here and make me. I dare you. You little fruitcake, you little fruitcake. I said you are a fruitcake."

[TomB]

The "us-them" issue, is, I believe, a critical one, for to define anybody as "them" is to define them out of the legitimate polity and, in extreme cases, to define them out of humanity and the realm of those entitled to human rights. So, when Anne Coulter writes a book, as she has, in which she labels all liberals "traitors," it is an alarming development,

Consider this recent quote by NAACP chairman Julian Bond, who I'm guessing is not a conservative, while speaking of the GOP: "Their idea of equal rights is the American flag and Confederate swastika flying side by side. ". Do liberals really believe this stuff? There are extremists on both sides, it would do well for most of us to move to the center and away from them.

How about this recent erudite discussion between Democrat Pete Stark and GOP Scott McGinnis:
McGinnis: "Shut up!"
Stark: "Oh, you think you are big enough to make me, you little wimp? Come on. Come over here and make me. I dare you. You little fruitcake, you little fruitcake. I said you are a fruitcake."

The quotes from both seem to prove one thing- that there is intolerance and ignorance on both sides of the political spectrum.

All the Best, Tom

[Jon-M]

I can't accept the comparison between Julian Bond and Coulter as legitimate. Bond, whatever you may think of him, is a black American who marched and fought for freedom, facing down hostile Southern white mobs and policemen wielding clubs and firehoses. If he feels strongly about the universal (and craven) GOP refusal to denounce the continuing use of the Confederate war flag in Southern state flags, I can't blame him. That flag is a symbol of 300 years of enslavement, beatings and rape of black Americans by white Americans. It is a national disgrace. I am a Jew, and if Germany insisted on having a little swastika somewhere in their flag, I can assure you I would have something to say about it, and it wouldn't be polite.
There is also the fact that during the battle for black civil rights, it was the Republican party in conjunction with Southern Democrats (most of whom, like Jesse Helms, subsequently became Republicans and this move to the GOP of conservative Democrats upset with LBJ's civil rights legislation marks the beginning of the latest period Republican ascendancy in this country) that fought tooth and nail against extending full citizenship rights to African-Americans and that continued to play the race card right up through George Bush, Sr.'s election campaign against Dukakis. The historical record of the GOP on civil rights since Reconstruction is not a pretty one.
As for Anne Coulter's beef against liberals, I don't know. Perhaps she was beaten and jailed by liberal policemen supported by radical Democrats. Mostly, though, I suspects she just wants to shut us up by intimidating us.
And as for moving to the center, I, for one, have no intention of going there. As presently constituted the center seems to represent an area where people are willing to put up with government of the rich, by the rich and for the rich. My personal opinion is that a nation that won't take care of the basic needs of its kids and old folks to ensure that they can live decently needs to do a lot of soul-searching. Private charity does not have and never will have the resources to take care of these things; I don't know about right now, but as of 6 years ago, government programs provided 10 times more food to the needy than all the private charities combined. And, as we all know, our national health care plan is "Don't get sick."
With good wishes,
Jon Michaels

[Rando7]

Jon M, do you agree with Julian Bond's words, irrespective of his background, which I agree is quite distinguished? I didn't read it as a commentary on the southern flag issue, but rather as an implication that the GOP is akin to Nazis and racists, something that you seem to imply with your comments on civil rights. Without knowing anything alse about me, you feel I am a bigot and Nazi simply because of the way I vote? Are these kinds of comments (Bond's) appropriate and conducive to narrowing rifts rather than widening them?

On a related issue, do you think it is appropriate to have a former KKK member as Senator? I think if there was ever a litmus test for holding office, that should be it.

[WyoBadger]

Interesting stuff, this.

I believe that one of the biggest reasons that Wyoming (myself included) is strongly in the "conservative camp" is that things are different out here, and there is a very strongly justified feeling that the Federal Government as a whole, and liberal politicians in particular, just don't get that.

Take gun control. Gun ownership in Wyoming doesn't mean at all the same thing as it does in DC. Most people out here own guns (and know how to use them safely and accurately) because we hunt. Some of us own guns because we have land/homes/families/livestock to protect against predators, usually of the animal variety. Some enjoy the "cowboy" lifestyle (and some of those actually own cattle ) and lots of people just plain like to shoot guns, and believe me, there's plenty of space to do it. And in a state where our biggest city is around 100,000 people and our total population is around 400,000, we really don't have the sorts of overcrowding and aggression that people face in big cities.

I could speak for many, many people here when I say I've been shooting guns since I was big enough to hold one, but I'd never dream of pointing one at a person unless they were threatening someone I loved.

Many eastern city people are just as baffled by the sheer vastness of space as they are by the fact that no one bats an eye when someone walks into a restaurant wearing a pistol in plain sight. This is no reflection on their intelligence; it's simply outside their range of experience.

Like I said. It's different here.

So, what sort of sense does it make for someone in DC to tell me what sort of firearms I should be allowed to own? Or, for that matter, how we should use our water, manage our wildlife and forests, or whether we should have wolves and grizzlies in our backyards? Would all these decisions not be better off made at the state level?

And we wonder that people in this part of the country tend to speak out against big government? shrug.

Anyway. It is true that our system tends to push people toward the extremes. It's awefully difficult to find the middle ground--sometimes we need to preserve our forests, yes, but people need wood to build houses, do they not? An all-or-nothing approach rarely works.

The great irony of all this, of course, is the unintentional hypocracy it provokes. It is very common here in Lander (home to a great many NOLSies, trustafarians, and other idealistic eco-yuppies) to see bumper stickers saying things like "Don't Drill the Red Desert--200,000 Antelope Can't Be Wrong." Or "No Oil or Gas on Togowatee Pass." Bumperstickers. On automobiles. Which are powered by, ahem, gasoline. Where do these kind, well-meaning people think that gasoline comes from?

And, lest I offend the liberals, there are the farmers and ranchers who rail against big government and the "welfare state," but who don't seem to mind the idea of federal subsidies to help out in our current drought.

Perhaps we are primed at last for the rise of third parties?

TW

[don]

Long time ago, in a place very like this one, a forum was ripped to shreds when political discussion took the place of whistle discussion.

I would like to think it is possible to learn from the past, but ...............

[jim stone]

We've been at it for years. Price of community.
We're safe as long as we're courteous and cordial. Best

[Nanohedron]

How about this recent erudite discussion between Democrat Pete Stark and GOP Scott McGinnis:
McGinnis: "Shut up!"
Stark: "Oh, you think you are big enough to make me, you little wimp? Come on. Come over here and make me. I dare you. You little fruitcake, you little fruitcake. I said you are a fruitcake."

This, I believe, is a very apt distillation of the political discourse of late.

[pthouron]

Interesting stuff, this.

I believe that one of the biggest reasons that Wyoming (myself included) is strongly in the "conservative camp" is that things are different out here, and there is a very strongly justified feeling that the Federal Government as a whole, and liberal politicians in particular, just don't get that.

Take gun control. Gun ownership in Wyoming doesn't mean at all the same thing as it does in DC. Most people out here own guns (and know how to use them safely and accurately) because we hunt. Some of us own guns because we have land/homes/families/livestock to protect against predators, usually of the animal variety. Some enjoy the "cowboy" lifestyle (and some of those actually own cattle ) and lots of people just plain like to shoot guns, and believe me, there's plenty of space to do it. And in a state where our biggest city is around 100,000 people and our total population is around 400,000, we really don't have the sorts of overcrowding and aggression that people face in big cities.

I could speak for many, many people here when I say I've been shooting guns since I was big enough to hold one, but I'd never dream of pointing one at a person unless they were threatening someone I loved.

Many eastern city people are just as baffled by the sheer vastness of space as they are by the fact that no one bats an eye when someone walks into a restaurant wearing a pistol in plain sight. This is no reflection on their intelligence; it's simply outside their range of experience.

Like I said. It's different here.

So, what sort of sense does it make for someone in DC to tell me what sort of firearms I should be allowed to own? Or, for that matter, how we should use our water, manage our wildlife and forests, or whether we should have wolves and grizzlies in our backyards? Would all these decisions not be better off made at the state level?

And we wonder that people in this part of the country tend to speak out against big government? shrug.

Anyway. It is true that our system tends to push people toward the extremes. It's awefully difficult to find the middle ground--sometimes we need to preserve our forests, yes, but people need wood to build houses, do they not? An all-or-nothing approach rarely works.

The great irony of all this, of course, is the unintentional hypocracy it provokes. It is very common here in Lander (home to a great many NOLSies, trustafarians, and other idealistic eco-yuppies) to see bumper stickers saying things like "Don't Drill the Red Desert--200,000 Antelope Can't Be Wrong." Or "No Oil or Gas on Togowatee Pass." Bumperstickers. On automobiles. Which are powered by, ahem, gasoline. Where do these kind, well-meaning people think that gasoline comes from?

And, lest I offend the liberals, there are the farmers and ranchers who rail against big government and the "welfare state," but who don't seem to mind the idea of federal subsidies to help out in our current drought.

Perhaps we are primed at last for the rise of third parties?

TW

Disagree about the guns. I don't think anybody wants to dispute anybody else's right to hunt or own hunting rifles. I just don't see the need for anyone to own assault weapons, particularly in urban areas where they inevitably wind up in the wrong hands. Look at what happened in my area yesterday with the shooting of a City Councilman inside City Hall... I doubt the shooter would have used a knife if he didn't have a gun and if he did, the chances of his being successful would have been greatly reduced. In this case, no gun, no death.

Agree with third parties. Even though it usually comes down to two large ones anyway, the presence of other parties tends to keep the two main ones on their toes, and I think we desperately need this. Most of the time, I can't even tell the difference between the two anyway

[The Weekenders]

The US two party system is something I have pondered for a long while. It seems that it is because of our diversity of opinions that we are channelled into two big ones, while societies that have larger pluralities in terms of culture, not necessarily color, like some of the smaller European nations, have a profusion of parties and mechanisms for dealing with those coalitions. It almost seems counter-intuitive that we have only two very major parties here, though Greens and Libertarian do field occasional candidates.

I really thought for a while that abortion, like abolition a century previous, would destroy one of the two parties and during the Perot period, I also thought there was a chance one party would tank. Didn't happen though.

There is probably some smarty-pants book that explains why we are so fixed this way...any suggestions out there?

[jim stone]

I think one factor may be that we have and probably
need a strong executive--given our awesome
power and the need to be able to
wield it speedily. I suspect that having lots of parties tends
to produce a weak executive. Certainly I doubt that
a parliamentary system would suit the USA.

I don't think TW was maintaining that there are people
who want to take away people's hunting rifles,
though I assure you that there are. As I read him
he was speaking to differences of perspective
and culture that partly underly political and social
differences. Gun control is a flash point in
what is widely known as 'the culture war.' Best

[antstastegood]

Hello everyone. I havent had a reliable internet conn for a while, and as soon as I could borrow a computer, I headed here.

Just a few thoughts on the e-mail policy.

-Even with a user-friendly system, did anyone actually think the president reads the things?

-It helps them categorize the received mail to get a better picture of public opinion without having to skim every single one.

-Maybe it will save the government money by drastically reducing the load on the e-mail system.

-Democracy still worked before the internet was invented. If you want to make your voice heard, then vote and be sure to punch it all the way through.

-I GENERALLY agree with the current president, and I also think Weekender has made some good points.

Have a nice day

antstastegood