Will Obama pay a political price for his lies?

[justplugit]

Originally Posted by detbuch

--what I see as a worship of our "pocketbook" above the principle of freedom and the reverence for life and the human spirit necessary to achieve that life. Life is more than manna, but if the State can shrink us to worker bees who depend on it for sustenance, then spirit loses its function. Life becomes a matter of material economics.

The problem lies in the self-centeredness of human nature where the Love of money is the root of all evil. Only a higher good can overcome it.
We have lost our moral compass in this country. Go back in the 30's, 40's and 50's and you'll see main stream Americans putting God and Country first. We were the beacon of Freedom to the rest of the world and had A PURPOSE in defending that Freedom.
Then came the drugs in the 60's and greed in the 70's which led us down the path we are on now, with no real purpose except the quest for material things.
Go back to Nixon where the impeachment proceedings were started because of lying. Compare that with today where, if it fits their purpose, lying becomes a wink and a nod, or a stretching of the truth, supposedly for the greater good. The problem is that lying is a falsehood and there is no reality in it. Problems cannot be solved unless their solution is based on truth.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by justplugit

The problem lies in the self-centeredness of human nature where the Love of money is the root of all evil. Only a higher good can overcome it.

Along those lines a major difference between those who adhere to our founding principles and those who replace those principles with the progressive model of government is in what each views to be the most important aspect of human nature.

The founding idea was based on that portion of human nature which sought an individual liberty to define ones life with the least amount of interference from government. The progressive idea saw individual humans as basically helpless against the flow of history. For Progressives the most important aspect of human nature was its need to be protected from life's misfortunes.

The Founders saw history as a consequence of human activity. The Progressives saw history as an inexorable force, a sort of Hegelian dialectic which could not be resisted and against which individuals were meaningless.


The Founders understood that there was a role for government in the protection of a society of individuals. A limited role that served the people. The Progressives saw government as the only power that could protect the people and that it must not be limited in its scope to do so.

The Founders devised a government which would promote what they considered the higher, nobler portions of human nature--to strive in those self defined ways in which they were endowed by a higher power, a creator, against the vicissitudes of life. The Progressives transformed that government to provide for the needs of that "lower" portion of human nature, the need to be sheltered against misfortune.

Problems cannot be solved unless their solution is based on truth.

Truth is a principle by which the Founder's system must operate, and on which the system was devised. In hammering out that system, they did not lie or dissemble to one another. They argued and debated about what they truly believed and desired. Their "truth" was based on the recorded history of human experience and the experience they were living. They were not afraid to face the difficulties of life as individuals, but understood that there was a need to provide for the common defense and welfare and to protect the free association and commerce among one another. They provided a constant, predictable social pact based on immutable principles, but provided for the necessity of change. The individual freedom, the free association, the common defense and commerce among each other depended on truth to be effective. Falsehoods would eventually distort and destroy the foundation and principles on which society depended.

For the Progressives, truth was relative. What was true in one generation might not be true in another, or even from moment to moment in the extreme. Constant change was the mode of existence and the way of governing. Principles were obstacles to change. Solutions would not be based on "truth" but on expediency. The exigence of the moment dictated how and what would be changed. Only an all-powerful central control of society could cope with this constantly shifting existence. "Hope and change" is not merely a catchy and attractive phrase, it is the essence of progressivism. And if those you wish to convert from so-called individual freedom to being protected and nourished by the collective, a few lies about what you are doing will eventually be appreciated when the greater good is established.

Of course, don't expect any change to last long. Time and history march on. The central power must constantly upgrade and reform. What may appear to be failures are just inevitable changes. New "theses" will always be followed by new"antitheses" from which new "syntheses" will be achieved--and the change will be faster as we technologically progress--until the ultimate synthesis is achieved--the perfect synthesis--utopia--the perfect society. Kinda like what Marx said.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Truth is a principle by which the Founder's system must operate, and on which the system was devised.

and it is a system that is/was unique in history, we have many examples of progressive(statist) movements to one degree or another throughout history but in each case the foundation that they were trying to erode(or in many cases they filled a vacuum) was not constructed to quite the degree and with the forethought and focus on individual liberty and limited government that our founders managed to engender. By doing this they, at least, perpetuated the inherent desire for individual freedom that I think represents the push back against all of these progressive agenda items that we see to this day...they were quite aware of the sophists and others throughout history who would use their "talents" to debase a culture and turn truth on it's head and advantage to a few in order to bring the balance of power about to a centralized form of governing and control..., but I'm not sure that the Founders provided a remedy for this, when truth becomes a casualty and those that benefit from the ignoring/twisting of fact and reality have wrested so much control over people and process

[justplugit]

Debutch, being a simple man I found your comparisons between our Founding Principles and the Progressive Model one of the best I have ever read.

I guess you could say a simple example would be a Declaration of Independence
vs. a Declaration of Dependence.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by scottw

and it is a system that is/was unique in history, we have many examples of progressive(statist) movements to one degree or another throughout history but in each case the foundation that they were trying to erode(or in many cases they filled a vacuum) was not constructed to quite the degree and with the forethought and focus on individual liberty and limited government that our founders managed to engender. By doing this they, at least, perpetuated the inherent desire for individual freedom that I think represents the push back against all of these progressive agenda items that we see to this day...they were quite aware of the sophists and others throughout history who would use their "talents" to debase a culture and turn truth on it's head and advantage to a few in order to bring the balance of power about to a centralized form of governing and control..., but I'm not sure that the Founders provided a remedy for this, when truth becomes a casualty and those that benefit from the ignoring/twisting of fact and reality have wrested so much control over people and process

No remedy is possible if the people don't want it. This brought to mind the quote "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". Out of curiosity I searched the quote and its source, which revealed different variations and attributions. But what I found most enlightening, interesting, was this item, a bit longish but well worth the read, or even sketchy perusal. It is a very thorough compilation of quotes on the subject of liberty, and by a wide spectrum of authors from the "right" or the "left", from the religious or the atheistic, from ancient times to the present, from the most famous to the lesser known--all with similar and incisive views on individual liberty vs. authoritarian power or vs. the security of that power or vs. ignorance or other related comparisons:

http://freedomkeys.com/vigil.htm

It can be read all at once in few minutes, or digested a few quotes at a time. Well worth looking at. I felt compelled to pick some quotes as examples, but there were so many really good ones that I let that go and just linked to the entire list.

Actually, justplugit's "a declaration of independence vs. a declaration of dependence" would be a good one.