I think the natural tendency of the average citizen who isn't usually very politically oriented is to react to the everything they see happening in the political arena the same way I viewed driving on the freeway for the first 50 times.
IT IS FRIGHTENING AND CONFUSING!!!!
Everythinghappenssofastandallthedriversarerudeandi nahurryandsomemayevenbecrazyandit's alljustabig****ingmess!
That is, until you gain some experience dealing with it and then things begin to make sense and then, as you go along you begin to notice patterns of behavior in certain peoples and then you notice what other people have that same pattern and then you wonder if what you are noticing is just a coincidence or if it is really a discernible patter that is particular to those people and noticeably NOT to others or much less than others and then things begin to make more sense.
And that is when you begin to test your assumptions. You use all kinds of different ways of testing them out. You purposely start a thread and then take note of how people react to the thread. And not necessarily a political thread. You look at test subjects or test groups and watch how they respond to all kinds of subject matter.
And then you come to trust your assumptions because you have noticed these patterns over a given period of time and then you tested your assumptions. And then you subjected them to various challenges and watched how they responded. And then you knew you had figured out that this certain group behaved consistently and significantly differently than anyone else.
So one day you will mention your conclusions to others and none of them will believe you because they see nothingbutthesamekindofconfusionthatyoudidatfirsto rtheyarejustnotasobservantasyou.
And they will challenge your conclusions and they will scoff at your beliefs and they will become angry with you for bringing up these findings and try their best to neutralize or negate your findings. But that's ok, you know that you know what you know. And that's enough to know.
And somewhere in your unscientific research you would have looked to see what the people in this group all have in common and to your surprise you discover they are all of a certain political persuasion.
And one of the many things you notice about that persuasion is that those people tend not to look at things beyond face value, or they just don't have deep curiosities, in general. And that they are motivated more by their emotions than by facts. And that they care a great deal about how things look than how well they work or with the integrity of the thing.
And then you realize that those particular traits, while charming, or at least inconsequential in the abstract, might contribute greatly to the political divide in this country, which I grant you is pretty damned bad!
And, of course the people I'm talking about of that one political persuasion will certainly respond to this knowledge with great passion. That's what they are known for, their emotional sides rather than their logical sides. And they will attack the conclusions and you and your momma and they will try to say that your persuasion is just as bad and that there is no difference betwen the two persuasions, even though you know there is.
And that brings me to the meat of this whole matter.
The ONE SINGLE MAJOR cause for the gaping, rancorous political divide in this country:
Quote:
It seems to me that at the root of the divisive and rancorous dispute over the war on terrorism (or whatever you choose to call it), is an individual's belief in one of the following two mutually exclusive propositions.
1. There is a broad-based, highly aggressive, well-funded, and effective jihadist movement which poses a dire threat not just to secular and pluralist societies in the Muslim world, but to civil societies in Europe, the Americas, and Asia.
2. There isn't.
http://www.fourmilab.ch/fourmilog/ar...09/000901.html |
The liberals, leftists and Democrats are the #2 people.
Conservatives (paleo & neo's), right wingers and Republicans are the #1 people.
The #2 people are the ones responsible for all the rancor and the major political divisions in this country today.
And the reason I say that is because the #2 people could simply read these links and they would no longer be #2 people. They would be #1's.
Jihad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Amazon.com: Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies against the West: Books: Walid Phares Dying To Win, After All - March 27, 2007 - The New York Sun Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Redhunter: Book Review - "Future Jihad" - Part 6: al Qaeda
And there would be much less anger between the #1's and the #2's in America.
Now, it just so happens right now that most of the #1 people are Conservative and most of the #2 people are liberals. But the idea is for ALL of the people in America to be #1's.
In the years until now the Dems have accepted that the GOP's would occasionally win elections which gave them power and that was just part of the game.
Sometimes you win, sometimes they win.
But since the 1990's we have had a growing threat in this world go largely un recognized by the liberal people. And they have consistently tried to ignore the problem, make the country think they were dealing with the problem through a show of force which really was ineffective in dealing with the problem. And after we could no longer go on ignoring the problem the liberal people argued passionately against everything the GOP people tried to do to deal with the problem on a holistic level.
Of course the problem I'm talking about is Jihad. Global Jihad. And the Democrats have repeatedly shown that in the face of this threat to America where the best known Jihadist actually declared war on the USA in 1996 they have done what Democrats do. They make it appear as though they have done something about Jihad when they haven't. They become passionately emotionally concerned about those who want us dead and in some cases more concerned than in effectively dealing with the threat.
And most importantly, because they tend not to look too deeply at matters they just won't bother reading about Jihad.
And the fact is that if the GOP people trusted that the Liberal people wouldn't endanger the country by ignorantly denying the threat or dealing with it as a game or giving in to it we, the GOP people wouldn't mind giving up a little power to our Democratic friends.
But when the people who want power can't be bothered to read about the enemy or when they use our nation's safety and freedom in the world as a political football with which they can score points with the Democratic voters who are ignorant about Jihad and the Democratic politicians want to devise ill-informed strategies for dealing with the enemy who knows US VERY WELL you just don't feel comfortable with the country in their hands.
And so when they say they want the White House Conservative folks say not just no, but
HELL NO!
So, in a nutshell, the animosity you sense is all the Democrats' politicians fault because they refuse to become educated about Jihad and they pander to their ignorant voters instead of leading them and educating them and Republicans are determined not to allow them to run this country until or unless they show they are taking the proper precautions.
The Liberals need to understand global Jihad.
Then the red hot fury will start to cool off.
Thanks for asking.
Linear Mode
Main
Extras
