@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
Regardless of how I am perceived on this board, I am dedicated to an overall truth, that both political parties have got to be rescued from the criminals now populating most of the ranks. I want my country to live up to the promise of Jefferson, Paine, MLK and such. Some of the people I oppose sometimes perform good acts. Sometimes is not good enough. These people are elected to represent the entire country all of the time.
My strong impression is that there has long been a lot more disagreement than agreement on these political threads. I believe this is simply a result of the evident fact that, for the most part, what we see written here represents the opinion of the writer about a complex subject usually involving numerous unstated assumptions, values and often some prejudices. These opinions, assumptions, values and prejudices are manifest both in the choice of facts and information provided by the writer (what is left out is often of greater importance than what is addressed), and sometimes directly in argument being made.
None of us are exempt from this. The simple fact is that the question of what is "good" or "bad" for a country or political movement is exceedingly complex, and the values, preoccupations and beliefs of the author inevitably play a strong role in his/her selection and organization of the information available in stating his case or judgment.
History offers ample evidence of peoples, governments, and leaders making what were later evident as wrong choices made often for the wrong reasons, but usually with what would be termed good intentions. The sad history of the British, French, German, Austrian & Russian governments in the two decade lead-in to WWI provides vivid illustrations of this on the parts of all involved. The war resolved nothing, but destroyed millions of lives and wealth accumulated over centuries for all: none of the participants achieved their war aims, and all were injured, even by things at the time thought favorable.
Edgar has very definite political beliefs about which he is usually very clear in acknowledging both what he sees as the relevant facts,and the assumptions and values guiding them. In this I believe he is a good deal more candid and direct than are most of us here.
I don't agree with many of his conclusions, but he usually makes the subjective elements leading to them very clear, leaving me to consider the equally subjective elements leading to my disagreement. In most of these cases there are facts supporting both views, and it is the selection of them that makes the difference - something that usually is indicative of what each party considers most important.
The great majority of what we read and write here is opinion: opinion involving exceedingly complex subjects - issues that in various forms have preoccupied mankind throughout its history - and so far without resolution. I believe we all could benefit by adopting more of the candor Edgar shows in acknowledging the values, beliefs and prejudices that lay behind his stated opinions..