| Blogs > jiminycricket1 > My Blog |
|
idealism versus realism I wrote this on another blog...actually big..I do not wish fault any ideas this blog.. It's the way it is....It's just not How each of Us see it.. You don't have accept all ideas..But accept they a BASED on some sort of reality. Some sort of logic. these truth are self evident. Maybe not exactly what was.. but what could have been. |
|||
|
Of Course, the battle between the idealistic and realistic has raged on. It was so in 1776 as it is today. The compromises that were made in 1776..were forced upon a new nation..there was no other choice. In many ways the writing of Constitution was purposely vague at the time. As compromise between the idealistic and the reality of the times. So that both sides could agree, both could take something from the writing of it. The idea at the time between the idealistic and realist. Was the difference between creating a better future and dealing with the problems of the day. Words used like equality, freedom and Liberty were dealt with both subjectively and objectively. Objectively they applied to the elite common man, the landowner, the and the taxpayer.. Subjectively they applied to everybody.. AS much as those who saw it subjectively as a future.. they could not avoid the practicality of the present. Those that would oppose the electoral college as a matter of democracy, could not avoid the practicality of the time. those that supported an electoral college made the argument..the same as you folks do today....But when broken down the argument from both side was the same. It was about who controlled the election..the ideas today are quite different than the ideas then about who controlled the election. The people , their representatives, or the elite. The elite being the landowners, the wealthy, and those most participating and impacted by government. The futurists and idealists has no choice but to lose the argument.There was no way to implement the idealistic democracy. The spread out population, the communication abilities, the inability to resolve disputed elections. I am sure at the time there were those who preferred a convening of governors , one from each State, to choose the president, but for the idealist that was unacceptable. and the compromise of an electoral college was made.. The idea of idealistic democracy required full participation, not even so much for democracy sake, but the idealist believed that participation was essential to have a sense of patriotism and country So they got the full participation, to sustain the idea of a federal government instead of participation and loyalty to the STATES. The idealists were not stupid they got whatever their could under the circumstances. They were burdened by their own hypocrisy.. the hypocrisy of having to settle, and apply a realists view of freedom and justice for all. not the idealistic view. you could not have the idealistic view and accept The elite voting rights..Slavery, indentured, women, restricted citizenship,and the prejudices of the time. Yet they had no other choice. This was not only the essence of the electoral college.. it was the essence of each amendment. You can still make the same arguments..believe that founding father took a strict view of the Constitution, and make up your reasons. But the hypocrisy once accepted by the idealists, is now the hypocrisy of the realist. AT THE TIME, The realist compromised less than idealists..But the idealist.. has been winning ever since.. Except now, except with this President...So the realists (republicans) have a completely made up ideology. to return to the same arguments of 1776.. Using THEIR Forefathers same arguments, but the realism has changed..But they haven't... they do not have the means.. so any made up means is used to justifies their ends.
| ||
|
Of Course, the battle between the idealistic and realistic has raged on. It was so in 1776 as it is today. The compromises that were made in 1776..were forced upon a new nation..there was no other choice. In many ways the writing of Constitution was purposely vague at the time. As compromise between the idealistic and the reality of the times. So that both sides could agree, both could take something from the writing of it. The idea at the time between the idealistic and realist. Was the difference between creating a better future and dealing with the problems of the day. Words used like equality, freedom and Liberty were dealt with both subjectively and objectively. Objectively they applied to the elite common man, the landowner, the and the taxpayer.. Subjectively they applied to everybody.. AS much as those who saw it subjectively as a future.. they could not avoid the practicality of the present. Those that would oppose the electoral college as a matter of democracy, could not avoid the practicality of the time. those that supported an electoral college made the argument..the same as you folks do today....But when broken down the argument from both side was the same. It was about who controlled the election..the ideas today are quite different than the ideas then, about who controlled the election. The people , their representatives, or the elite. The elite being the landowners, the wealthy, and those most participating and impacted by government. The futurists and idealists has no choice but to lose the argument. There was no way to implement the idealistic democracy. The spread out population, the communication abilities, the inability to resolve disputed elections. I am sure at the time there were those who preferred a convening of governors , one from each State, to choose the president, but for the idealist that was unacceptable. and the compromise of an electoral college was made.. The idea of an idealistic democracy required full participation, not even so much for democracy sake, but the idealist believed that participation was essential to have a sense of patriotism and country So they got the full participation, to sustain the idea of a federal government instead of participation and loyalty to the STATES. The idealists were not stupid they got whatever their could under the circumstances. They were burdened by their own hypocrisy.. the hypocrisy of having to settle, and apply a realists view of freedom and justice for all. not the idealistic view. You could not maintain the idealistic view and accept The elite voting rights..Slavery, indentured, women, restricted citizenship,and the prejudices of the time. Yet they had no other choice. This was not only the essence of the electoral college.. it was the essence of each amendment. You can still make the same arguments..believe that founding father took a strict view of the Constitution, and make up your reasons. But the hypocrisy once accepted by the idealists, is now the hypocrisy of the realist. At that time, The realist compromised less than idealists..But the idealist.. has been winning ever since.. Except now, except with this President...So the realists (republicans) have a completely made up ideology. to return to the same arguments of 1776.. Citing a strict interpretation of the Constitution to justify using THEIR Forefathers same arguments. Not recognizing that the Constitution was a compromise. The realism has changed..But they haven't... They want the meaning, objectively, of Freedom and Justice for all..that doesn't really mean "ALL"....but just the "elite".. They do not have the means to complete it now..... so any made up means is used to justifies their ends.
| ||
|
For Republicans... There is no complete freedom and justice. For All .. illegal immigrants blacks Browns Non-Christians Women The Poor Any anyone who is Not an Un-Native, Native American. Their idea of freedom and Justice for those people are what they are willing to give.to them The writing of the Constitution says so. The founding fathers did not give them the rights..So they don't HAVE to And so it is written and so it is done..
| ||
2/11/2020 1:58 pm |
It's an interesting perspective I'm not prepared to challenge. Though it might stray a bit here...I have never objected to what they refer to as 'activist' judges. The reason I feel this way is in support of some of your arguments. There are times when I'm frustrated by court rulings but perhaps begrudgingly have to admit the court was right, even though I hoped for a different ruling. Sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised by the court in actually winning an argument I feel certain to lose. Then there are the complete failings that I really find disturbing, just not buying the majority logic and opinion. That is the case with Citizens United, the court's ruling on the Voting Rights Act, and the absurd ruling and opinion of Justice Scalia on guns and the 2nd Amendment. That was a personal failing I will never really understand. Finally....Roe Vs Wade. It might surprise you that although I am a strong right to life advocate I feel the court got that decision right. But I'm one of millions that will be bothered by the whole thing until I die. Oh, and I guess there is one more....the death penalty to me seems obviously unconstitutional. I'm hoping that Virginia ends it soon. There are only 2 remaining on death row.
| ||
2/11/2020 2:02 pm |
As for the Electoral College it has succumbed to corruption now. It's filled with party activists so I think the deck is stacked and we all lose as a result. We shouldn't have presidencies where the loser by millions of votes wins. Every time that happens chaos has ensued. That SHOULD tell us something. We will NEVER see that change in our lifetime. I still hope, but I'm not optimistic.
| ||
2/11/2020 2:24 pm |
Speaking of realism...do you think Amy will double her delegate count from 1 to 2 tonight?
| ||
|
Speaking of realism...do you think Amy will double her delegate count from 1 to 2 tonight? I will tell you now if Buttigieg wasn't gay he would have won New Hamshire hands down.. he would have gotten at least half of Amy's votes.. The moderate Democrats all believe the same thing.. Socialism can't win and gay can't win. The question is... do Gays and Socialists believe Moderates can't win.
| ||
|
Speaking of realism...do you think Amy will double her delegate count from 1 to 2 tonight? I will tell you now if Buttigieg wasn't gay he would have won New Hamsphire hands down.. he would have gotten at least half of Amy's votes.. my orignal prediction after the debate was Sanders 28%, Buttigieg 20 %, Klobuchar 20%, Warren 12 % and Biden 10%.. I was real close , but for ME the biggest surprise in the New Hampshire primary was how well Buttigieg did. The moderate Democrats all believe the same thing.. Socialism can't win and gay can't win. The question is... do Gays and Socialists believe Moderates can't win.
|
×
×