I don't particularly like discussing politics, but I LOVE to talk about group dynamics, and there are a few things that get people going, sex, money, politics. Therefore, I write about what I think and invite people to respond and to get the process going. Yes, I am an intensity junkie- thus I chose psychiatry, versus pathology...
Anyway, one of the tricks in group dynamics, is that once you say things like, "So I will probably get lynched," people are less likely to actually lynch you.
But I am loving getting to know my friends more- we try to stay so neutral most of the time that discussing politics is actually banned at my work (never mind that our resources are at the whim of politicians.) So, go read my Glutton for Punishment post and leave me a comment!
Meanwhile, I will talk about the other side of the coin. As a Christian, I actually also see the faults of 'less is more.' You see, I believe that people are innately imperfect and thus we need the One who is perfect, who had atoned for all sins and thus we are made right with God. If I believe people are not going to make the right choices, don't we need someone who can make the right choices for us, and thus, bigger government? So you see, I am not totally fixed on my political thoughts.
When I talk to Hubby about politics, I will say things like, "Can you believe how we voted for Bush? I mean...seriously. The guy looks like a monkey. Is his IQ really 142, according to the IQ prompts that always come up on my facebook page..." Hubby will say, "Well, he did appoint two Supreme Court Judges, and those people are going to be on the bench long after he is gone, and that was very important." Perhaps as a conservative, that would be one of the very few things I agree with. Sometimes, I wonder what it is like to be Bush. He seems oblivious to his negative image and could-care-less about negative criticism, will historians (Emilymr, this is going to be your job!) going to find his presidency totally inept in 50 years, or will we learn new information that would change our minds? What do his daughter say about him? "Yup, that is my dad, he is a great dad, but a bad president?" Or do they think all (or most) of his decisions are correct?
And just as a clarification, when I have talked about 'more taxes' I meant more than I am already paying now. For instance, it was ok with me that we didn't get our economic stimulus check last November because our income exceeded the upper limit, and Hubby would say, "Give Ceasar what is due Ceasar." It is NOT ok with me to possibly have to fork over 40-50% of my money.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
4 comments:
So I'd started to type a longer comment last night, but I was tired, so I left it short. When I mentioned that I believed less is more when it comes to government, it was because I feel that the government uses my money inefficiently and often unethically. I absolutely think we should recognize the ways we're blessed and take care of people who have less--even to the point that we ourselves are living sacrificially. I just don't agree with the way the government usually tries to tackle these things, and I'd rather direct that money through other channels that have more accountability, more direct involvement with the people they're helping, and fewer people lobbying them. I'm sure I'm leaving something unsaid, but expect a nice long comment from my husband. ;-)
M, you wrote: "If I believe people are not going to make the right choices, don't we need someone who can make the right choices for us, and thus, bigger government?"
But, the government IS people ("of the people, by the people, and for the people..."). Bush may think he has a direct line to God, but clearly he's made some mistakes and poor choices...so how do you account for that?
There are other people who think the "right" choices are also mandated by God and do some awfully crazy things. That's the problem with this theo-philosophy. Until "faith" works consistently and uniformly for EVERYONE, it has no place in government.
"Anyway, one of the tricks in group dynamics, is that once you say things like, "So I will probably get lynched," people are less likely to actually lynch you."
Addendum. For the record, I don't believe in "lynching" people figuratively or literally and I don't need to be manipulated in order to have civil conversation. Self-effacement and all these other "tricks" also play out in one-on-one dynamics and they are simply forms of manipulation in my book, unintenional and otherwise. But then again, maybe discourse is inherently manipulative? I don't know.
I have to agree with Rebecca, I fail to see how a bigger government is supposed to make better choices because it is made up of people and is also fallible.
I read this open letter to the religious right, "Being on God's Side">. It expresses sentiments of many Christians in how and why we engage in matters of policy and politic.
There is a quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln where he responds to this very idea of both sides claiming God is on their side: "my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always right."
Post a Comment