Leave a Reply

Comment as a guest.
Avatar

  1. I don’t even know where to start because as I was reading, I couldn’t tell where he was going with his thoughts. He brought up a lot of points just to say that he’d like us to pull out of Iraq. I get the feeling that he himself is an Angry American, but one that is trapped like so many politicians and is unable to really step away from Washington long enough to understand the common man or woman.
    I’d point out to him that after wars are started, dissent and a desire for the war to be over has been documented for EVERY war we have been in. Even our beloved Revolution had people who thought we would be better off staying part of the Empire. The wars are far enough apart that a new generation of young people doesn’t remember the tragedy of the last one. Even the great FDR declined in popularity during WWII.
    Perhaps Ron Paul is frustrated because politicians really can’t do much about our economy because it is so massive. Anything they do to try and make it better doesn’t get reflected in the economy in time for them to brag about it near elections. It sounds nice to say that so many Americans do not pay federal income taxes, but they do pay the little charges here and there and lower income people are much more aware of those things. Not to mention that just because the federal level doesn’t tax you directly, does not mean the state and local governments don’t either. When the Fed gives less money to the states, the state says it must get more money from you because the Fed gave less.
    As much as I support the war now and did starting off, I do admit that I wouldn’t cry if the news tomorow was that we are completely leaving Iraq. But this sense of anger from Americans is too easily passed off as a result of the war. Not that there isn’t any anger from it, but it too quickly moves the lion’s share of possible blame away from congress.
    If you read the non-war issues that American’s are angered about, these are not new issues. New details in them, but not new issues. Could it be that American’s are angry because these have been issues for so long, and that there should have been a solution by now? Immigration, alternative fuels, government corruption, real justice from business corruption trials, etc. is a list of things that there has been lots of talk and low meaningful action on.

  2. I wonder if part of the reason we are so angry is that we want everything to be fixed, and fixed NOW! Also, part of the reason may be that we are so used to the adreneline rush that comes from getting angry, that we simply don’t know any other way.
    I used to read Ron Paul’s writings, but I have discovered that he tends to wander all over the place — guess it comes with getting older 🙂
    ~EdT.

  3. Well, it seems Rep. Paul hasn’t changed all that much since he was my congresscritter (remember that he preceded Tom Delay in CD-22.) He certainly was all over the map with that speech – and I am not sure exactly what the point was he was trying to make, other than to expound on his Libertarian leanings.
    I will agree that it seems we as a people are angrier than before – though to look back at history, I suspect that folks from around the 1860 time frame might dispute that position. Maybe it isn’t that we are angry so much as we are passionate – and our means of communication don’t facilitate an orderly, civil dialogue. It also may be that our measure of what ‘wins’ a debate – the “Where’s the Beef?” syndrome – along with our reliance on TV, where every problem has to be solved in 22.5 minutes (or continued into the next week) has altered the course of discussion toward the 30-second soundbite, the ‘zinger’ which leaves your opponent unable to respond, and thus brings you victory by default.
    ~EdT.

  4. Polimom, thanks for the link as it reminded me why I think Ron Paul is a political charlatan. He just doesn’t get it.
    You probably aren’t surprised that I disagree with his reasoning but not that the problem exists. I’d like to give a few ideas as to the growing anger:
    Taxes are paid by the top 50% moneymakers. Well, there 50% of the people not happy there. This is a VERY powerful group to be ticked off and they exert their anger in ways not as obvious as others.
    Major parts of the bottom 50% are mad because they were raised to believe they were “owed” something. As Heinlein said, “When the monkeys learn they can vote themselves bananas, they’ll never climb a tree again.”
    In building the “welfare state,” we stole from them the hope of owning a home, of wanting an education, of participating in the American dream; and replaced it with free meagerness.
    Additionally, people are multifaceted. There are many groups within the 100% that the other two groups total.
    It doesn’t matter if the far left like it or not, this is a fact: This nation was founded on Christian values and the vast majority being of that faith. This group however didn’t want to make the mistakes of the British and so many European nations by forming a “church-state” because they saw how it was being misused.
    But they didn’t pay attention to their history. What is so ironic is the reason the great European nations moved into the Christian “church state” wasn’t a super evangelical event but a defense of the continued onslaught of another “church state,” the Islamic “church states.” More than just the “Little Ice Age” caused Europe’s Dark Age. If you’ll check, while Europe may have been ‘dark,’ Islam was VERY bright, and moving into Europe, pressuring the nations in Europe to accept Islam.
    Now you see the irony. Centuries after European nations were forced to form “church states” in response to the incursion of the Muslims, we find Western Civilization once again being encroached on by Islam, a religion that at it’s core, does not believe in a division in church and state. As a matter of fact, they can’t be righteous in the eyes of Allah if the government of the country they occupy does NOT follow the Prophet’s Laws.
    In light of this, the United States finds itself with no central religious base as it has had in the past. The U.S. is now in a post-Christian area, the majority of its citizens no longer of the Christian faith. So there’s a Christian group, potentially very large, that feels pressure and anger. Then there are those that somehow don’t see Islam as a threat that are upset with this “superstitious” group of Christians.
    And so it goes – one group against the other, pricking each other to anger the other. Take humor. So much of it is no longer funny to a major part of the nation. When they turn on the Comedy Channel, Christians are faced with more blue words comedy than Blue Collar. People who feel like they have a legitimate belief have painful barbs thrown at them by Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert as if they were in junior high and were being picked on by the class bully. And if they don’t watch, which most don’t, they see them on other programming, including the news.
    It’s not funny anymore and the left wing thinks it’s a blast to keep on pricking, thumbing, and talking down to a group of people that’s had just about all that type of conduct they can stand. They would NOT let in happen in person to them, and these “comedians” have pushed, pushed, and pushed until a lot of people feel their back against the wall.
    This nation is being held together by a little love and Band-Aids and too many people are picking at the scab.
    I have to go to work, but let me put in a little something from Teddy Roosevelt in 1915.
    … There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts “native” before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.
    The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else.
    For an American citizen to vote as a German-American, an Irish-American, or an English-American, is to be a traitor to American institutions; and those hyphenated Americans who terrorize American politicians by threats of the foreign vote are engaged in treason to the American Republic.

    Teddy, there’s nothing left in this country to pull it together and the hyphens out.
    Sincerely,
    Laz

  5. I had some of the same reactions as Jack and Ed T: There were a number of points that (per Paul’s style) rambled somewhat, and in the end, all of it was to say that the war in Iraq is why Americans are angry.
    I think that’s too fine a level of detail. The war (and the emotions accompanying it) is merely a lightning rod for a number of other higher-level problems.
    I found myself in agreement, though, with fear as a major contributor to our current anger. Many things are presented as “scary”, whether it’s “hordes of illegal immigrants”, “the destruction of the traditional family”, or “we’ll be attacked by terrorists any minute”… pretty much everything is framed that way now.
    Fear is a powerful emotion, and it’s pervaded American society; the liberals (and others) are afraid of the neocons, the hawks are afraid of the treasonous, the Christians are afraid of the Muslims… we’ve fractured into thousands of “us” and “them” subgroups.
    No wonder we’re angry.

  6. Lazarus – the way I read European history, the reason that countries there had official religions was that they all started out as monarchies – most of whom were associated with the old Roman Empire, where Christianity was a capital offense until the time of the Emperor Constantine, at which point it became the law of the land. Kings were God’s civil authority, while the holy orders provided the spiritual authority. It was the tension between these two groups that led to things like the Church of England (Henry VIII in a spat with the then-Pope over a divorce), various revolts, and eventually the decision in the USofA that this whole idea of an official state religion (most of Europe was either Catholic or Lutheran, with England being Anglican) wasn’t something they wanted to carry over into our system.
    ~EdT.

  7. “I found myself in agreement, though, with fear as a major contributor to our current anger.”
    Yes, it is always easier to persuade the masses when you have them scared. Fear causes the adreneline to flow, which among other things dulls the senses (especially the ‘common’ one) needed for critical thinking.
    Such a thing can be useful in times of war – however, now that we have the never-ending “war on drugs”, and its near-sister the “war on terror” (along with the “war on child porn”, the “war on tobacco”, the “war on fast food”, and the “war on damn near everything else under the sun”), we don’t have the time to step back, take a deep breath, and let our bodies settle down. No recovery time, we tend to get cranky. REAL cranky. And, we don’t want to be living like this forever, so we want somebody to Do Something. And, when nobody is able to solve world hunger in 23.5 minutes, we get cranky once more.
    Unfortunately, Rep. Paul doesn’t really offer any possible solutions for this – just a sense of his own frustrations.
    ~EdT.

  8. Ed T – You’re skipping over more a century in there. That’s because you only read the “Western” account of history. There is no “Dark Ages” as “Western” history calls them in the Arab history. In their history, it is the Age of Enlightenment when they spread the Word of The Prophet to most of the known world. They also advanced the math and sciences by leaps during that period building on the knowledge held in desert writtings believed to be akin to the Royal Library of Alexandria. Look up the word “algebra” sometime and then start going over all the other terms of math and science. Christianity was, more or less, a convenient way to find a rallying point for the feudal system. That’s why no one really took the Papacy seriously and Popes were run in and out like so many cattle threw a chute. Oddly, the Catholic Church history, as it’s been opened up today, is one of the best ways to verify Arab/Islam history.

  9. WOW, speaking a math I was off by a decimal point.
    I said You’re skipping over more a century in there.
    That should have read
    You’re skipping over a millennium in there.
    100 years, 1000 years – what’s it matter. It’s just history.

  10. Lazarus – actually, I *have* read the parts about the rise of Islamic civilization. The timeframe I was talking about occurred before then, as in “the latter days of the Roman Empire.” After Rome fell, Europe mostly became a feudal, backwater mess of city-states (this is the “Dark Ages” I was speaking of), during which time Islam rose to prominence and managed to conquer a fair amount of Europe – and they weren’t kicked out until around the late 1400s. However – and this was the point I was trying to make – the idea of Christianity as an “official state religion” began a long time before Mohammed and Islam came on the scene – and in fact it was the continuation of a policy of having such a “state religion” that existed during much of the time the Roman Empire existed.
    ~EdT.

  11. Well EdT at this point I’d normally go get my text books and locate corresponding net links to prove my case. BUT as Polimom has said this is a “different” atmosphere so I’ll just say you must have read a different history than the one I ______ in university and leave it at that.
    We shall agree to disagree.
    Be well EdT and God bless.

Read Next

Sliding Sidebar