Since I am surrounded by people who know Harry Reid and periodically although infrequently meet someone who actually likes him, I ask them why. Today I heard someone say they support Reid because he 'fights for the things in which he believes'. Wouldn't it be nice if people who opposed Reid did that? Oh wait. Some of them did and have. We just had an election after all.
The problem with using Reid as an ensign to would-be challengers is that Reid is a man without conscience. How can a man in good conscience do things that benefit himself and hurt other people? Well, it's very simple. It's easy to remove responsibility when you remove choice from the equation, and it's easy to victimize others if they are not real to you. Reid spends very little time at Sidewalk Level, and so he is able to do things that hurt you because he does not know you and therefore you are not real to him.
I wrote a few weeks back about how people are able to commit crimes only when they dehumanize the victims. The Goebbels Propaganda Machine was very good at renditioning the Jews as subhuman in order to garner general support for genocide. When Reid comes to speak or hold a dinner or do anything, it is almost always by invitation only. He has no intention of meeting real people with real problems. You are beneath him, and therefore anything he does is justified because you are sub-Reid, and therefore sub-human.
The problem with a fighter at your head without morals is that he is like a bull in a china shop. Many revolutions have been bloody for the body politic because the person willing to lead the charge was a person bereft of morality, responsibility, and ethics. That was how France ended up with the Robespierre's Reign of Terror and how the Bolsheviks ravaged Russia in similar fashion. If you read Edmund Burke's defense of the American revolution and indemnification of the French, you can see that his primary objection was a lack of honor, civility and morality on behalf of the participants. In America, the revolution was backed with principles. In France, it was backed by the guillotine.
George Washington made a great figurehead and cemented the colonies and later country together because he was a man of principle. You want a fighter who is also a lover, a lover of righteousness, of principles, of his fellow men, and of his creator, whatever he believes that creative power to be. Few could honestly argue with Washington, and most trusted him. There was a time when "Washington has given his word" actually meant something.
We do not need a Harry Reid to fight for America, his 'extensive' boxing experience notwithstanding. In the arena of ideals and idealists, Harry is a philosophical light weight. He takes away with his left hook what he has given with his right. He will bloody you if it will advance him. He epitomizes that which Thomas Paine opined in organized government:
The problem with using Reid as an ensign to would-be challengers is that Reid is a man without conscience. How can a man in good conscience do things that benefit himself and hurt other people? Well, it's very simple. It's easy to remove responsibility when you remove choice from the equation, and it's easy to victimize others if they are not real to you. Reid spends very little time at Sidewalk Level, and so he is able to do things that hurt you because he does not know you and therefore you are not real to him.
I wrote a few weeks back about how people are able to commit crimes only when they dehumanize the victims. The Goebbels Propaganda Machine was very good at renditioning the Jews as subhuman in order to garner general support for genocide. When Reid comes to speak or hold a dinner or do anything, it is almost always by invitation only. He has no intention of meeting real people with real problems. You are beneath him, and therefore anything he does is justified because you are sub-Reid, and therefore sub-human.
The problem with a fighter at your head without morals is that he is like a bull in a china shop. Many revolutions have been bloody for the body politic because the person willing to lead the charge was a person bereft of morality, responsibility, and ethics. That was how France ended up with the Robespierre's Reign of Terror and how the Bolsheviks ravaged Russia in similar fashion. If you read Edmund Burke's defense of the American revolution and indemnification of the French, you can see that his primary objection was a lack of honor, civility and morality on behalf of the participants. In America, the revolution was backed with principles. In France, it was backed by the guillotine.
George Washington made a great figurehead and cemented the colonies and later country together because he was a man of principle. You want a fighter who is also a lover, a lover of righteousness, of principles, of his fellow men, and of his creator, whatever he believes that creative power to be. Few could honestly argue with Washington, and most trusted him. There was a time when "Washington has given his word" actually meant something.
We do not need a Harry Reid to fight for America, his 'extensive' boxing experience notwithstanding. In the arena of ideals and idealists, Harry is a philosophical light weight. He takes away with his left hook what he has given with his right. He will bloody you if it will advance him. He epitomizes that which Thomas Paine opined in organized government:
Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other creates distinctions. The first a patron, the last a punisher.
Harry Reid is not the Society I seek. He is government. Give me a fighter and a lover. Give me a philosopher king. Give me a Guardian, a strong man who fights not for power or pelf or because someone leads him or because he likes to fight but someone who does it because it's the right thing to do.
1 comment:
good
Post a Comment