Monday, February 18, 2008
VOX POPULI
It is not all that difficult to be a moderate. However, it is tough being an activist moderate, such as the Militant Moderate claims to be. It is important to remember that there are moderates to the left, the right, and in the center.
Being an activist moderate requires that one rise in vocal opposition to extremes, especially if those extremists are in the ruling class or oligarchy.
While it is true that most extremists tend to represent a degree of threat, those in power are really dangerous. When those in power hold extreme positions on important issues, the welfare of the people hangs vulnerable.
Some have characterized the Militant Moderate as writing a partisan column. No doubt this is because he is so frequently critical of the president and the ruling party’s positions on issues, as well as their character -- as evidenced in their conduct of affairs of state.
Alas, the MM has also been critical of those who deviate to the left of the political continuum. But the socialists, radical labor unions, consumer activists, civil liberties union, green peace, P.E.T.A., atheists, Sierra club, and the gays are not in singular, ruling political power.
Those in power are the ones who run budget deficits while giving tax cuts to the privileged; take the country into war on false pretenses; engage in wholesale political corruption; corrupt the criminal prosecution system for political gain; violate habeas corpus rights and torture prisoners; engage in corporate welfare doles; illegally invade the privacy of citizens; try to wreck the SS system to benefit capital managers; export our jobs and our capital; decimate the middle class; keep wounded soldiers and veterans in squalor; help pharmaceutical companies rob the sick and elderly; and run up trade debts with communist China.
If somebody other than republicans were doing these things, the Militant Moderate would attack them.
Nevertheless, some thought has indeed been given to renaming this column. The title Vox Populi – the Voice of the People – has been considered. The Militant Moderate considers himself a populist in political philosophy.
There are a few etymological and historical problems with that title, however. The entire quotation in Latin is: vox populi, vox Dio. The translation of that is: “The voice of the people is the voice of God.”
This quotation has a long history. It can be traced as far back as 798 when it was used in a letter from Alcuin, a cleric from York, later abbot and advisor to the emperor Charlemagne. He wrote to his king as follows:
“And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since their riotousness is always very close to madness.”
So, perhaps Vox Populi might well require some qualifying modifier.
It is clear that the elitist Roman view of “the people” as equated with “the rabble” may have continued to hold sway through the Middle Ages. The “rabble” term was still used in the 1780’s to describe the people who stormed the Bastille and deposed the corrupt monarchy of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette in the French Revolution.
The French philosophers, such as Rousseau, provided the rationale for the democratic revolution against the “divine right of kings” and nobility to rule -- which today is analogous to the rights of the rich to govern. These philosophers influenced John Locke of England and Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and a father of our Constitution.
These great philosophers and founding thinkers legitimized democracy as a form of government. Democracies no longer hold to the elitist equation of the “rabble” with the “people.” Instead, “the people” are called “voters.”
“Vox populi” may be appropriate. But “Audax Modica” is still better.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Being an activist moderate requires that one rise in vocal opposition to extremes, especially if those extremists are in the ruling class or oligarchy.
While it is true that most extremists tend to represent a degree of threat, those in power are really dangerous. When those in power hold extreme positions on important issues, the welfare of the people hangs vulnerable.
Some have characterized the Militant Moderate as writing a partisan column. No doubt this is because he is so frequently critical of the president and the ruling party’s positions on issues, as well as their character -- as evidenced in their conduct of affairs of state.
Alas, the MM has also been critical of those who deviate to the left of the political continuum. But the socialists, radical labor unions, consumer activists, civil liberties union, green peace, P.E.T.A., atheists, Sierra club, and the gays are not in singular, ruling political power.
Those in power are the ones who run budget deficits while giving tax cuts to the privileged; take the country into war on false pretenses; engage in wholesale political corruption; corrupt the criminal prosecution system for political gain; violate habeas corpus rights and torture prisoners; engage in corporate welfare doles; illegally invade the privacy of citizens; try to wreck the SS system to benefit capital managers; export our jobs and our capital; decimate the middle class; keep wounded soldiers and veterans in squalor; help pharmaceutical companies rob the sick and elderly; and run up trade debts with communist China.
If somebody other than republicans were doing these things, the Militant Moderate would attack them.
Nevertheless, some thought has indeed been given to renaming this column. The title Vox Populi – the Voice of the People – has been considered. The Militant Moderate considers himself a populist in political philosophy.
There are a few etymological and historical problems with that title, however. The entire quotation in Latin is: vox populi, vox Dio. The translation of that is: “The voice of the people is the voice of God.”
This quotation has a long history. It can be traced as far back as 798 when it was used in a letter from Alcuin, a cleric from York, later abbot and advisor to the emperor Charlemagne. He wrote to his king as follows:
“And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since their riotousness is always very close to madness.”
So, perhaps Vox Populi might well require some qualifying modifier.
It is clear that the elitist Roman view of “the people” as equated with “the rabble” may have continued to hold sway through the Middle Ages. The “rabble” term was still used in the 1780’s to describe the people who stormed the Bastille and deposed the corrupt monarchy of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette in the French Revolution.
The French philosophers, such as Rousseau, provided the rationale for the democratic revolution against the “divine right of kings” and nobility to rule -- which today is analogous to the rights of the rich to govern. These philosophers influenced John Locke of England and Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and a father of our Constitution.
These great philosophers and founding thinkers legitimized democracy as a form of government. Democracies no longer hold to the elitist equation of the “rabble” with the “people.” Instead, “the people” are called “voters.”
“Vox populi” may be appropriate. But “Audax Modica” is still better.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
Sunday, February 10, 2008
McCain -- The Weeek after Super T
The week after Super Tuesday has been a strange but interesting one. One of our presidential races is clarifying, and the other may be even more muddled.
John McCain, whom we normally label as the nice guy, has emerged as the presumptive candidate on the Republican ticket. He is opposed by a religious right preacher, former Arkansas governor and protector of polluters of the Illinois River, who has some really nutty ideas about the federal government, taxation, and the constitution. Oh, and there is Ron, the Libertarian.
McCain, the nice guy with a few blemishes, has been under attack by the ultra-conservative right wingers in his own party. He could not choose better enemies if he had tried.
His party enemies are Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, who have been given a platform by the Republican-led repeal of the fairness doctrine in deregulating the licensed public airwaves, even allowing foreign ownership. They now can speak “truth” of whatever sort the network owners and their sponsors allow.
No self-respecting newspaper mixes its news and editorials, but broadcasters are free to do so. The “equal time” fairness doctrine is long gone. Hello, Clear Channel, Mr. Murdock, and the Fox News.
John McCain, the former nice guy, appears to be making mistakes day after day in trying to appease the right wing fringe of his party. He once opposed the tax cuts for the rich in face of huge war expenses and budget deficits. Now, he has signed on to keep those and find more. He has abandoned his position on immigration, unpopular with conservatives.
Every speech curries favor with the most conservative in his party. This reminds us all too much of the McCain who in 2000 rode his “plain talk” bus to popularity, who was trashed by the Bush dirty tricks people, and then turned right around to embrace Bush. This is the same John McCain who went to Liberty University to embrace Jerry Falwell, whom he had called an agent of intolerance.
Worst of all, McCain supports every foolish proposal the Bush administration has proffered. From privatizing social security, defeating extension of medical care for children, health savings accounts for the uninsured, on to the Iraq War, McCain has been found in the front ranks of Bush’s support in the Senate. He has consistently lined up with the Republican bloc to reach 40% in the Senate to stalemate progressive legislation.
McCain has some strange idea of “victory” in Iraq, and he calls stopping the occupation “defeat.” Just what is victory? Victory over whom? If the Iraq conflict is settled through mediation and pressures on the sectarian constituencies there, and if the Iraqi tribal people themselves are eradicating Al Quida, is that not satisfactory?
McCain talks now of some kind of continuing military occupation of Iraq. Will he later change his definition of “victory” in Iraq, just as Bush keeps adjusting his definitions of “success” there?
McCain has the same line of tough talk for Iran that Bush has had. Should one guess he might have the same ideas for policing the world? Does he plan to continue the international bully role as our president? It would seem so. Is McCain as hot tempered as his colleagues say? If so, what does that say for the future internationally?
As we have said, John McCain has come across in the past as a nice guy, as having friends on both sides of the aisle and willing to work in a bi-partisan fashion on a few issues. One would hope that the rest of the campaign does not continue the path of denigration of that label.
John McCain cannot win the fall election against either democrat while carrying George Bush’s baggage, that of his party’s right wing conservatives, and the baggage of his own past history. That’s too much. McCain, the Republican maverick, would be much more palatable politically.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
John McCain, whom we normally label as the nice guy, has emerged as the presumptive candidate on the Republican ticket. He is opposed by a religious right preacher, former Arkansas governor and protector of polluters of the Illinois River, who has some really nutty ideas about the federal government, taxation, and the constitution. Oh, and there is Ron, the Libertarian.
McCain, the nice guy with a few blemishes, has been under attack by the ultra-conservative right wingers in his own party. He could not choose better enemies if he had tried.
His party enemies are Rush Limbaugh and his ilk, who have been given a platform by the Republican-led repeal of the fairness doctrine in deregulating the licensed public airwaves, even allowing foreign ownership. They now can speak “truth” of whatever sort the network owners and their sponsors allow.
No self-respecting newspaper mixes its news and editorials, but broadcasters are free to do so. The “equal time” fairness doctrine is long gone. Hello, Clear Channel, Mr. Murdock, and the Fox News.
John McCain, the former nice guy, appears to be making mistakes day after day in trying to appease the right wing fringe of his party. He once opposed the tax cuts for the rich in face of huge war expenses and budget deficits. Now, he has signed on to keep those and find more. He has abandoned his position on immigration, unpopular with conservatives.
Every speech curries favor with the most conservative in his party. This reminds us all too much of the McCain who in 2000 rode his “plain talk” bus to popularity, who was trashed by the Bush dirty tricks people, and then turned right around to embrace Bush. This is the same John McCain who went to Liberty University to embrace Jerry Falwell, whom he had called an agent of intolerance.
Worst of all, McCain supports every foolish proposal the Bush administration has proffered. From privatizing social security, defeating extension of medical care for children, health savings accounts for the uninsured, on to the Iraq War, McCain has been found in the front ranks of Bush’s support in the Senate. He has consistently lined up with the Republican bloc to reach 40% in the Senate to stalemate progressive legislation.
McCain has some strange idea of “victory” in Iraq, and he calls stopping the occupation “defeat.” Just what is victory? Victory over whom? If the Iraq conflict is settled through mediation and pressures on the sectarian constituencies there, and if the Iraqi tribal people themselves are eradicating Al Quida, is that not satisfactory?
McCain talks now of some kind of continuing military occupation of Iraq. Will he later change his definition of “victory” in Iraq, just as Bush keeps adjusting his definitions of “success” there?
McCain has the same line of tough talk for Iran that Bush has had. Should one guess he might have the same ideas for policing the world? Does he plan to continue the international bully role as our president? It would seem so. Is McCain as hot tempered as his colleagues say? If so, what does that say for the future internationally?
As we have said, John McCain has come across in the past as a nice guy, as having friends on both sides of the aisle and willing to work in a bi-partisan fashion on a few issues. One would hope that the rest of the campaign does not continue the path of denigration of that label.
John McCain cannot win the fall election against either democrat while carrying George Bush’s baggage, that of his party’s right wing conservatives, and the baggage of his own past history. That’s too much. McCain, the Republican maverick, would be much more palatable politically.
Dr. Edwin E. Vineyard, AKA The Militant Moderate
