Lawyers (a former profession; now another business)

(I’m still laughing over that Homer Simpson cartoon.)

As soon a he pulls Mitchelles’ size 12 Hi heel pumps out of his rectum!

Kirk defines Burke’s definition of conservatism as a reaction against these six tenets of “radicalism” in the era of the French Revolution — the six tenets would later become what we know of 20th century “liberalism”:

The Conservative Mind, by Russell Kirk. Washington: Regnery, 2001. Pg. 27.

(1) If there is divine authority in the universe, it differs sharply in its nature from the Christian idea of God: for some radicals, it is the remote and impassive Being of the deists; for others, the misty and new-modelled God of Rousseau.

(2) Abstract reason or (alternatively) idyllic imagination may be employed not merely to study, but to direct, the course of social destiny.

(3) Man naturally is benevolent, generous, healthy-souled, but in this age is corrupted by institutions.

(4) The traditions of mankind, for the most part, are tangled and delusory myth, from which we learn little.

(5) Mankind, capable of infinite improvement, is struggling toward Elysium, and should fix its gaze always toward the future.

(6) The aim of the reformer, moral and political, is emancipation from old creeds, old oaths, old establishments;; the man of the future is to rejoice in pure liberty, unlimited democracy, self-governing, self-satisfying. Political power is the most efficacious form of reform — or from another point of view, the demolition of existing political power.

I’m intrigued by the way Kirk approached our political outlook. He defines the Right as essentially the only counterbalance against these 6 recurring tendencies of the Left. (Kind of like Buckley saying he has to stand athwart history yelling stop!)

But by the way, I am only half in agreement with Russell Kirk. He is much too aristocratic and he seems to dislike hardworking common folk.

The dangerous difference is that Clinton knew he was lying and relished his abilities, I think Carter and Obama really believe it.

Thus, to most politicians, words are just tools. Mean nothing, say anything and APPEAR to mean it.

But, like my grandad told me once a long time ago, “If we lose touch with being truthful, we have nothing and all is lost”. He said that to me when I got caught lying about damaging something of his. He wasn’t angry and looked upon it as a teachable moment. I was deeply ashamed and took his words very much to heart.

I know that sometimes the truth has to be tempered, delivered cautiously, or even omitted. But in the “game” of politics, oh how I detest politics for that very reason…the same reason I mentioned to Steve in a private letter that attorneys…in the courtroom…it’s about winning…not right or wrong. The competition is the thing. A lawyer respects another lawyer on the basis of their victories in court, not on the measure of his character.

And that just chaps my ass.

Much the same way when I lose a war of words with some smart-ass preppy….or similar. I was raised in a matter-of-fact home by matter-of-fact parents who hated useless wordplay. They liked puns and such…and clever jokes, of course…but “negotiating” was not a practiced skill at the dinner table. Some families make it their daily event. I’ve even heard deliberations between parent and child that sound like a contract dispute.

All that is lost on me. I find it absolutely useless. Verbal and mental masturbation. I hate debate…not specifically, but the clever one-upmanship that part of the human character I really despise.

Yet, I fully acknowledge that my lack of skill in the area doesn’t mean that it isn’t without its uses. But this talking stick of a president takes it to a sublime level. Truly….he is developing a track record of never sticking to ANYTHING he has ever said so I must draw the conclusion that his words are from his tool-kit for that moment and that moment only. And he expects the minions to understand that “hey….it’s just politics, man. We all do it…it’s how we make our living”

And possibly it’s that attitude that frosts me more than anything. It’s little more than what a car salesman does to a “mark” on the showroom floor. He’s learned it well and I don’t know if he has ever had reason to run through the list of what he’s said in his own mind. I guess to him it just doesn’t matter. Today it’s “A”; Tomorrow it’s “B” and who cares?

Such duplicity is bullshit to me. I hate it.

What you forgot to include in the description of the classical definition of Liberal was the belief in the sovereignty of the individual. What Locke, Voltaire, Montesquieu, Hume and Thomas Jefferson wrote and defined was echoed in the 20th century writings of Hayek, Friedman, Buckley, and a few others.

So THAT’s what Blammo meant when he said “I too, grew up in the South.”

Had me scratching my head…..until now. Wonder how much o’dat cotton day be pickin’ in dat souf side o’ chi-town.

The guy is a useless cutout. Naturally made useful by the puppeteers of the DNC. These days though, I’m starting to think that the republicrats are in on it too. Somehow this lack of protest from our own government over things blatantly in violation of the Constitution is deeply disturbing.

Howard, “liberal” initially meant someone who believed in human rights, free markets, governmental restraint, and open debate. Somehow the Left commandeered and poisoned the term in the 20th century and yoked it to racial paranoia, Marxism, sexual indiscretion, cosmopoloticanism, and pacifism.

So in answer to your question, a liberal who inspires honesty, character, and a life of authenticity is …. a “conservative” in today’s sense. In other words, us.

:)
:)