May 19 2009

No Name McCain And The Shrinking GOP

Published by at 11:29 am under All General Discussions

The news today on the GOP is not good, nor is it surprising. The GOP is being rejected because it has gone into the tank of self announced moral superiority. I will get back to this at the end of this post.

Before that, it is time to get on my soap box again because the ‘true conservatives’ cannot adjust to the reality they have lost credibility with America and need to realize extreme conservatives are not winning the day. I note an interesting post by some no-name McCain who rages against ‘moderates’ and ‘centrists’, who is surprised we have as much passion and drive as they do, but with a major dose of pragmatism and thoughtfulness. Here are some key moans from some person named McCain:

Listen, buddy, when you go to pick a fight, it’s best to know who you’re picking a fight with. And it may help to know what you’re actually fighting about:

It’s about a Republican “leadership” that has spent the past few years destroying the grassroots of the GOP. However, your idea of a “centrist coalition” as the basis for revitalizing the Republican Party is a non-starter, for several reasons:

Did “issues” have anything to do with this? Well, if issues matter, John McCain certainly didn’t help himself by coming down on the wrong side of the Bush bailout:

Poor no-name, he confuses issues with credibility. He wonders what is ‘sane’ and what is a fevered swamp. The poor soul points to my applauding McCain for going to DC to deal with the economic collapse as claiming I supported all the results of the Bush TARP approach. My applause was aimed at McCain seizing the moment and forcing the issue (and its implications) into the national presidential debate. Like most ‘true conservatives’, somebody named McCain replaces thought out political strategy with anger and insults – which is all the ‘true conservatives’ have to offer, and it is getting old with Americans.

McCain and Bush were never the problem for the grass roots, the far right was. Let me describe a few issues where the ‘true conservatives’ dumped any sensible thinking in exchange for petty emotional blather. 

First up: The Gang of 14 and Bush’s judicial selections. When the centrists gathered in the Senate (left and right) to end the stand off on Bush’s judicial the true conservatives were denied their constitutional showdown. They moaned and moaned about the fact they could not use our governmental process to slam the political opposition. They wanted to punish the opposition. It was not what the nation wanted or needed.

Constitutional showdowns are dangerous and should be avoided. A democracy survives by everyone believing in the democratic processes and their results. The minute you start abusing the processes to attack other Americans you begin to erode the faith in the system that keeps it alive.

The Gang of 14 did the right thing for this nation. They avoided a useless and childish constitutional showdown and President Bush’s judicial nominations began flying through the process. It was a success. But ‘true conservatives’ are still, to this day, moaning that they did not get their civil war. This is repulsive to the majority of people who don’t want a civil war, they want a democratic process that is fair and we can have faith in. 

Second example: The smearing of Harriet Miers. Harriet  Miers was President Bush’s second choice for a Supreme Court nomination, but she was not considered to be in the ‘true conservative’ camp because she was once a Democrat (just like President Reagan!). The ‘true conservatives’ did not engage her on issues, but tore into her as a RINO or some squish on abortion. They had no proof, they just slammed her because they wanted one of theirs selected. The result was a clear signal to the broader conservative coalition that only ‘true conservatives’ would be considered for lead roles, and any outside that cult who wanted to be in a lead role would be smeared as if they were from the far left. 

The message was clear, and the coalition began to splinter. People participate in the democratic process under the expectations their voice will be heard, their ideas will be respected and their efforts will be rewarded. The cult of the right wanted supreme and unchallenged control. No sharing of the fruits, which meant less interest in spending a life’s effort to the cause. These free market mavens forgot that success has to be shared and allowed to form where it forms. If that means a less than pure candidate occasionally, that IS the price for a coalition. 

Miers was a good choice because she brought more of the free market view onto the court. She would balance the ideological poles with more neutral views that represented he free market – where political ideology should not play. There was no evidence she would be pro-choice, etc. So what we did know (and what was rejected) was her free market experience. The ‘true conservative’ blinders that ignore all issues outside of their pet social issues killed off all interest from natural allies. Allies who can respect their views, but want a broader set of policies beyond the choice of a woman to deal with her pregnancsy (note: I am pro-life, but not to the point where government can dictate the decisions of parents one way or the other).

Case three: Cult mythology verses science: The conservatives really lost ground with their demands that proven science be replaced or augmented in schools with religious mythology. The individual’s right to views based on religion is not an issue, but forcing the teaching of religious denial of science (e.g., evolution, DNA, etc) on everyone was and is  extreme. 

This is where they lost a lot of culturally conservative centrists who are able to marry critical religious values with science without any conflict. Evolution does not claim there is no God or no divine force. It simply notes how God’s creations adapt and survive through time. If we are God’s creations, then DNA and its ability to evolve through evolutionary forces is God’s original instruction set in its original form.

To me and many others, science is the endless exploration of God’s creation. As we explore we learn more about his/her greatness. The fact ‘true conservatives’ cannot wrap their High School science trained minds around these mysteries is not a valid excuse to rant against science and its benefits.

What is needed in science is a solid moral grounding to not let the abstract take over and infringe on the divine rights of humans to life liberty and happiness. Science always needs a moral compass. Both religion and science provide balance to each other (e.g., woman are not second class beings, young human beings in their embryo stage are not a human spare parts store).

This ridiculous battle has divided groups that support the idea of family, dedication to others, the sanctity of life, etc. “Sane” is the marrying of these important and valid perspectives. “Insane” is pushing one view over the other.

Addendum: I meant to note that evolution is not a theory. We have current proofs of evolution which happen within our life time, and span back a few centuries. We know the link between humans and other primates. We see evolutionary changes in modern organisms (think flu viruses). What is still theoretical is the mapping of pre-historic organisms (e.g., dinosaurs) and their connection to modern organisms. The mapping that far back in time gets cloudy. But the mechanisms of evolution are well proven with current living organisms – end update

4th Example:  Comprehensive Immigration Reform. This is another classic example of rampant emotions overriding any realistic political strategy. The far right began their unhinged uproar with the idea of rounding up and deporting all illegal aliens. As nutty as that sounded (especially when we remember we need our law enforcement to be focused on terrorists, not immigrant workers) the ‘true conservatives’ seemed hell bent on purifying our culture of these invaders. They kept trying to find ways to eject the invaders.

Comprehensive immigration reform had a lot of amazing steps towards a more sane and balanced immigration policy. It included the deportation of violent immigrant criminals here legally or illegally. It included time constraints for guest workers, it included special identification cards and tracking of guest workers, it brought them out of the under ground economy and into the tax paying open. It required restitution in terms of fines, fees and payment of back taxes (which, by definition, is not amnesty).

But the far right went emotionally ballistic and derided all common sense fixes for different ways of forcing immigrants out of the country. This took a huge culturally conservative demographic (hispanics) who would be natural allies on a wealth of pro-life, pro-family, strong national defense issues and threw them out of the ‘big tent’. The rampaging was stunning and repulsive, and it was a huge factor in the collapse of the coalition in 2006 and 2008.

After pissing off free market allies, insulting people who can balance science and religion, after repulsing hispanics and people who are not hard core nativists, and after chasing out other major groups with their insults and anger on other issues, the purity wars succeeded – the ‘true conservatives’ are wandering the political wilderness in ‘exile’ (as Hannity likes to whine). And they still think they are impressive leaders!

This no name McCain thinks he knows me, but he is raging against some mythical person who he has in his head:

What A.J. Strata wants is not the party of Reagan, but the party of the respectable Republican elite, who never say or do anything that might disturb the liberal ascendancy. They imagine they can win a political conflict without ever risking anything in the fight, and therefore they always advise pre-emptive compromise: Give the liberals want they want, or you might make them angry!

Too funny. This poor person clearly has not realized I find the far left completely out of whack and definitely not the answer for America. I don’t give into liberals, they don’t frighten me and I could care less if the like me. What no name McCain has not figured out is he and the hot heads on the right are basically just as bad. And my spine is strong enough to take on both extremes simultaneously. Why?

Because I think things out and derive viable solutions instead of ranting and raving on high emotions and try and feel superior by insulting others with different views. All the these fringe people have are insults.  Simple minded platitudes are no replacement for a strategy that can make progress and get the backing of the people (since they have to support it to make it come to pass). In my mind, insults are the last bastion of someone who cannot either derive a solution or grasp the problem. Emotion is the security blanket of the incapable. 

If you have a good solution and people like it, you don’t need to insult them to follow your lead – duh!

I have been a supporter of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars (now with my own young Marine heading into the conflicts). I defended the NSA and Bush administration from the ranting of the far left and their emotional tirades. I strongly believe the highest pro-choice issue of the day is the potential legalizing massive factories of young human beings in their embryonic stage of life so they can be harvested for spare parts to help rich elites, dwarfing the choice of a mother regarding her one or two children. I rage against the mythology of the left and their cult of global warming.

And I challenge the mythology of the far right as well, as do many. The true ‘silent majority’ is the centrists. This is because we select who the majority will be in the voting booth. As one fringe goes over the edge we do move to the other side to regain balance. It is not fickleness that drives this rebalancing act. We know the heart of America exists in the middle, which is under attack constantly from the fevered swamps on the fringes.

The results are clear, America is moving away from the overheated GOP (until it cools down and can again show respect for a diverse country). Gallup has the hard numbers:

I am not happy this is happening, but I cannot deny it is happening and its causes. I will not attempt to kid myself or others. Social conservatives were at one time under attack by the liberal elites. Reagan and his coalition rose up and reminded the country that being religious, being pro-family, being pro-life were valuable Americam traits – along with individual responsibility and independence, lower taxes, etc.

Social conservatives have a lot to be admired for in these areas. They remind us to this day of our valued roots, what is the core of America’s heart and soul. But that does not make them superior and all knowing. They fell into the same trap as the liberals did when they came to power. They tried to change the face of America into their own likeness.

When people like this no name McCain rage against moderates they demonstrate once again that this self imposed superiority is what destroyed the coalition that Reagan formed, and will be a barrier to any new coalition.

I think we need to find more Sarah Palin’s to lead the new GOP. Crist and these left of center solutions are the coalition trying to get back into balance. But Palin is the perfect role model. Ignore the media caricatures, what makes her stand out is her ability to fuse the diversity of conservatism into a pragmatic balance. She exemplifies the family values and pro-life positions – she lives them with all its warts and challenges. She is very religious – but does not attempt to impose her views on anyone. She is tolerant of those who have taken different paths, but she draws the line against power hungry elites. She, like me, is now part of the military family. She is for lower taxes, a reasonable safety net, strong defense.

She is the perfect blend of where the GOP could revive itself. The fact people like Newt Gingrich fears her and tries to minimize her is a great sign of her potential to rip out the failed old guard and bring in fresh, new thinking from the Main Street of America.

It’s not all that complicated. And I am glad the ‘true right’ is taking its marbles home to pout. It clears the deck for a new GOP to arise out of the sane center of the heart of America.

39 responses so far

39 Responses to “No Name McCain And The Shrinking GOP”

  1. Rick C says:

    You need to go to the actual poll result. The interesting part is buried at the bottom of the page: the poll was conducted between January and April. What kind of a poll takes 4 months? How does such a poll measure shifts?

    A later poll is:

    We just have to wonder why Gallup chose to release a poll that took 4 months to compile a month later.


  2. crosspatch says:

    If the Republicans continue pushing their creationism in the schools, I am out of the party, period.

    If we are going to teach Christian religious doctrine as “science” where is it going to stop? Will Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, Wiccans, and all the other religions also demand THEIR beliefs be taught in schools? Will the schools then have time to teach anything other than religions of various sorts?

    It is stupid and once done, opens the doors to all the other religions to demand their doctrine get equal weight.

    The Republican Party is not, and can not be, the “Christian Party” as America is made up of people of ALL religions and NO religion and one’s religion should no and must not be part of the equation in national politics. If that is going to be the case, then the Republican party is going to get very tiny, very quickly and have absolutely no voice in much of anything at all on a national level. They might control some state legislatures, and that is fine, but I won’t be hiring anyone who graduated from the Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, or South Carolina school systems. I need people with a background in real science, not religious doctrine. Engineering isn’t an act of faith.

  3. crosspatch says:

    This is the kind of idiocy that makes me want to leave the party completely.

    This is what that moron wrote recently:

    The Theory of Evolution is taught at most universities and colleges. Unfortunately, in most instances, the way it is being taught and presented in textbooks at both the college and high school level is as a set of incontrovertible beliefs. This does not positively serve the students of our state.

    If you teach creationism, you teach it in CHURCH, not in the school system. If you can’t get people to go to church, you have no right to go chasing them down using the school system to evangelize your religion. What’s next? Islamic finance in economics classes?

  4. Frogg says:

    AJ, you are only one of a handful of moderates I know who like Sarah Palin. Most of them think she is bad for the GOP. Is there a crack in the Moderate wing of the GOP?

    “The Republican strategist who helped Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman prepare for a possible presidential run says the Republican party is in for a devastating defeat if its guiding lights are Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney. “If it’s 2012 and our party is defined by Palin and Limbaugh and Cheney, then we’re headed for a blowout,” says strategist John Weaver, who advised Huntsman and was for years a close adviser to Sen. John McCain. “That’s just the truth.””

  5. crosspatch says:

    I would much rather see a party led by the likes of Limbaugh, Cheney and Palin that one led by Hannity, Gingrich, and Huckabee.

    THAT is why those people are hammered so much in the media … they are scared to death of those people and rather than argue the message, they destroy or attempt to destroy the messenger. I would vote for Palin 100 times over the likes of, say, Huckabee.

  6. crosspatch says:

    And another thing … after today’s election, I think I am unregistering from the Republican Party. Don’t know where I will go yet, probably the Modern Whigs, but I am probably going to sit on the “Independent” bench for a while until the Republicans get their act together.

  7. crosspatch says:

    Meant to say I am going to sit on the Independent bench until I learn more about the Whigs and see how their platform develops. I might go back to the Republicans if they can get their act together. I will never under any circumstances vote for someone who wants to shove creationism into the schools, though.

  8. Frogg says:

    About Evolution:

    “Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution” – WITH PHOTOS AND VIDEOS- “Finally Confirms Darwin’s Theory Of Evolution”

  9. BarbaraS says:

    Why would anyone pay attention to an advisor to McCain? Why would anyone pay attention to someone who is an advisor to Huntsman? I voted for McCain mainly because of Palin but also because I distrusted Obama and McCain was the only alternative. I wasn’t too sure of him either. If Palin runs I will vote for her in the primary and the general. Usually I am not enamoured about women in politics but I like her and she has the spine to do a good job.

    I won’t comment on creationism as opposed to Darwinism. I don’t believe in either and don’t approve of either being taught in schools. We are not decended from apes and Genesis is forklore just like Greek and Roman mythology. It came into being to explain man and nature.

  10. GuyFawkes says:


    “We are not decended from apes”

    You really should take the time to actually learn what evolution and Darwinism actually are before making silly statements like that.

    Read a book – it’ll be good for you.

  11. “If the Republicans continue pushing their creationism in the schools, I am out of the party, period. ”

    I don’t get the obsession with this issue. The whole debate is not really a federal issue. Is the National GOP really pushing “Creationism”

  12. “Social conservatives have a lot to be admired for in these areas. They remind us to this day of our valued roots, what is the core of America’s heart and soul. But that does not make them superior and all knowing. They fell into the same trap as the liberals did when they came to power. They tried to change the face of America into their own likeness.

    When people like this no name McCain rage against moderates they demonstrate once again that this self imposed superiority is what destroyed the coalition that Reagan formed, and will be a barrier to any new coalition.”

    AJ balming social conservatives seems to be a theme for some reason I see all over the place. The fact is in the last election cycle social conservative issues were not even at the forefromt. McCain in one of the most social conservative areas won South Carolina.

    The problem is not social conservatives. The problem is the CLub for Growth types that are declaring war on everyone that does that agree to the letter with their economic outlook. Just look at Huckabee. He raises gas taxes a penny to build raods and he is called a Christian Socialist for goodness sake. Very littel of that has to do with social conservatives

    As Huckabee so well stated in his book:

    In a chapter titled “Faux-Cons: Worse than Liberalism,” Huckabee identifies what he calls the “real threat” to the Republican Party: “libertarianism masked as conservatism.” He is not so much concerned with the libertarian candidate Ron Paul’s Republican supporters as he is with a strain of mainstream fiscal-conservative thought that demands ideological purity, seeing any tax increase as apostasy and leaving little room for government-driven solutions to people’s problems. “I don’t take issue with what they believe, but the smugness with which they believe it,” writes Huckabee, who raised some taxes as governor and cut deals with his state’s Democratic legislature. “Faux-Cons aren’t interested in spirited or thoughtful debate, because such an endeavor requires accountability for the logical conclusion of their argument.”

  13. gary gill says:

    What is lost in this science vs. intelligent design argument is proportionality. AJ, Charles Johnson et. al. have completely gone over the deep end with intelligent design and the Republican party because these bloggers do not understand the concept of proportionality. Let’s see if I can clear it up for them and all “proud” centralist who put science at the forefront.

    The right is viewed as anti-science because some of the religious right believe in creationism or the more sophisticated intelligent design theory.

    But what about the left? Where do you place them in the anti-science category when they deny nuclear energy? Moreover, where do you put them when they trump phony science with regards to global warming?

    It’s easy to argue that both are anti-science, but the better point is what position effects us more?

    This is not the first time in this country that creationist have tried to get the old testament taught in school. In the past the creationist have lost. How successful will the intelligent design people be in schools? About the same. More importantly, what percent of the public schools are under assault of the intelligent design curriculum? 1% or less? What impact can that lead to?

    The effect of the intelligent designers on our public schools is negligible. More importantly, the effect of either teaching, Darwinism or intelligent design, on our nation’s productivity is infinitesimal. Can we all agree that none of us go through the day worrying whether we come from apes or clay and God’s breath? The effect of this Darwinism vs. intelligent design issue is about counting angels on a pin head.

    On the other hand, the anti-science crowd that consistently stops our ability to build modern nuclear plants greatly effects us today, tomorrow, and into the future. Isn’t this a battle to be fought? Shouldn’t the democrats be known as the anti-science crowd because of this major issue?

    What effects us more; energy or a chapter in a sophomore biology class?

    Proportionality would certainly argue that a minimal ethereal point of view should not outweigh an immediate and long-term crucial issue. This, however, is lost on AJ-Johnson crowd and their overwrought fear of jejune intelligent designers.

    Ironically, AJ-Johnson have fallen for the media’s caricature of the right and have not critically thought through their own manipulation by the media. So long as the media and bloggers can focus on the right’s anti-science stance on totally meaningless issues, then the Luddites win on the left.

    So, the next time someone says the republican’s are contracting because of their anti-science stance, ask them if the democrats are expanding with their anti-science stance? And if the answer’s yes, then the democrats can only be expanding with those in the middle. Scientist everyone of them.

  14. oneal lane says:

    Let’s see. The party needs to be more moderate? did not Mr. Moderate McCain, “Mr reach across”, “Mr bipartisan” get his butt kicked. You moderates keep crying the party is too conservative but never bother to explain why Mr Moderate McCain got creamed. UHH failure to grant amnessty to illegals lost us the election. Quite the opposite, Bush and the GOP insistance on pushing amnesty cost the GOP the 2006 election. Absolute fact! OK moderates, heres a suggestion you will like, Get a hybrid clone of BobDole and John McCain created, you can call him John-Bob McDole, and run him in 2012. Get your butt kicked again. why is it you guys are always insisting the party move to the left. If thats were your heart is, and I suspect so, just become a Obama lemming.

  15. AJStrata says:


    Geez guy, the math is pretty simple here. More centrists went to Obama than McCain. So your brilliant conclusion would be to continue to insult the center and that way the GOP would win?

    LOL! Brilliant! Why didn’t I think of that.

  16. AJStrata says:


    I was pretty clear their are scientifically ignorant cults left and right. And ‘proportionality’ doesn’t factor into established science.

    You can deny it all day long, but the attempt to place cult-like teachings into the classroom because the right cannot grasp evolution is why the GOP is losing support from college grads and successful business people.

    You can pretend their is some equivalence, but there is not.

  17. crosspatch says:

    Look at this from a different perspective. There are only so many hours of class time in science per year. Our kids are already getting their real science diluted with global warming and other politically correct drivel. If you take yet more time away from the study of science to push religious doctrine, the net result is dumber kids.

    God created a universe filled with creatures that are able to change and adapt to changing conditions. Evolution is part of God’s plan. It is what makes life resilient under all sorts of conditions. We see the evolution and extinction of species all the time. Where is the woolly rhinoceros today? The mammoth? Gone. 10,000 years ago there was no such thing as a Jersey cow or an Angus or a Longhorn. Where is the aurochs from which they came?

    Bacteria evolve antibiotic resistance. God didn’t create the polar bear directly. The polar bear is a relatively new species that is really a brown bear that developed white fur. They have only been around for about 200,000 years. Species change, adapt, and when isolated from each other long enough varieties of the same species can eventually become their own species. We witness this happening with widely separated vari

    To believe in the very literal sense that God created all species exactly as we see them today is nonsense. We know through documented observational fact that it isn’t so. When something changes in the environment, those that have a trait that allows them to survive better thrive, those that don’t have the required trait die. People living where there is little sunlight, over hundreds of generations, find that those with less pigment survive better, produce more vitamin D from sunlight, maybe have one more child per generation survive to adulthood and soon become the dominant population. People in areas with strong sunlight see those who have more pigment having an advantage. Those people thrive better, maybe have one more child per generation survive and eventually become the dominant population in their area. People with sickle cell blood anomaly survive malaria to child bearing age allowing people with that trait becoming dominant where malaria is present. Those that don’t have it are killed off sooner, have no or fewer children and eventually die out in that area.

    Evolution is nothing more than relentless adaptation with a random gene mutation thrown in from time to time. Most of the time a gene mutation is harmful and prevents the carriers of the mutation from becoming the dominant population. Sometimes, very rarely, the mutation will be helpful. A person with a little better eyesight, little better hearing, a little stronger, or a little faster. That allows maybe one more of their offspring to reach adulthood. The trait is carried on, and can become dominant if it gives enough of an edge.

    Or a bigger brain can overcome poor physical traits such as eyesight … how many people wore eyeglasses 5,000 years ago? Exactly zero. For a hunter/gatherer society, people with better eyesight probably killed more game, their family ate better, they had more kids reach adulthood. People with poor eyesight had to grow carrots to survive and agriculture was born though a brain that figured out how to make stuff grow where it otherwise wouldn’t naturally be growing in abundance. Today we can compensate completely for eyesight using the brain and better eyesight conveys no advantage in survival. So poor eyesight genes are passed as frequently as good eyesight genes. As a result, the eyesight of modern humans is probably much worse on average than it was 5000 years ago. People who would have died back then from not seeing a predator or available food survive today.

    We are always evolving. God gave us that ability to protect us and to ensure we survive.

  18. gary gill says:

    Proportionality has nothing to do with science, it’s about politics and the time one commits to causes. The overwrought concentration on the intelligent designers who are pushing their “theory” into our schools is too minuscule for serious political thought or concern.

    I easily stand with you on so many of our nation’s issues, but I believe you and Johnson waste time lamenting the demise of the republican party when neither one of you demonstrate any understanding how political parties work. That’s not to say that you are stupid, but just that you are inexperienced in this field.

    My point on proportionality is that it is far more serious for the left to deny this nation nuclear energy than the creationist to try to get intelligent design in our 10th grade biology classes in 1% of our public schools. For God sakes, we didn’t teach creationism in Catholic school when I was growing up and they are certainly not doing it now.

    You also miss my point on losing the middle. It’s not because of our anti-science faction, it’s because the media concentrates on our anti-science side and not on the left’s anti-science side. Also, I do not agree with you that we are losing college graduates and businessmen because of our anti-science right because rational people understand the world of difference between productivity issues like energy and the theoretical issues like Darwinism and which of the two provides more happiness.

    The left’s anti-science or made up science is a far greater threat to this country than the attempt to get intelligent design in 1% of our schools. Redirect the focus and we can redirect the party.

  19. crosspatch says:

    “it is far more serious for the left to deny this nation nuclear energy than the creationist to try to get intelligent design in our 10th grade biology classes in 1% of our public schools.”

    And that is exactly why I still end up voting for Republican candidates most of the time. I see the Republicans as less harmful in an overall sense. Intelligent design is less harmful than a defenseless country with an empty treasury and an impoverished population … which seems to be the overall plan of the Democrats. Rich people are bad, the poor are good, lets make everybody equally poor with the government as the equalizer by redistributing the wealth.

    There will ALWAYS be more poor than rich. Only a small portion have the combination of drive, vision, intellect, and just plain luck to become extremely more successful than the average. Being poor requires no special skills but the specter of poverty IS a great motivator. Remove the stigma and fear of being poor and soon you have no reason for people to strive not to be. They become comfortable being taken care of. And for every person who wants to be taken care of, there is someone who wants to be elected to the position of caretaker to decide who gets what and control the others.

    It all boils down to liberty and I believe the right to fail is one of the most important rights of all because once one no longer has the right to fail, they no longer really have the right to succeed, either.

  20. AJStrata says:

    CP, we don’t need to chose between the least dumb. There is the smart way, right down the middle and away from the fringes, where we get nuclear energy AND no creationist silliness.

    Think positively.