"American" Principles

[babe]

all right. Here's a space for clarity. What do you believe are the core principles we love as "America"......

Pretty sure there's at least two clusters of inconsistent notions we love as "America"....... well, OK.... let's include "World We Want".

Here's my starting point:

Right of Conscience, covering freedom of speech, freedom of writing/publishing/painting/creating/art.

Right to Act/Right of Action: freedom of peaceable assembly, local government, property rights.

Equal Human Rights: equal protection under the law, equal opportunity in commerce or markets, right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness or stuff we need or want.

"America" was unique as a high-standard design meant to limit government power. Of course, in some respects we may need government to be powerful and effective...... maintaining peace and human rights among those essentials. But to limit anyone, a person or a group, from imposing an unjust system on the rest of us. That is the kind of limit we want in government.

My purpose here will be to discuss various notions in terms of maximizing personal liberties and perogatives including macro issues like clean air and water and environment..... and ensuring a kind of "federalism" that brings decisions and power closer to the people affected and restricting centralized control from a few persons.

 

[str8line]

all right. Here's a space for clarity. What do you believe are the core principles we love as "America"......

Pretty sure there's at least two clusters of inconsistent notions we love as "America"....... well, OK.... let's include "World We Want".

Here's my starting point:

Right of Conscience, covering freedom of speech, freedom of writing/publishing/painting/creating/art.

Right to Act/Right of Action: freedom of peaceable assembly, local government, property rights.

Equal Human Rights: equal protection under the law, equal opportunity in commerce or markets, right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness or stuff we need or want.

"America" was unique as a high-standard design meant to limit government power. Of course, in some respects we may need government to be powerful and effective...... maintaining peace and human rights among those essentials. But to limit anyone, a person or a group, from imposing an unjust system on the rest of us. That is the kind of limit we want in government.

My purpose here will be to discuss various notions in terms of maximizing personal liberties and perogatives including macro issues like clean air and water and environment..... and ensuring a kind of "federalism" that brings decisions and power closer to the people affected and restricting centralized control from a few persons.

The core principle is to prevent people like Trump or the wealthy or the religious from taking over and imposing their wack **** upon us.

 

[Stars Fan]

Interesting thread, thanks for starting it.
The obvious American principle is liberty, as in the statue of liberty. That might be too broad for your (OP) intent here. But I want focus on it to contrast it with another aspirational principle, responsibility.
There is a foundation that wants to build a corresponding statue of responsibility on the west coast. The idea was first proposed by one of my favorite authors, and favorite human beings, Viktor Frankl. (You can Google it and get tons of links, but here is one to the foundation. Target date for the construction of said statue is 2023.)
When we talk about principles for our ideal society, I think it is important for not just focus on what the society owes us. We should also discuss what we owe the society, how we build that ideal polity.
Liberty and responsibility seem like good bookends to me.

 

[babe]

The core principle is to prevent people like Trump or the wealthy or the religious from taking over and imposing their wack **** upon us.

I consider political ideology as toxic as religion, and so far I think the case got up on Trump having a self-serving agenda or modus operandi is more imagined than real. Pretty much. he'll do his 4, or 8, and go home. We'll have to find someone else who just isn't riding the Level the Playing Field train that is the free ticket for the rich to run everything.

I don't know what you read, or why, but I bet a lot of people are pretty much like you, even a lot who voted or will vote for Trump. As I see it, most dems who go Trump really are protesting the insider control of the dem party. Same with R's who went for Trump.

And so, most of Trump's support is actually Party Rejection folks.

 

[babe]

Interesting thread, thanks for starting it.
The obvious American principle is liberty, as in the statute of liberty. That might be too broad for your (OP) intent here. But I want focus on it to contrast it with another aspirational principle, responsibility.
There is a foundation that wants to build a corresponding statue of responsibility on the west coast. The idea was first proposed by one of my favorite authors, and favorite human beings, Viktor Frankl. (You can Google it and get tons of links, but here is one to the foundation. Target date for the construction of said statue is 2023.)
When we talk about principles for our ideal society, I think it is important for not just focus on what the society owes us. We should also discuss what we owe the society, how we build that ideal polity.
Liberty and responsibility seem like good bookends to me.

The core difference in American government from the start was the deliberate effort to make government answerable to the people, and resistant to a take-over by any clique or interest or dictator or whatnot.

The biggest threat was the British penchant to reclaim the "empire", and that is what forced the colonies to band together despite serious differences, and federalism was the only way to unite such diverse states for mutual protection.

 

[olden_undercover]

You're a thousand miles wide and at least as many miles deep, babe, so forgive me if this response is a little shy of your intent/thought process!

I'm going to say democracy, if that can be considered a principle. And within that democracy-- as long as we're making wishes-- no super-delegates, no electoral college, and some clear mechanisms under which political parties, special interest groups, and campaign finance cannot functionally operate. I'm talking about elected officials who win strictly by majority vote, and are therefore more directly accountable to the citizenry.

 

[Jazzta]

You're a thousand miles wide and at least as many miles deep, babe, so forgive me if this response is a little shy of your intent/thought process!

I'm going to say democracy, if that can be considered a principle. And within that democracy-- as long as we're making wishes-- no super-delegates, no electoral college, and some clear mechanisms under which political parties, special interest groups, and campaign finance cannot functionally operate. I'm talking about elected officials who win strictly by majority vote, and are therefore more directly accountable to the citizenry.

That should be the objective.

 

[Stars Fan]

The core difference in American government from the start was the deliberate effort to make government answerable to the people, and resistant to a take-over by any clique or interest or dictator or whatnot.

The biggest thread was the British penchant to reclaim the "empire", and that is what forced the colonies to band together despite serious differences, and federalism was the only way to unite such diverse states for mutual protection.

Agree with you here. The idea that the true power should lie in the people and not the king, or church, or dictator is essential.

I also think that balance should be considered a basic principle. Balance between the key factions or stake holders was built into the American system. Balance between rural and city dwellers, agricultural and business interests, religious and agnostic/atheists, etc. What good would it do to renounce a king, or pope, just to put "mob rule" in its place. If one group or interest dominates then all not in that group suffer.

 

[olden_undercover]

Kinda disappointed this thread didn't take off. Interesting topic. Where you at, @babe ?

 

[babe]

Kinda disappointed this thread didn't take off. Interesting topic. Where you at, @babe ?

I am deep in the woods of other stuff. I know this is the best of all topics. There was one reply above that showed someone willing to be a real scholar at it, but I am just entirely absorbed. Yes I know I have thrown out a lot on the impeachment thread. I drive a lot, and listen to the XM 125 people most of the time, and so that is just the froth on top of my little brain.

American Principles Project.

How can we get this stuff taught in our schools?

 

[babe]

You're a thousand miles wide and at least as many miles deep, babe, so forgive me if this response is a little shy of your intent/thought process!

I'm going to say democracy, if that can be considered a principle. And within that democracy-- as long as we're making wishes-- no super-delegates, no electoral college, and some clear mechanisms under which political parties, special interest groups, and campaign finance cannot functionally operate. I'm talking about elected officials who win strictly by majority vote, and are therefore more directly accountable to the citizenry.

We have a Supreme Court that considers corporations to be real, significant "citizens" with the right to donate, to lobby, to buy what they need from government, "citizens" with no vote per se, but the right to own our political process. Some years ago, there was a fairly impressive scholar working for The New American, whose articles I especially appreciated. He sorta went off the deep end, though, with a perfectly legitimate article. When he saw our founders had deliberately stacked the deck against the people, by giving government the power of eminent domain. He lost all hope, and moved to a little town in Idaho under the west slopes of the Tetons, never to write again.

He was a black man, and it was about the same time as some New England real estate seizures by government "eminent domain" under the rationalization that the guvmint had to increase the tax base by promoting developments. So little old ladies had to "sell" out on a fairly poor price.

I will probably always be a thousand miles off the target anyone else sees, and deeper than anyone wants to dive as well...... but let's have some good times.

 

[Joncolton]

Truth
Freedom
Justice

 

[babe]

Truth
Freedom
Justice

Welcome. Looks like an honorable scion of one of our more sober and consistent team of experts..... But welcome nonetheless.

Truth, Freedom, Justice...... in real terms, are human aspirations, dreams...... ideals..... which we humans are fully competent to interpret in widely different ways.

Let's say they are like flavors.....

We know what we like, and we believe what we like..... I could use the word "love" rather than "like" to make it a stronger sort of emphatic emotion.

Efforts to logically define emotions always seem a bit stale..... but American Patriotism stirs the hearts of a lot of people who've lived under less opportunity, less privilege of opinions, less acceptance by those with position in society.

When I was just a child learning to read, I had "weekly" blurbs of propaganda in my rural American classroom all fuzzy gushy about the UN and how it was helping the world. I also found a series of historical biographies with all orange covers, and read about the lives of people who fought for our Freedom, people who spoke out against the injustices imposed upon the colonists. People like John Peter Zenger. for example. Look him up and read about him and how he was shut down for printing stuff the governor didn't like, but the Truth.

I found the flavor of the books a lot more appealing than the propaganda sheets. That has made all the difference.

 

[One Brow]

Overthrowing popularly elected leftist South American governments (Brazil, Bolivia) seems to be a fundamental US value.

 

[olden_undercover]

Efforts to logically define emotions always seem a bit stale..... but American Patriotism stirs the hearts of a lot of people who've lived under less opportunity, less privilege of opinions, less acceptance by those with position in society.

I wonder what you think about the idea that writing off progressive ideas with this thought is a bit dismissive. Does taking the good that we have, and deconstructing it to try and find ways to improve it, make us ungrateful or unpatriotic? Of course those who come from very little consider our way of life to be a vast improvement. Does that mean those of who know nothing but this way of life have no right to criticize it, and all should regard attempts to improve upon it as malignant in some way? I'll tell you: To me, it feels "stale" because that sort of thinking rips out the heart of what it means, fundamentally, to be American. Nobody said, when writing our founding documents, that all the answers were now given and no more questions should be asked and-- crucially-- answered. I think it's true that the opposite was intended, in fact.

Forgive me if I've mischaracterized what you said in any way. I know none of this is lost on you-- in fact, I'm sure I know you well enough to say with confidence you probably agree. I'm just not clear on your motive for saying what I quoted, or your intent in saying it. Mind elaborating?

(Incidentally, this is my best answer today to your initial question re: core principles.)

 

[babe]

I wonder what you think about the idea that writing off progressive ideas with this thought is a bit dismissive. Does taking the good that we have, and deconstructing it to try and find ways to improve it, make us ungrateful or unpatriotic? Of course those who come from very little consider our way of life to be a vast improvement. Does that mean those of who know nothing but this way of life have no right to criticize it, and all should regard attempts to improve upon it as malignant in some way? I'll tell you: To me, it feels "stale" because that sort of thinking rips out the heart of what it means, fundamentally, to be American. Nobody said, when writing our founding documents, that all the answers were now given and no more questions should be asked and-- crucially-- answered. I think it's true that the opposite was intended, in fact.

Forgive me if I've mischaracterized what you said in any way. I know none of this is lost on you-- in fact, I'm sure I know you well enough to say with confidence you probably agree. I'm just not clear on your motive for saying what I quoted, or your intent in saying it. Mind elaborating?

(Incidentally, this is my best answer today to your initial question re: core principles.)

OK.

So I'll throw out a name..... Sam Rich..... local Utah educator, who would imo have spoken on this level of analysis.

Most people aren't that educated, and maybe there could be a few who would discuss this idea on the level you are going to here. Mostly pro. Hard to do a good "con" against it.

It's like trying to claim the high ground with Mormonism and writing new revelations that basically re-do the religion. But in politics there is no concrete "moral authority" you have to overthrow. You just have to accept the political reality that hardly anyone really can fly that high, and you're always gonna be a kind of "Fool on the Hill" looking down on the commuting ants with their 9-5 jobs going nowhere.

University profs fall into a trend..... quite a few who push more commonplace political crusades, and a few who are genuinely seeking to educate.

I have fundamental loyalty issues because I am in one sense or another related to and/or sympathetic with the actual people I know who have a whole 'nuther view than mine, and my realization that the ideas they promote are actually toxic or detrimental in a serious way.

Very few people who are on the point about the American Founders/American Revolution being "God's Plan" or "Inspired" can really see just how fundamentally different it is from Biblical concepts. And it really scares a lot of people to just let progressives take "God" out of it entirely and have our leaders going off like loose cannons reorganizing the world along lines like what Marx and others saw as "Utopian".

Sam Rich I think would be a grandson of Charles C. Rich, and Sam's father would be a sort of great uncle to me, a friend of my great grandfather. He was the US ambassador to Spain during WWII and came home to found a Utah UN advocacy club and the Salt Lake Committee on Foreign relations. One of my relatives today is a leading lawyer with Fabian Van Cott which has been the Rockefeller and national progressive leading law firm in the West. Ed Firmage is also a relative. Pretty sure your view would get a good hearing in the Hinckley Institute.

So lets just say I see some solid ground to stand on for some progressive leadership that actually isn't just "Commie" though a lot of less educated folks would rush to that fear of it.

But my view is that the US Founders set out a grounded liberty which they realized required a grounded community with fairly common.... then common.... values that emerged from the reformation, from the Prostestant push for Biblical conscientious principles. If we overthrow the morals, we really just get nothing out of it.

Ideas included in the teachings of Christ, specifically....

(1) personal accountability to a higher law (God) or stabilizing principle (Conscience).

(2) Community accountability to (then) common principles of personal conduct (Christianity) which formed the underpinnings of laws along the lines of the Ten Commandments' interpersonal principles:
"Private Property Rights", "Thou shalt not steal"; "The Right to Life", "Thou shalt not kill"; Respect for Privacy/Family Structure/Personal Reputation (Thous shalt not lie, thou shalt not commit adultery) which I think might also include rights to contract and enforce contracts.

The Marxist/Socialist reorganization of society basically has to trash the Constitutional principles of "America" as a government accountable to the voters, replacing it with a mangerial government that is not accountable to the voters. The UN is a fair notion, right outta Biblical dreams of Christ's Kingdom over all the world and a millenial paradise of sorts, and coming as it did outta the WWII situation it looked like a better way to prevent more wars like that.

Fundamentalist Christians/Biblical believers in the US are pretty much in a swoon over the US Constitution which actually was designed to prevent a "King" like "Christ".

But back to your serious reply above. I get it that you are a pretty deep liberal, and I wouldn't hesitate much to assume that you probably think the global climate crisis is a really direct challenge that requires intelligent and effective action immediately, for example.

We have pretty much the machinery for a world wide response in the UN, and a lot of Americans who don't want the socialism that is being packaged into that line of action. We cannot rationally presume Jesus will get here in time, and we have to run with the science we have, with the political machinery we have. Let's just work with that assumption as a model for our discussion, if you will, whether you are on that line or not.

"American Principles" in my book includes rights to "free" education in the sense of there being a right to believe as one sees fit. Even in "science", personally. Right of free speech goes with it. Freedom of Assembly goes with that. Right to Petition government for redress of grievances comes right along.

Property rights, and the right to act as you believe best with your land and other property has to stay in place.

Against all that is the urgency to solve the crisis.... government powers like the right to eminent domain, which could logically be claimed over the environment, air, land and sea. The responsibility to act, on the government's part, in crises like war, civil turmoil, riot, fire, drought, flood, earthquake, Tsunami etc etc. We have to have some government, and we have to let it do stuff that can't be done another way.

Some take this to the "necessity" of absolute utopian dictatorship. I don't think we ever got through that to a government-less utopia of perfect humans who don't need any control whatsoever.

OK, so my answer is.... we hold on to the rails, and we keep government accountable, and subservient...... maybe with more intelligence and purposed restraint than ever..... while keeping up our community sensibilities of common respect, common lawfulness, common liberties.

We did a good thing to drop the religious institutions from government management and regulation. We should do the same for social indoctrination, education, and "Intelligence" monopolies. All that is necessary for a free people to have access to critical information. We need FOIA broadened, we need a less restricted public research and communication model. We need federal (and state) limits on personal entrenchment in power structures....

I'll leave the solution of the climate crisis to my other threads.