Public still sky high on Obama 'brand'-GOP still struggling.

[Sir_Cliff]

There you go, aren't they making a movie now? Change!

[Lacrosse Boy]

I'm back in Germany/Switzerland/France for the holidays and don't have a lot of time to devote to this... but I couldn't pass up posting this link which was e-mailed to me and which supports my hypothesis regarding how Americans feel about the government interfering:

Seventy-six percent (76%) prefer a free market economy over a government-managed approach. Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters believe there are too many restrictions on the market in the U.S. today.

It's also interesting to see how Obama compares here in Europe. I was talking politics with my relatives here a bit, and they didn't really know about anything Obama has done in terms of international relations. My guess is that in many places around the world he's still coasting on his pre-election victory. My aunt and uncle didn't seem happy with more troops going to Afghanistan, but that's really the most they knew about.

[Sir_Cliff]

It's also interesting to see how Obama compares here in Europe. I was talking politics with my relatives here a bit, and they didn't really know about anything Obama has done in terms of international relations. My guess is that in many places around the world he's still coasting on his pre-election victory. My aunt and uncle didn't seem happy with more troops going to Afghanistan, but that's really the most they knew about.

Most people outside the US won't follow even US foreign policy in great deal which is why tone and style are so important in international relations in a way that is often comparable to what the government actually does. Conservative commentators and politicians seem to laugh at liberals when they talk about this, but you'll get a predictable response sending messages as the last president did that the US sees the world in "with us or against us" terms, will invade countries at will regardless of what its allies think, and will respond with childish fury to countries that disagree with it (eg. the French). That sends signals of a trigger happy, arrogant and erratic country that is ultimately a potential danger to the entire planet.

Obama and Hillary (an excellent choice for that role) send entirely different signals to which people outside the US (except maybe in Israel) are naturally responding positively. Even the images of him in personal negotiations with other leaders in Copenhagen sends a reassuring sign that the US is willing to sit down and talk through issues even if the end result was pretty worthless.

[Lacrosse Boy]

This is just so ethnocentric. What nation has ever in the history of the world had the foundation to withstand the test of time? Why would anyone think that America would be 'the one?' Relatively speaking, we're still in our infancy, no?

What's wrong with that being ethnocentric. I just got back from another jaunt through Europe, visiting France, Germany, and Switzerland. People in those countries are proud of where they are from. The way their governments are setup I don't think they will necessarily withstand the test of time to the extent America has. Our Founding Fathers were very concerned about having a nation that wasn't hampered by a meddling government.

Abraham Lincoln stated that America is the "Last Best Hope". And the larger the government becomes, the more like other countries we become. Even the most leftist person can't disagree with the logic that we cannot be both the last best hope and more like other countries at the same time.

Either America is unique in its ability to embody the hopes of mankind - or it is not, by definition - at least not any more than Sweden or Cuba.

With the expansion of government, we lose the key factor that made America great in the first place: individualism, which is only made possible when there is limited government. America's uniqueness and greatness come from Judeo-Christian values and emphasis on personal freedom and responsibility. Just as the Left has been waging war on Judeo-Christianity, it is also waging war on individualism.

When people who are capable of taking care of themselves begin to rely on the government they are more susceptible of becoming inferior beings. The example of Sweden continues being brought up as an example of "good" large government. I submit that it is not good, as the attitude increasingly has become in Scandanavia why help myself if the government will do it?

There is something appealing and intellectually deep about America's values of individualism and self-reliance. Little in life is more rewarding than leading a responsible life in which you can take care of yourself, your family, and community without relying on government for sustenance.

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.

Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

-John Adams, October 11, 1798

[Sir_Cliff]

I predictably disagreed with pretty much everything in that last message, but live and let live. Still, I do find it quite interesting that you worked Christianity and whatever you define as ¨Judeo-Christian values¨ into a message ostensibly about American exceptionalism, liberalism (in the classical sense), self-reliance and individualism. This seems to locate you very firmly among the dominant strand of American conservatism which sees state power as negative when it comes to social justice issues but positive when it is used to enforce a moral code presented as the Judeo-Christian values which are claimed to be the basis upon which the supposedly secular US political system was built. Very curious!

I could be wrong about this and feel free to correct me, but I suspect this right here is yet more evidence of the culture war driving political passions more than anything like healthcare.

[Lacrosse Boy]

I predictably disagreed with pretty much everything in that last message, but live and let live.

Exactly. We don't have to agree, and it's interesting reading other points of view.

Still, I do find it quite interesting that you worked Christianity and whatever you define as ¨Judeo-Christian values¨ into a message ostensibly about American exceptionalism, liberalism (in the classical sense), self-reliance and individualism. This seems to locate you very firmly among the dominant strand of American conservatism which sees state power as negative when it comes to social justice issues but positive when it is used to enforce a moral code presented as the Judeo-Christian values which are claimed to be the basis upon which the supposedly secular US political system was built. Very curious!

If you read any of our founding documents, the Founding Fathers made explicit references to God, inalienable rights bestowed upon us by our creator, etc. Read the writings and memoirs of those individuals and you'll find the same thing. It was anything but secular. They built in the part about separation of church and state not as a way to prevent people from using their religious values to guide them, but rather to prevent an entity such as the Catholic Church to control policy. Freedom of, and freedom from religion. The United States was founded to be secular only in the definitional sense, it certainly doesn't reject religion or Judeo-Christian values, but rather embraces them.

I do disagree with your analysis of my apparent will to enforce some sort of moral code. Being a Lutheran, we follow most of the traditions set forth by the Catholic Church, with a big exception being church structure. Any sort of top-down hierarchy that Catholicism is known for is quite notably absent in Lutheranism, and I think this ultimately is a good thing.

So when you mention my viewpoint of morals and where they stand in regards to social justice, I need to further explain my reasoning. I think one of the most important things society grapples with is how to make good people; a question Judeo-Christian values have always dealt with. Therefore, the emphasis comes down to individual character, since one cannot make a good society if one does not try to make good individuals. Judaism and Christianity have the premise that man is not intrinsically good, and therefore regard man's nature as the root of evil.

In the Western world since the Enlightment, the belief that human beings are "inherently good" has taken over. This results in greater neglect of character development, because evil then becomes regarded from forces outside the individual instead of morally-flawed individuals. When society starts to place blame on on forces outside the individual rather than on the individuals who perpetrate evil, society starts to work to change those forces rather than work to improve the character of individuals. That is key to understanding why some folks here seem to support measures which radically change our society via increased governmental involvement -- how else to make a better world?

I believe a far less dramatic and revolutionary approach should be used. The old fashioned approach of raising people with good values and discipline. Without both of these, individual goodness and therefore societal goodness is ultimately impossible.

This is why I think one of the most important things a society can try to do is to raise children to be good adults. Under leftist influences other things are attempted: making people environmentally aware, fighting racism/sexism/homophobia, or combatting diseases like AIDS.

Of course, it's good to be aware of the environment, to fight AIDS, and to oppose bigotry. But before teaching children and young adults to be social activists, they first must learn character traits -- honesty, humility, perserverence, and self-control. Before learning to fight society, people need to fight their own nature. The above issues would not exist the way they do today if people first fought their own nature.

There is no bill, no social policy, no health care fix that can do as much good as a society that is filled with decent people.

I could be wrong about this and feel free to correct me, but I suspect this right here is yet more evidence of the culture war driving political passions more than anything like healthcare.

This is very true. One of the staples of pop-social convention is that the differences between the Left and the Right are political in nature, and that the strife we see in America today is the result of extreme political polarization. It sounds self-evident, but it's built on the fallacy that politics is the cause, rather than the effect.

I think the reason that there never seems to be reconciliation between the Left and the Right is because the politics are the result of a deep moral divide. People do not oppose the redistribution of wealth on the basis of political systems of government, but rather because one morality views it as theft when it's forcibly perpetrated while the other sees it as a guilt-based responsibility that must be effected to make them feel good.

The person you pull the election lever for is just the final result of each individual's morality, and the schism we're witnessing today goes far beyond a difference in opinion.

[Disney Vault]

Scott Brown! Even the very liberal Massachusetts is not liking the direction of the democrats i guess.

[Snoopy]

Scott Brown! Even the very liberal Massachusetts is not liking the direction of the democrats i guess.

It was either him or Martha Coakley. Out of the two, the voters went for the one who gaffed the least.

[Lacrosse Boy]

There certainly were a lot of gaffes on Coakley's part. But I don't think her ability to be elected was simply because of her idiotic (and offensive!) gaffes. I am relieved this woman was not elected. I don't see why one party needs to be filibuster-proof in order for anything to pass in the Senate, and it seems a lot of folks think that Democrats DO need to be filibuster-proof. This just doesn't make sense to me, because the health care debate has not followed party lines. The Democrats have had to make so many compromises within their OWN party before they could agree, and even then we still have 2 separate versions of the bill.

And further, Obama promised us bipartisanship. This would be the time to exercise it. Create a bill that is satisfactory to both sides of the fence. That doesn't mean everybody will be happy, and it certainly doesn't mean that it won't go through any modifications, but this shouldn't be about party lines. That's the last thing we need.

What is further -- and I think something that is signficant about a Republican winning this last one over a Democrat especially in a state that backs Democrats so much and housed a liberal icon -- is a reflection of the attitude that much of the American public is sick and tired of elitist arrogance. What kind of person tells Catholics that they shouldn't even work in health care? And what a tool to make a statement like that, when more Catholics identify themselves as Democrat rather than Republican, despite certain views that most Catholics cannot nor will not ever vote for that are supported, in general, by the Democrat Party. Way to isolate your voting base, lady.

[Snoopy]

There certainly were a lot of gaffes on Coakley's part. But I don't think her ability to be elected was simply because of her idiotic (and offensive!) gaffes.

Perhaps not, but they definitely played a part of it; historically, Massachusetts voters would be more willing to vote for a confident/charismatic Republican over a less-than-confident/charismatic Democrat (hence the reason Reagan was able to win here twice over the Democratic candidates). Her statements didn't stop her from getting a majority vote around where I live (the Boston-metro area) but they definitely turned off a lot of the more Catholic areas of Massachusetts (and trust me, when a local politician pisses off the Catholics in the Bay State, they've pretty much lost the election). Then again, it was a very close election: Senator-elect Brown only won 52% to Coakley's 47% of the votes. It mostly came down to the independent/moderate Democrat vote this time around (despite the "hardcore liberal" stereotype, this state actually does have a lot of moderate Dems and GOPers alike).

Speaking of which, here's Scott Brown's acceptance speech where he mentions the same thing. It's a pretty standard-issue speech (saying thank you to his supporters, carrying on the legacy of Ted Kennedy, fighting for the people), until he broke off the speech and started talking about his family, even going so far as mentioning that his two teenage daughters were "avaliable" at the end of it. If that's a taste of what's to come, it looks like it's going to be a fun two years.

[YOUTUBE]1PpcipzZkAQ[/YOUTUBE]