Jay,

Excellent post IMO!

I, too, while this might surprise you <g> also do not believe or think or 'feel' <g> that either party is morally superior to the other. No way. Parties are not moral agents; people are. <g> However, what I do find is that within the Republican 'big tent' (so-called?) there are more individuals who reflect the conclusions I have also arrived at.

I do not know how they arrived at their conclusions. I suppose that most probably simply (and IMO mindlessly) inherited them. "My daddy's a Democrat so I'm a Democrat" type of thinking.

I'd like to think that I did not arrive at my positions without being personally involved in the process though that's entirely possible. <g>

Do I disagree with my fellow conservatives? You bet! I think many are too harsh and do not understand that one can have standards and also have compassion at the same time. A shame IMO...

However, I have also seen more 'raw' grabs for power and a more visible willingness to distort the 'truths' I know (facts often) and to attempt to use non-logical (read: try to scare the hell out of people) approaches that IMO are on their face, disengenuous. IOW, I think the Democratic leadership is far more willing to lie.

Why?

I think they often have no 'higer' purpose in life than to gain and maintain power - surely not limited to the Dems mind you... I'd like to think that I do and that at some point in the future I will be finished with life on this plane and on to the next, eternally blissful existence. IOW, different perspectives of the 'bigger picture' do indeed seem to affect our decision-making process now.

Remember, I am speaking in very broad generalizations...

Still, thanks again for you great post!

>Ken --
>
>>PMFJI
>
>No Prob
>
>>- but my firm belief
>
>And, I affirm your believing...
>
>>- and I've seen it enough over a lot of years to believe it strongly - is this: While certainly, polticians on either side can be (and often are) equally corrupt
>
>That's not my point of view. And, I have to admit, that it's the phrasing rather than your argument that I'm responding to. But, I think we as citizens too easily label politicians "corrupt".
>
>I think we all find the process of politics distasteful at least at some points. If so, let us acknowledge that. As someone once said "Those who love sausages and laws should not see them being made."
>
>We have grown up in and now as voters endorse our system of government. We encourage, actively or passively, people in our nation to step forward and govern us. Don't we have some responsibility for delegating the messiness of governing a democracy to our elected officials. It is often uncomfortable, but a lot better, I believe, than turning the messiness over to a monarch.
>
>>- the ideology and mindset that pushes one to "be a democrat" is also the ideology and mindset that leads one to be an "ends justify the means" thinker. Tenants of that ideology include moral/ethical relativism, the redirection/denial of personal responsibility, and social elitism ("we know what's better for you than you do"), Note that I am not accusing all democrats of being this way or saying that all republicans aren't.
>
>> I truly believe that those of this mindset can do things that are "wrong" and not feel that they have done anything wrong because it is serving some "higher" purpose. ex - "It's Ok to hide those Bush ballots because Al gore is the good guy and I'm just being a patriot to save our country" :-)
>
>I acknowledge your belief. I don't intend to convince you otherwise. My understanding is rather different. Let me work from your framework to explain where I'm coming from.
>
>You're arguing from a philosophical point of view about a historical reality -- the Democratic party's approach to politics considered from a deonotological ethics of personal responsibility.
>
>There are two aspects to your argument -- a policy issue and a personal ethical aspect. The personal ethical issue -- "It's Ok to hide those Bush ballots because Al gore is the good guy and I'm just being a patriot to save our country" -- I'm not going to deal with. I have absolutely no way of confirming or denying a statement like that with any evidence that would hold up in a court of law. Call me a fool <s>, but I will make the assumption, with which you may disagree, that members of any party are of roughly the same moral caliber. For the purposes of my discussion, though it is irrelevant.
>
>As for the policy issues, let me address what I understand to be your core concerns. 'The ideology and mindset that pushes one to "be a democrat" is also the ideology and mindset that leads one to be an "ends justify the means" thinker. Tenants of that ideology include moral/ethical relativism, the redirection/denial of personal responsibility, and social elitism ("we know what's better for you than you do").'
>
>I think those are significant and serious observations, and I sense reflect a real, and not an academic concern, on your part. I can also understand that looking at Democratic public policy over the past several decades that one might well come to those conclusions. Certainly the Gringrich plan and even Clinton's approval of Republican welfare reform, for example, show that the Democratic party is reevaluating its stand towards big government.
>
>I make the move from philosophy to political history because I think we have to evaluate the historical context as well as one's immediate impressions. Democrats in the 90's have the legacy and baggage of government programs developed most notably by FDR and Lyndon Johnson. Because of their creation and development of these programs, there's a certain pride and desire to keep them going even though they may no longer be the most appropriate solutions and because there may be unintended consequences.
>
>At the same time, these political programs were related to issues of human need and injustice. FDR began building big government because individuals and corporations did not have the resources to put people to productive work. Lyndon Johnson developed programs co-ordinated with the Civil Rights act to attempt to redress the legal injustice that had been foisted on many living in our country for the last century who were deprived of full citizenship. And, the War on Hunger was designed to provide nutrition, in the wealthiest nation in the world, for those who were malnourished.
>
>We may now say that those programs have outlived their usefulness. And, that's our right. But Republicans have traditionally been slow to respond to these issues. And, much of that legislation was passed without significant Republican support.
>
>The bottom line is that Democrats have attempted to solve, through political means, significant social problems. Maybe these are intractable. And, the style which government most easily operates in is a top down style -- hence the "we know what's best for you."
>
>Quite obviously, the best solution would be for us as a society to address them outside of the political arena -- with all its failings. But, I don't see that happening. Since President Reagan asked churches to adopt welfare families to augment government services, how many families have been adopted? In the last 15 years, I haven't heard of one.
>
>I respect people who have worked hard to live an honest life, and hope that I am one of them. But, too often, I see Republican ideology as one which basically "blesses" individual achievement without encouraging a broader civic and social responsibility beyond one's socio-economic group.
>
>I happen to live in a historic neighborhood on the north side of Indianapolis. I'm well aware of the flight of talent and resources to the suburbs. I would welcome suburbanites to move in here, and become partners with blacks, whites, marrieds, singles, gays, straights in making a better world.
>
>So, in terms of your argument, I would sum up.
>
>I would agree with much of what you say in terms of inheriting tired and old ideas without new creativity to spark them.
>
>I would use a standard broader than individual responsibility as the basis of my ethics -- to include substantive social involvement.
>
>I would try to understand the historical context prior to judging a group on a philosophical standard.
>
>Finally, I'm still not interested in trying to determine which party is "morally correct." In my opinion, both are. But, each has very distinctive ideals, and it is in that arena that I make my choice.
>
>Best...