- Who We Are
- Speak Up!
- Take Action
November 17, 2012
Dear Mr. President,
We modern Whigs extend our congratulations to you Mr. President on your electoral victory. The Nation has spoken, keeping you, our President, in the White House, yet at the same time still electing the some of the "opposition" party to other offices. Our citizens are exhibiting a proper sense of balance as well as bold social progression that their representatives ought take note of.
Mr. President, it is the sincere hope of the Modern Whigs that you govern through your second term in a spirit of collaboration and compromise and with a deep sense of historical dialectics. As political discourse in our Great Nation has become increasingly vitriolic, with emotions and blind ideology masking truth, we Whigs realize how difficult true leadership can be our current context.
Yet Mr. President, lead you must. You are the child of history. Not only are you our Great Nation's first black American President, but one of the few global leaders re-elected in the midst of a crisis.
And for this reason, Mr. President, we all as a nation ought support you unequivocally, as citizens bound in a common cause to sustain our Republic for future generations. Yet many in our Great Nation do not quite share this modern Whig ideal. Respectfully sir, we see this as one of your greatest opportunities.
For one, our Great Nation, sir, has not yet fully resolved one of its original sins - slavery. Not only did that sin almost destroy a nation, it also destroyed a viable political movement - the ancient American Whig Party. The true party of President Lincoln. And while the experience of American slaves has become so deeply rooted in our consciousness, igniting the eternal torch of our insistence on liberty and freedom, we are at the same time becoming increasingly known by our global peers as a slave master rather as a liberator of free souls. We modern Whigs feel this ignores our own national conscience and lessons from the most painful periods of our history. That sir, would be a national sin.
But we are so close to resolving that original sin as a Nation. Your role in that resolution is pivotal and why we modern Whigs pledge our support to your leadership, even if as individuals many among us may have issue with aspects of your party's policies, and the overriding rule of self-perpetuation both major parties exhibit. We modern Whigs look only to your soul, sir.
We Whigs hope, Mr. President, that you can see a bigger picture, of history, of a post-modern role for our Great Nation steeped more authentically in who we truly are, of a Nation's healing and reconciliation, and of the crucial fiscal issues that you and Mr. Speaker will have to tackle, not as Democrats or Republicans, but as true American leaders looking out for the common good of us all. For the middle of our Great Nation. Truly the quiet forgotten ones and who have potentially suffered the most from years of poor political management "by party", "by ideology", but most precisely for “self”. We, sir, regardless of race or color, have not forgotten our lessons from history, or our pledge to each other. The folks who proclaim to be our leaders sir , simply may have.
Modern Whigs beleive sir, that we can as a Nation resolve a proper balance between social justice and personal freedoms with responsibility, employing true leadership borne of imagination,American ingenuity and framed by a refocus on our most deeply held, msot authentic common values. We have no doubt Mr. President, that many around you might be blind to this and see only their own point of view. They seem unwilling to compromise, yet willing to protect for gain. It is for the rest of us, sir, that you have to lead us beyond these false binaries, with imagination, vision, selflessness and a spirit of compromise and reconciliation to benefit all. Modern Whigs believe we have not seen true American political illuminati in ages, sir. Yet, what we do see are the increasingly clear systemic impediments to their formation. Your opportunity sir.
This is your historical mandate Mr. President, and the greatest gift you can leave behind for our Nation. Mr. President, the truth does not reside in the corners of the boxing ring, but right in the middle, where two false truths are allowed to collide and create anew. This is your mandate sir and we good citizens respectfully encourage you to put the gloves on and get "Whiggy" for us all!
God speed to you Mr. President! Peace and blessings to you and your family.
Respectfully and sincerely,
NY Modern Whigs
What makes anyone think that the next four years will be any different than the last four?
Duffy, that actually has nothing to do with the purpose of me penning that letter. It isnt about four year slices of time, its about 50 and 100 year slices of time. Think BIG man!
I do think big.
I can also run the numbers, if we last another four years without an Economic disaster, I will be pleasantly surprised.
And I mean a big Economic Disaster.
Think about how much of our economy depends upon the unnecessary nice to have things then think about the ripple effects when we have to start looking at what we need, not just what is nice to have.
For instance dog sweaters, how many dog sweaters you need if you have to stew the dog?
Gene, right now 40% of our Corn Crop goes to making ethanol. It takes more energy to convert the grain to ethanol than you get at the end. The mileage from E-85 is about 70% as that of a gallon of gas. So that means that even with the Government subsidy, you pay about the same to go a mile on E-85 as you do gas. And even the environmentalist will tell you it is worse for the environment than regular gas. Now go and look at the price of a pound of Hamburger. But when the state’s request a relaxation on the ethanol standards, the answer is no. Remember the Arab Spring? Everyone will tell you it was about a screaming desire for Freedom among the populations of Arab nations. Here is the truth, about four years ago the average Egyptian spend t nearly half is income on food. But then food prices shot up as more and more grain left the food supply to be converted to gas. The price of Food increased about 50-70%. Now the average Egyptian would have to pay about 60-70% of their wages on food. I would riot as well. It is coming here, especially when there is no more free money from the Government.
This is the kind of stupid that scares the snot out me. Because I think big.
New and final edit is up. We are not discussing energy policy here in this blog thread. Proper place is under Energy, although I totally agree on distilled ethanols as expensive fuel. To answer your question in the proper context here Duffy, LEADERSHIP. Properly focused leadership would make the difference. An Army of one, if you will. Thank you.
My point is not about energy policy, it is about a flawed decision making process that results in a flawed energy policy.
And it goes to a larger point about flawed decision making process.
This is the root cause of poverty in America.
I know this, I grew up in poverty, and even though I do OK, I am reminded constantly of what causes poverty with every major holiday, family reunion, or death in the family where they look at me like I have an obligation to handle the expenses.
Poverty is about incompetence and a flawed decision making process.
Should I spend my paycheck on ret and food, or pot and beer?
Why should I finish high school or even middle school, plenty of people do not and they do ok.
Why should I go to work to today, I don’t feel good after partying last night.
And these people are allowed to vote, and as a result we get an incompetent electorate with no sense of responsibility to self or to those dependent upon them, electing incompetent leadership.
That is my point, the idea of group responsibility embodied by the current administration and to many in America is not about being fair or doing the right thing. It is about avoiding responsibility and putting the blame on somebody, anybody, else.
Ok Duffy, right there you are spot on on identifying one major issue in the good governance of the Nation - motive and ideal. It drives to this pervaisive sense of entitlement, or as I see it, many citizens acting like children and not adults, which our government is actually empowering.
Ironic given that this model of a Republic was intended to set the spirit free, not to enslave it.
Also oddly ironic that a scant ten years after President Kennedy utters one of his most quoted comments, " Don't ask what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country", that our national "indentity" ( not the precise word I seek) begins to morph to one of entitlement and "self above others".
The other issue you raise Duffy, is relative deprivation or the flip side, a sense of opportunity. Current political debate seems more focused on equality of position, and not of opportunity. This is misguided.
Not least of which because it bridles and restraints imagination and personal empowerment. We, as a Nation, need to unbridle those things, NOT constrain them.
Therefore, one might conclude as this American rebel does, that our government is actually STIFLING growth and imagination by its intrusions. now, STOP! This is not a call for smaller government ala the Tea Party, etc. It is a recognition of the absolute fact that those who claim to be "leaders" are not leading at all, and that the default consequence of their collective actions ( based on self -interest) is to make all citizens more dependent, akin to little children. Shackling our spirit, while at the same time being unwitting dupes as part of an economic mess that shakles our physical selves by adverse family economics. Big bankers brought free trade to you. By buying their way in.
"War on poverty" my Whig arse. Its a LIE. And, by observation, malfeasance by faux leaders has increased poverty.
I mean heck man, our leaders blindly made the Nation dependent on foreign sources of capital. What this Whig is saying, is that notion of dependence then rolls down hill to all sectors of society. So they are leading, and the leadership example they are setting as a collective is akin to a weak, dependent child with a ill-found sense of entitlement.
Another manifestation of this is our foreign expeditions. Have we punished those who took down the towers enough yet? Are we going to let that grudge drag us down forever? I don't know about you man, but this American rebel don't cotton to being no victim. Stand our ground and carry a monster stick in self-defense - heck yes. To be viewed as international thugs by many - say what!?
We ought be dependent, in a sense, on ourselves, our neighbors and our communities. So the faux leadership also interdicts that sense of community. Have our "leaders" drawn us together, or drawn us apart? Too easy to see the consequences of their inability to lead, and their divide and conquor campaign strategy.
Bottom line, we need to redirect the monster, as now it is consuming us, and the ideals that it once stood for. We can't go back, but someone, by God, someone has to lead us going forward. Which is precisely what four NCOs concluded while serving their country overseas, and why we are trying to come togehter here. For effect!
BTW, we grew up poor, in a single parent home. Immigrants to boot! I wouldn't have had it any other way!
Having said that, this may seem odd, but growing up in the 60's was WAY better than today. We were still personally empowered then. So while we've come a long way in terms of inclusiveness, I do beleive we've regressed into 'children' at the same time. Ironically, less respect for others, more self interest, and much less sense of community and "us". Ironically, less discriminatory to folks who look different than you, but more aware of "looks" than ever before.
Faux leadership indeed. Its messing with our collective selves, and this Whig says its time to unass it but good.
So lets start calling a spade, a spade, brother. Let's come together, each of us grabbing our own "spade" and start shoveling that huge mound of manure off the Hill and move forward.
Nothing wrong with coming up from poverty.
The problem is accepting it as a status quo, and accepting the idea that there is nothing you can do about it, and the idea that it is someone else’s fault.
This is compounded by the fact that a lot people are living on the Social Safety Net far better than many people who do not qualify for it. This is the Government subsidizing poverty, and bad decision making. It is the Government saying we will take care of everything, from your phone to your internet to your birth control. You do not have to worry about anything.
I think a lot of the Tea Party energy was not really about the size of Government, but the size of the waste involved.
The President (Obama) himself said there Billions being wasted every year in Medicare. Yet has failed to actually do anything about it.
Then there is the continuing saga of Million dollar parties being thrown by agencies like the GAO, VA and the Federal Courts.
Throw on top of that President Obama going on a 20 day vacation that will cost the Tax payer multi-million dollars.
The First Family now costs the American Taxpayers more annually than the Royal Family costs the UK.
That is the Tea Parties driving force, and a lot of Conservatives as well, You do not need more money, you cannot spend what you are getting wisely
Never joined the Tea Party...never found anything wrong with what they were saying.
The only thing I find wrong with the Tea Party is that they are trying to "save us" by being part of the problem! That is happening on many levels from their vitriolic discourse, to their moral high ground obfuscations, to their cavorting with the Reps.
Oddly, I find "hippie rebel Whigs" like me much more authentically grounded in Constitutional values than either TP or CP. Yet they somehow claim it as their soverign territory.
Letting folks have same sex unions and letting women being the lord of their own castles are good places for them to question their Constitutional authenticity.
There is no doubt in my military mind the most authentic among us are right here. Modern Whigs.
Having said that, having some poli sci background I can totally understand the emergence of the TP as a reaction to Big Brothers ever encroaching reach and gross fiscal ( and operational) malfeasance.
OK. I will bite.
How exactly is the Tea Party part of the problem? And more specifically, what do you think is the problem?
I tend to agree with the point that Taxes are to high, and I am also finding myself in agreement with the fact that no matter how high the revenue to the Government is, they will never stop wasting money.
Look at what the debate is about right now. A higher tax rate, which, in the best estimates of those who are advocating higher tax rates for those who earn most, will fund the Governments extra spending for two weeks. And they have yet to meet their estimates on revenue from taxes they propose.
So what are we to do with the other 50 weeks in the fiscal year?
How does this fix anything?
And wait, Boehner has done the Whig thing, he has conceded the Higher Tax rates for the wealthy, as long as they are tied to spending cuts in entitlements.
And the administrations answer?
Nope. No cuts to benefits, entitlements or welfare programs.
So I disagree with the idea that the Tea Party is part of the problem. Very likely not the solution, but at least they have a clue as to what the real problem is.
Oh, and when you complain about them cavorting with the Republicans, you sound like a lot of Republican “Moderates” and their advisors. What the Tea party is trying to do in the Republican Party, and what the “New” Left has done in the Democrat Party, is dominate the party.
Insofar as I know, there never has been a Tea Party statement on same sex marriage, although there are a lot of evangelical Christians in the Tea Party, they do not own it. And bluntly, I think Mitt Romney lost because Evangelicals could not stomach voting for a Mormon, and stayed home.
Only because they are not part of the solution Duffy, so we do indeed agree. Their message is so intertwined with the current political paradigms, including what we might argue is an artifical left-right divide. When we view Constitutional principals through the prism of this divide as I've attempted to above, the logical insconsistencies come to the fore.
The closest I have seen to a solution lost the election in November.
At least the TEA party has done one thing that 51% of the country can't, determine what the problem is. There are a lot people, in Washington, in the Media, and next door, who have yet to see the depth of the problem.
And knowing is half the battle.
I do not view the political spectrum left to right, for one reason, that spectrum somehow puts Stalin's Soviet Union and Adolf Hitler's National Socialist Reich on opposite ends of the spectrum, when in nearly every detail; they were more similar to each other than either ever were to the United States.
Try this out for size and see where you fit:
Don't apologize to me brother, but hear that we indeed are meant to be part of the solution, to help cure the myopia tha the two party system has instilled in the electorate.
Going back to TP, while they might have identified some symptoms of the problem, they have not offerred solutions that 51% of the electorate can buy into - and part of the reason is that they have allowed themselves to be framed as "rabid right", with enough crackpot commentators to earn the title.
If we need some sort of national reconciliation to get the policy job done, they are as lousy at it as the two institutionalized incorporated parties.
EG, in NY they and the Conservative Party are total Bible thumpers. Thump to your heart's content on Sunday, but don't send me emails about evil in the government and how Rep XYZ is doing the devil's bidding if you want me to take you seriously. WTF am I, Teheran? So un-Enlightenend. So backward looking. Un-salable. Fail.
Do I disagree with the entirety of their platform? No. But Whigs are more authentically Constituional. And I feel good about stealing the "defenders of the Constitution" moniker from the rabid right, who can't "sell" the concept to the majority of Americans.
A concept we deeply beleive needs to be "re-sold" to the public.
Man, NO ONE else is doing it right. Its up to us. And i personally beleive the fate of our Republic hangs on it.
And BTW, a nicely penned letter from me notwithstanding, our Commander-in-Chief seems to be falling back in follwer mode, unable to lead us to new ground. Same old scheiss, different day, policy wise.
What, now we are considering signing on the UN arms bans as a reaction to the event in Newtown, CT. Does that even remotely "smell" like leadership? It's followership, void of imagination, vois of searching for common ground and collaboration. Things are no better on the other side of the aisle.
Oh, Duffy, while its utterly academic, the Pournell chart likely places me in the "objectivist" place. As a born rebel ( they say), the "American counter-culture" sounds like one helluva accurate label. A gun-toting, gay lovin', colorblind American rebel am I. If one must label this, which I would argue - might be we are creating an entirely new label Duff. Off the charts.
Or maybe a true Whig is right in the crosshairs, saying that the measure of objectivism v state belief is a spurious measure of one poliical self. ???
I'm new to this website, so please bear with me. I like many of the concepts, but find one feature disconcerting having to do with "conservative" versus "liberal" labels that so many people refuse to shed. In my humble opinion, Whig philosophy comes closest to centrism, so there shouldn't be any extreme leanings one way or the other. Of course, "extreme" is a term that moves slightly with the times, but I'm led to believe that the rule of law and the Constitution are the fundamental monuments of the Whig outlook. After reading some of these posts, I get the impression that some contributors aren't very aware of the historical underpinings of the movement, and I would advise all of these people to inquire more. Therefor, I question the motivation of some self-proclaimed Whigs who are very defensive of their liberal or conservative stances. Furthermore, there appears to be some confusion over terms used. For example, I've heard a few Whigs describe the movement as "progressive," but one has to be careful as "progressive" nowadays describes the far left. Conversely, I think it's a mistake for Tea Partiers to alie themselves with Whigs. So, I'm curious what motivates some to call themselves Whigs who clearly embrace far left or far right political outlooks.