Saturday, February 20, 2016

Long and short of it, part 2

This may not be a series of posts, but I have an inspiration.  As long as I have it, I will write about it.

As with the first post, the inspiration, as such, is a revelation about what our problems really are in this society.  The revelation is that our problems are spiritual in nature, not material. 

To develop this further, I will need to discuss our leadership.  Or the lack of leadership, to put it more accurately.

By the way, this may not be as long a post as the last one.  The inspiration has its limits in time and space.  And besides, I am mortal, I am here only a short time.  I must attend to earthly needs, which means I don't have as much time as I'd like to spend on this.

Back to the leadership question.  I've been complaining long and loud on this blog about the lack of it.  I think it permeates our society much deeper than anyone knows.   That's what makes it so dangerous.  We are at the lip of a precipice, in which I think we may not be able to avoid falling into.  If we had leadership, they would guide us away from it.  Instead, they are guiding us straight towards the disaster.  They are guiding us towards it because their concern is with themselves, not the people that they claim to serve.

Okay, after a brief break while I ate an early lunch, I got an idea that may take awhile to expound upon.  The idea is about Presidential leadership, and since we are in an election year, it is also about Presidential politics.


Once again, I think of Nixon.  People may not remember too much of his domestic policy, which failed against inflation, amongst other things; than with his foreign policy, which opened up China.  As a long term success, the China policy may backfire.  But in dealing with the problems at the time, it was a success in our Cold War rivalry with the Soviet Union

If Nixon isn't a good example, the let's look at George Herbert Walker Bush.  He may be remembered for leading the country to success in the war in Iraq, but his failure with balancing the budget won't be remembered.  I may get some disagreement with that, and you may be right to do so.  However, balancing the budget isn't that important now, as it seemed to be then; as the Iraq debacle will be sometime in the future.   Indeed, in future years, that little war in Iraq may be long remembered.  We seem to have a problem with the Middle Easterners right now because of this.  They have long memories.

We can go back even further to FDR.  Roosevelt didn't really end the Great Depression.  He won't be remembered for his failure to do so, but he will be remembered for winning World War II.

Incidentally, I think the victory over Germany and Japan is what helped end the depression.   Not because of their defeat, but what it did to the UK and the rest of Europe.  Europe has been defanged, and this has helped the USA become fat and rich, but it came at the price of what may come later.  Actually, it may sooner than later, unfortunately.

All of these examples have something in common.  Or I think they do.  In winning World War II, FDR was acting in the best interest of the country.  In winning in Iraq, Bush the Elder was trying to do what was in the country's best interest.  Even Nixon, which I don't think much of, was trying to do his best to secure world peace.   They did these things in service to country and a bit of risk to their own personal interests.  Their personal interests would have been better served if their outcomes had been longer lasting and more durable.  The risks they took didn't affect them personally at the time, but history may not be so favorable to them.  The risk they took was with the verdict of history.  Yet, they served the interests of the people alive at the time.

I'm straining a bit to make a point.  The point is to serve the country at the expense of self.  These Presidents tried to do that.  Our current crop of leaders may not be able to.  Even those in the history books may have failed too, because they failed to get victories that were longer lasting.  But we made some amends to Europe, maybe too many.  We tried in Iraq as well, but not hard enough in my opinion.  As for opening up China?  This helped Nixon win reelection in 1972, but that may not help us in the years to come.

The main point I think is valid.  Presidents will be remembered for their foreign policy, not with their domestic policy.  This should be true even of FDR, if Europe falls apart.  It sure seems to be. 

Good leadership comes from serving the country, not from serving the self.  Think again towards history.  The Roman Emperor, Honorius, did nothing to stop the sack of Rome in 410 AD.  Indeed, he did a lot to cause it.  The kind of leaders we have now may do a lot to cause the sack of the USA, which may be closer than you think.  The reason being, that like Honorius, their concern will be with their own safety, not with their people's safety.  Honorius was an unworthy leader.  Our duty is to find somebody who is worthy.


But that doesn't make the Democrats any better.  In fact, the Dems are even worse.  Far worse.  For if there is a party that puts self before all, it is the Democrat Party.  They will talk about taxing the rich, as if this is what is meant about putting others first.  But if you look closely, all Democrat policies go to help Democrats first.  If it helps the people, that is only incidental.

But what about the GOP?  Keep in mind here that I am referring to spiritual qualities.  What is it that I call spiritual?

I was thinking about that definition on the way from the last post to this one.  What I would prefer to call spiritual is that which makes life worth living.  Those would be LOVE, COURAGE, AND FAITHFULNESS.  Now, Trump may not have been faithful to his wife (s).   He may not be the most lovable guy around.  What he does have is GUTS.  Besides that, he TELLS THE TRUTH.  All these pussies out there are afraid to tell the truth today.  Trump tells it like it is.  He is faithful to the truth, which counts for a lot in my book.

That is something. If he had nothing at all, well he just might be a Democrat.

Democrats might feel love, but they don't necessarily act upon it.  Neither do the RINOS.

Democrats aren't completely short of courage, but they have more than the conservatives, who have none at all that I can see.

Democrats aren't faithful to anything but their own selves.  That alone makes them formidable.  Even without that much of anything else.  It is also what makes them dangerous.  They can stick together like glue.  That party is like the friggin' Mafia.  They act like the Mafia.

Cruz?  Puhleeze.  He has had maybe four years now in the Senate.  What exactly has he done that inspires such confidence?  He has picked a few fights and he has lost them all.  Whoop de do.  You need to stick with the fight and make the other guy bloody your nose, or a lot worse.  Maybe make both eyes black and a bloody nose.  Or have to be carried out of the place.  Otherwise you aren't fighting.  Does that make Cruz a "pussy"?  Maybe not.  But he ain't exactly pugnacious either.  Give me a fighter.  A guy who won't quit until you knock his ass out.

Cruz may have a little courage, but we may need a whole lot more.  We have to take on the bad guys over there and over here.  There are a lot of them.  Not that many of US.

Trump has GUTS.  Give me the GUY who has guts.  Spiritual doesn't necessarily mean acting like a Sunday school teacher.  The world stage ain't Sunday School.  It's a bad neighborhood, and you need a butt kicker in charge.  Let the Sunday School Teachers teach Sunday School to the snowflakes.  It is a tough world out there.  Snowflakes don't have what it takes to deal with the bad guys.

St. Peter is said to have had a "potty mouth".  If Jesus could forgive Peter for his language, then we should be able to forgive Trump for his.  He is good enough to be President, thank you very much.

I could be all wrong about Cruz, but if he is really a creampuff, he is going to get his butt kicked.

Part 1
Part 3

No comments: