From antispam at usrepublic.org Sun Nov 11 20:52:18 2007 From: antispam at usrepublic.org (antispam at usrepublic.org) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:52:18 -0500 Subject: [Usrepublic] Building a Republic and Killing Democracy, one email at a time. Politicians vs. Statesmen Message-ID: <002d01c824ce$a88e9a80$6f22bc48@hudson> Today I turned on the television and was absently watching while pondering a note I had read about Statesmen. There are basically two types of people that venture into politics - politicians and statesmen. Politicians are sort of defined as "public servants" which fits very well into democracy - but not that well into a republic. Politicians, being servants, are very concerned about the attitudes and opinions of the public at large - and seemingly less concerned with administration and making laws that will be good and constitutional - but unpopular with the general public. I recently spoke to a local politician that really had no idea that the United States is a republic - which told me that he had probably never read the Constitution. If he had never read the basis for our laws, freedom, everything that the government - and our freedoms are based on, then how can he possibly administer in the spirit of that document? In my personal opinion, that man was totally unprepared and unfit to fill the office he was elected to. While pondering this, I noticed that the group of "survivors" I had been watching were once again engaged in the democratic process - and were voting off another member of their tribe. They were not voting off the weakest, or the least likely to survive, but were systematically voting off the strongest and smartest - or lest scheming members. This is always true in a democracy. When politicians are chained by public opinion, they learn and scheme and plot to be the only one remaining. This is often accomplished by laying traps, abusing others while at the very same time making promises, forging alliances, and saying exactly what needs to be said to make sure that they themselves are safe. If this sounds too much like our government, there is a reason. We have degraded into a democracy to such an extent that the good men have been forced out and the remainder are the "sweet talking used car salesmen" who are very good at telling you what you want to hear while hiding the knife that will destroy your freedoms behind their back. I wondered about this. And it dawned on me that in a republic, politicians were not the rule, and in fact, many of the most destructive laws that have ever been written were at the behest of the men in our government who were democratically inclined. A very good example was the religious movement that pushed the prohibition on the American people, and weren't content to allow local or even state laws deal with problems. they pushed for an amendment to the constitution itself. If they had not pushed in this direction, then alcohol, which as corn that had been fermented to make it easy to transport - may have been the fuel of choice in our world today. When making your own alcohol became a felony, innovation and technology that could have been, wasn't. The very bad law that democracy forced on us lasted fourteen years. The damage has never gone away. I wondered about this as well, and concluded that politicians were the ones that pushed the law through, statesmen repealed it. Statesmen is a term that is rarely used in our world today. Even definitions are vague as to what a statesman is, and some even blur the line between a politician and a statesman. This is very good for the politician because it clouds issues with incorrect definitions. I decided to take a little time and explore the difference. Here is what I found. Webster's Online says; Politician: Date: 1589 1: a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government 2 a: a person engaged in party politics as a profession b: a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons Statesman: Date: 1592 1: one versed in the principles or art of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies 2: one who exercises political leadership wisely and without narrow partisanship MSN Encarta defines; Politician: 1. Somebody active in politics: somebody who actively or professionally engages in politics 2. Government member: a member of a branch of government 3. U.S. somebody seeking personal power: somebody whose main political motive is self-advancement and whose methods are often unscrupulous ( disapproving ) 4. Schemer: somebody who manipulates relationships, especially in a workplace Statesman: 1. Leading politician: a senior politician, especially a man, who plays an important role in government or international affairs 2. Respected impartial senior male politician: a senior politician, especially a man, who is widely respected for integrity and impartial concern for the public good The results were what I had expected, and I am more concerned than ever. We seem to have far too many politicians. Far too many men that are concerned with votes and public opinion and nowhere near enough concern with the good of this country. The men and women that ignore statistics and rely on public opinion - often guided by the press - are the very people that would vote for gun controls. The very people that would vote for prohibition - and the very people that pay pollsters to find out what the next wave of public opinion and media pressure will be so that they can scheme and plan for their next election. It seems that the District of Colombia have an abundance of politicians and far too few Statesmen. The sad thing is that every news show pays the bills through advertising. Advertising is dictated by Businesses and these Businesses demand listeners and watchers. The news once was delivered by sound and thoughtful men who, when called to, would even dig into the trenches with our solders. Now, the press is fed by the Associated Press, and the news generated is designed to elicit emotion and pull people into polished soap opera style news shows and papers. Everyone has heard of a newspaper passing on a story because there was not enough public interest, while at the same time pushing stories that were emotionally charged but frivolous. What this does is focus public opinion to an issue, and the style of reporting will easily manipulate public opinion to one side of that issue. That opinion is what politicians crave. It makes their jobs easier. And to clarify, the politicians job is to stay in power, and in office, while drawing a paycheck and exercising his 51% by getting to tell others what they can and cannot do. This is Democracy in action and the playground of the power hungry. We must find and elect statesmen that are willing to vote against the tide of public opinion. Men and women that will not bow to corporate interests but will look, see, and act in their conscience and within the boundaries set by the Constitution of our Country. We need to correct many things, but trying to get a politician to correct a wrong, is far too close to trying to get a politician to admit he is wrong, or that he has a problem. I hear a new story of these men that crave power caught trying to gain too much power, every day it seems like. Sex in offices and bathrooms, men with little boys, laws that are passed because a dollar was passed. and that is just the beginning! What about laws passed that benefited corporations but hurt individuals? What about Coal Miners that were squashed by the courts in favor of cheap coal. I could tell hundreds of stories, many from my own experiences, of politicians abusing their power, but the most damaging are the deals that are worked behind closed doors. Never trust a politician, trust a statesman. James Madison was such a statesman. So was Benjamin Franklin and many other Statesmen who would die before surrender to a corporate interest while at the same time limiting the damage done by politicians who would readily abandon the Constitution if it did not support his position. These are the questions - and the focus that needs to be used in our elections. 1. Does s/he want the best for everyone. 2. Does s/he resist public opinion to make good laws, even if it would hurt his career? 3. Does s/he tell it to me straight up and pull no punches. 4. Does s/he administer logically, with compassion, and thoughtfully by reading every line of a new bill - or does he hire ten aides to read and make recommendations. 5. Does s/he take the Constitution and it's meaning close to his heart - and administer the office with solemnity and dignified seriousness. 6. Does s/he make the good and best interests of every single member of our country his personal responsibility - and administer that responsibility with careful consideration? If he or she does not, then look elsewhere for your leader, the one you are considering is not fit to hold office. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://usrepublic.org/pipermail/usrepublic_usrepublic.org/attachments/20071111/4aa01637/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://usrepublic.org/pipermail/usrepublic_usrepublic.org/attachments/20071111/4aa01637/attachment-0001.obj From antispam at usrepublic.org Sun Nov 11 20:55:25 2007 From: antispam at usrepublic.org (antispam at usrepublic.org) Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2007 20:55:25 -0500 Subject: [Usrepublic] Building a Republic and Killing Democracy, one email at a time. Politicians vs. Statesmen Message-ID: <004201c824cf$188ec8a0$6f22bc48@hudson> Today I turned on the television and was absently watching while pondering a note I had read about Statesmen. There are basically two types of people that venture into politics - politicians and statesmen. Politicians are sort of defined as "public servants" which fits very well into democracy - but not that well into a republic. Politicians, being servants, are very concerned about the attitudes and opinions of the public at large - and seemingly less concerned with administration and making laws that will be good and constitutional - but unpopular with the general public. I recently spoke to a local politician that really had no idea that the United States is a republic - which told me that he had probably never read the Constitution. If he had never read the basis for our laws, freedom, everything that the government - and our freedoms are based on, then how can he possibly administer in the spirit of that document? In my personal opinion, that man was totally unprepared and unfit to fill the office he was elected to. While pondering this, I noticed that the group of "survivors" I had been watching were once again engaged in the democratic process - and were voting off another member of their tribe. They were not voting off the weakest, or the least likely to survive, but were systematically voting off the strongest and smartest - or lest scheming members. This is always true in a democracy. When politicians are chained by public opinion, they learn and scheme and plot to be the only one remaining. This is often accomplished by laying traps, abusing others while at the very same time making promises, forging alliances, and saying exactly what needs to be said to make sure that they themselves are safe. If this sounds too much like our government, there is a reason. We have degraded into a democracy to such an extent that the good men have been forced out and the remainder are the "sweet talking used car salesmen" who are very good at telling you what you want to hear while hiding the knife that will destroy your freedoms behind their back. I wondered about this. And it dawned on me that in a republic, politicians were not the rule, and in fact, many of the most destructive laws that have ever been written were at the behest of the men in our government who were democratically inclined. A very good example was the religious movement that pushed the prohibition on the American people, and weren't content to allow local or even state laws deal with problems. they pushed for an amendment to the constitution itself. If they had not pushed in this direction, then alcohol, which as corn that had been fermented to make it easy to transport - may have been the fuel of choice in our world today. When making your own alcohol became a felony, innovation and technology that could have been, wasn't. The very bad law that democracy forced on us lasted fourteen years. The damage has never gone away. I wondered about this as well, and concluded that politicians were the ones that pushed the law through, statesmen repealed it. Statesmen is a term that is rarely used in our world today. Even definitions are vague as to what a statesman is, and some even blur the line between a politician and a statesman. This is very good for the politician because it clouds issues with incorrect definitions. I decided to take a little time and explore the difference. Here is what I found. Webster's Online says; Politician: Date: 1589 1: a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government 2 a: a person engaged in party politics as a profession b: a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons Statesman: Date: 1592 1: one versed in the principles or art of government; especially : one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government or in shaping its policies 2: one who exercises political leadership wisely and without narrow partisanship MSN Encarta defines; Politician: 1. Somebody active in politics: somebody who actively or professionally engages in politics 2. Government member: a member of a branch of government 3. U.S. somebody seeking personal power: somebody whose main political motive is self-advancement and whose methods are often unscrupulous ( disapproving ) 4. Schemer: somebody who manipulates relationships, especially in a workplace Statesman: 1. Leading politician: a senior politician, especially a man, who plays an important role in government or international affairs 2. Respected impartial senior male politician: a senior politician, especially a man, who is widely respected for integrity and impartial concern for the public good The results were what I had expected, and I am more concerned than ever. We seem to have far too many politicians. Far too many men that are concerned with votes and public opinion and nowhere near enough concern with the good of this country. The men and women that ignore statistics and rely on public opinion - often guided by the press - are the very people that would vote for gun controls. The very people that would vote for prohibition - and the very people that pay pollsters to find out what the next wave of public opinion and media pressure will be so that they can scheme and plan for their next election. It seems that the District of Colombia have an abundance of politicians and far too few Statesmen. The sad thing is that every news show pays the bills through advertising. Advertising is dictated by Businesses and these Businesses demand listeners and watchers. The news once was delivered by sound and thoughtful men who, when called to, would even dig into the trenches with our solders. Now, the press is fed by the Associated Press, and the news generated is designed to elicit emotion and pull people into polished soap opera style news shows and papers. Everyone has heard of a newspaper passing on a story because there was not enough public interest, while at the same time pushing stories that were emotionally charged but frivolous. What this does is focus public opinion to an issue, and the style of reporting will easily manipulate public opinion to one side of that issue. That opinion is what politicians crave. It makes their jobs easier. And to clarify, the politicians job is to stay in power, and in office, while drawing a paycheck and exercising his 51% by getting to tell others what they can and cannot do. This is Democracy in action and the playground of the power hungry. We must find and elect statesmen that are willing to vote against the tide of public opinion. Men and women that will not bow to corporate interests but will look, see, and act in their conscience and within the boundaries set by the Constitution of our Country. We need to correct many things, but trying to get a politician to correct a wrong, is far too close to trying to get a politician to admit he is wrong, or that he has a problem. I hear a new story of these men that crave power caught trying to gain too much power, every day it seems like. Sex in offices and bathrooms, men with little boys, laws that are passed because a dollar was passed. and that is just the beginning! What about laws passed that benefited corporations but hurt individuals? What about Coal Miners that were squashed by the courts in favor of cheap coal. I could tell hundreds of stories, many from my own experiences, of politicians abusing their power, but the most damaging are the deals that are worked behind closed doors. Never trust a politician, trust a statesman. James Madison was such a statesman. So was Benjamin Franklin and many other Statesmen who would die before surrender to a corporate interest while at the same time limiting the damage done by politicians who would readily abandon the Constitution if it did not support his position. These are the questions - and the focus that needs to be used in our elections. 1. Does s/he want the best for everyone. 2. Does s/he resist public opinion to make good laws, even if it would hurt his career? 3. Does s/he tell it to me straight up and pull no punches. 4. Does s/he administer logically, with compassion, and thoughtfully by reading every line of a new bill - or does he hire ten aides to read and make recommendations. 5. Does s/he take the Constitution and it's meaning close to his heart - and administer the office with solemnity and dignified seriousness. 6. Does s/he make the good and best interests of every single member of our country his personal responsibility - and administer that responsibility with careful consideration? If he or she does not, then look elsewhere for your leader, the one you are considering is not fit to hold office. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://usrepublic.org/pipermail/usrepublic_usrepublic.org/attachments/20071111/cb246f1a/attachment-0001.html -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/octet-stream Size: 43 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://usrepublic.org/pipermail/usrepublic_usrepublic.org/attachments/20071111/cb246f1a/attachment-0001.obj