From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sun Dec 07 2003 - 22:24:09 GMT
Dear David B. and Bush-sympathizers,
You wrote 7 Dec 2003 10:49:00 -0700
'The only worse about buying elections rather than stealing them is that the
former is harder to detect.'
In my interpretation of 'buying' versus 'stealing' elections the latter is
most controversial and most difficult to agree upon for both liberals and
conservatives. (I avoid the 'detection' metaphor, that suggests a
possibility of 'objectively' determining whether election outcomes are
'bought'/'free' and 'stolen'/'legitimate'.)
Whether they are 'stolen'/'legitimate' requires discussion whether they
conformed to a highly complex set of legal rules. Even (American) courts
appeared to have difficulty answering that question.
Whether they are 'bought'/'free' only requires registration of campaign
funds involved. When candidates require more funds for a succesful campaign
then most eligible citizens can furnish from their own resources and when
would-be candidates cannot get government funding for their campaigns, they
either effectively 'buy' their election from their own resources or they are
dependent on 'donations with strings attached' from others and their
election is 'bought' by these donors.
I agree that there is also a 'Pirsigian' foundation possible of the
assessment that both liberals and conservatives are necessary and that we
don't need Wilber for that.
I of course sympathize with your view that:
'The problem with Bush is that his policies are actually pretty radical.
Real conservatives don't like the idea of trying to change the world by
force, or even other nations by force. His faith-based pre-emptive war
policy is
unprecedented in "Amerkin" history.'
I am curious what Bush-sympathizers on this list think about this view. Do
they agree that Bush is not a real conservative? If so, what else would they
call him? Do they agree that Bush wants to change the world by force and do
they support that wish?
Are you sure faith-based pre-emptive war is unprecedented in American
history? How were earlier wars or military interventions based which the USA
started or joined? If the alternatives of 'pre-emptive' war are 'provoked'
and 'defensive' wars, were all earlier wars the USA fought in one of those
catagories?
Neither being American, nor being an expert on American history I hesitate
to give my view, but my impression is, that if most of the earlier wars the
USA fought were not meant to change the world according to American
interests, they at least meant to prevent change by others against its
national interests. And the line between those two types of intentions is
quite vague..., especially if those national interests are (as seemed almost
invariably the case) located outside US national borders.
With friendly greetings,
Wim
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Dec 07 2003 - 22:35:27 GMT