So, I have a friend from church with whom I disagree regularly and politely. We’ve had an ongoing email discussion (of sorts) recently, and I thought I’d share it for fun.
Love him or hate him, Rush hits a bulls eye with this address to the nation. Hard to argue with this no-nonsense logic and historical perspective.
Click here to listen, or read the address:
Please share and pass on!!
And my response:
You could afford to take me off of your political mailing lists. I wonder if your emails actually serve to improve the number of votes for your candidates or galvanize the opposition? Rush and his cohort certainly played a large part in determining my vote long ago.
And, back to my friend:
Am happy to do that and will do so. I just like generating discussion and include friends of all different views when I send out stuff. If I only sent it to folks who I knew agreed with me that wouldn’t be any fun! My aim is for people to think about the candidates in a different way than they may have been persuaded to by the main-stream media – which has really shown its true colors during this election. I think things would be far different if the American people had a fair, objective view of these guys, on both sides. Sadly, they don’t and Rush has proven his worth as a very reliable source from the other side – 20 years, 20 million listeners and a nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, he has an outside group monitor him on accuracy and though it may sound silly, he’s right over 98% of the time. He’s solid in my book, but of course that’s the book of conservatism.
I’m just trying to serve up the other side that is blatantly ignored and shutout in the MSM. And I’m deeply concerned about who these people are – and I would hope everyone would be.
Does that mean you are a Rush listener? I know a lot of people who don’t agree with him and listen anyway. Just curious.
To answer your question – I don’t know where people stand – so could my e-mails galvanize them in the other direction? Sure. But I would hope those who aren’t sure would give it another thought. The reason I love Rush’s perspective is that its about the principles, and not the candidates. He’s making a stand for the conservative principles that have made this country great. I don’t even like McCain. But I also know that his opponent’s belief system is completely contrary to what I believe in. So, that leaves me no choice.
One last thought here. I think it all comes down to what role we think gov’t should have in our lives. How much control should it have? Historically speaking, our founders designed it to have very little control – to protect our freedoms and not much more. (See Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution-spells out 5-6 main roles of Fed. Govt.) For about 150 years that’s all it did until FDR changed all that with the New Deal. Ever since then each administration (and both parties) has added and grown govt. And yet, the problems have not been solved! Thus my view that more govt is not the answer. If it were, all of our problems would be solved by now. LBJ’s great society was supposed to end poverty. Social Security was supposed to fund our retirements – and yet why do we have 401Ks, Roth IRAs, etc?
Anyway, just some more food for thought. Thanks for listening!
All the best,
And lastly, my response (perhaps the end of the discussion?)
So, I’m sure you’re unhappy today. But, it is the country’s reaction today that best explains why I voted for Obama, and why “style” as I was calling it in class a few months ago is relevant. For Bror and Mark Cuban, race played a big role. For Troy and Aaron, it had less to do with race than it did the kind of leader or inspirer of hope that he’ll be.
There are places where I don’t fundamentally disagree with some conservative tenants. Yeah, less government than a socialist state is a good thing. Do I believe that the next four years will take us to a socialist state? No. Do I believe that conservatives will claim it has? Yes. As Aaron talked about, these are shades of gray kinds of issues. American politics are so centrist that no one, not McCain, not Clinton, not Huckabee could have swung us very far from the center. Obama will bring some policies that you won’t love, but they really won’t move the bar that far in any direction.
There are some places where I really disagree with the conservative platforms as well. Why gay marriage is such a threat to anyone still puzzles me. The legislation of morality doesn’t make any sense to me at all. You and I can argue in church about whether homosexuality should be considered a sin by our church. That is, fundamentally, the role of the church and the place for that discussion (and we can disagree on that there effectively). But why does a party that espouses the minimized role of government feel that it is their place to define what marriage is? In what way can that harm another soul?
So, policies aside, the election came down to this for me. Tone, attitude, the ability to lead, style. For me, leadership in the enlightened age is not about a “head of household” or “fiery dictator”. It is absolutely not about vitriol and hate. Leading today is about understanding people, being aware of others’ perception of you, finding commonality, creating hope and something that people can be excited about.
The country, and the people, are collectively proud of what they did yesterday. In reality, I don’t believe the country has been proud of their president, inspired by their president since Reagan. (Is this right? People tell me he was beloved. Me? I was 13 and so oblivious that I was wearing really short shorts to middle school.)
I hope that even those who were disappointed (say Bill Bradley, for example, who spoke optimistically about where Obama would) give Obama the chance to win them over. I’m excited about what he might accomplish. I’m proud of our new president.