There is a place for both Liberalism and Conservatism in the philosophy, the psycholgy, the economics, the law, and the politics of man. Indeed, in DGB Philosophy, I try to shoot for the best of both worlds and avoid the worst of both worlds -- in other words, to 'split the difference' and look for that 'ideal homesotatic, dialectic-democratic balnce'.
On the Conservative side, I say that 'excuses are for losers -- or at least for people who want to continue to play a losing game'. I've been there, done that. When I am late for work, I will fish for a 'reason' -- or rather, for an excuse as to why I am late. But the reality is, that once it becomes established as a 'negative habit' and/or a 'serial behavior pattern', then there is no more room for 'reasons' because the bottom line is that they are all excuses. The reality of the situation is that 'I want to be late because if I wanted to be on time badly enough -- more than I wanted to be late -- then I would change my behavior (get up earlier and/or move faster) -- and I would be on time. Case closed. End of conversation. Anything else said is 'verbal garbage'.
Now on the Liberal side, I look at the plight of many single mothers and fathers in this country -- particulary the ones who don't make excuses, and don't cry 'foul' or don't cry 'victim', the ones that are working their butts off every day trying to do the job of two parents -- as one. They may be working one job, two, or even three. They've made their daycare arrangmements, take the child or children to daycare or school, pick them up at the end of the day, come home, make dinner for the children, clean the house, prepare the child or children for daycare or school the next day -- and they barely get a moment to breathe, let alone to find any free time for themselves.
On the other side of the ledger, I've seen and experienced single fathers without their child or children get economically crucified in our so-called 'Domestic Equal Rights' Co;urts. A single father often walks into a Domestic Court today that is quite likely to be dominated by female lawyers and female judges -- and I say to myself, 'Gee, this must have been what it was like for a single woman of yesteryear to walk into a Domestic Court dominated by men... We haven't established 'equal rights' here because no body -- in this New Domestic Court System of 'Enlightened Female Rights' dominated in my opinion by 'Narcissistic Feminists' is giving any effort to protect the 'Equal Rights -- the Humanistic Rights -- of The Single Father'. Indeed, we've come 180 degrees from a male dominated Domestic Court System to a female dominated Domestic Court System.
We still haven't arrived at 'equal rights' yet -- we have arrived at a set of partly humanistic values and court directives aimed at protecting the economic welfare of the children and mother, but mainly economically crucifying the single father in the process. Many single fathers (not all) -- with good work incomes -- are left trying to cope with a loss of half their net income or more. The courts make sure that the mother and children get enough money from the father to 'maintain the lifestyle that they have been accustomed to'. But there is no provision in the court system for 'the man to maintain a lifestyle anywhere close to what he has been accustomed to'. He can crash and burn -- economically, psychologically, socially, spiritually -- just as long as he keeps those usually 'lavish' for the mother, 'brutal' for the father, monthly support payments' rolling to the ex-wife and kids. I am speaking in generalizations here, which obviously is not going to apply to each and every case -- just many, many of them. My point here is that -- domestically and legally speaking here -- what happened to the rights of the single father, with or without the kids? And if he has the kids, what are the chance of him getting support payments anywhere close to those of what he would be having to pay if it was the mother that had the kids and not him. In short, in the Domestic and Sexual Courts of Canada, we are now living in a country of 'reverse-discrimination' -- something that was written about briefly in the media in the late 1990s when NDP 'Affirmative Action' programs were dominating -- and being masked as 'equal rights'. But since then, the media have largely shut up, men continue to clam up, and at the same time, more and more of men's domestic and sexual rights contineu to be eaten away at by a storm of a 1000 largely narcissistic feminist lobbyist groups -- with virtually no 'men's domestic and sexual rights groups on the other side of the fence, on the other side of Ottawa to rhetorically confront this continually onslaught of Women's Special Interests Groups on Ottawa...
As a man -- and I believe an 'egalitarian or equal rights man' -- I say I am all for women's equal rights but in 'homeostatic balance' with men's equal rights and don't try to masquarade 'women's special legal treatment' -- or for that matter, any special treatment for any 'special interest group' and/or 'perceived minority group' -- as 'equal rights'. In two words -- 'It's not.'
The term 'humanistic-existential' is a 'dialectic word and idea'. There is a dialectic tension between the 'humanistic compassion of Liberalism' and the 'existential responsibility and accountability of Conservatism'. In America, you can substitute the dialectic tension between the 'Humanistic Compassion of the Democrats' and the 'Conservative Existential and Social Responsibility and Accountability of The Republicans'. Now, you can argue til the cows come home how well each of these Political Parties have lived up to their political idealism -- and will so in the near future -- but the reality of the situation is that the American people are caught between wanting the best of both political worlds while eliminating the worst. There is room for a third integrative political party -- 'The Democratic Republicans' or 'The Republican Democrats'...The wonder of a democracy is that generally speaking -- if you give people accurate information and a free right to vote, they will generally gravitate as a whole towrds a 'homeostatic-dialectic balance' somewhere in the middle. And one can expect that if the American people have been largely dis-satisfied with the performance of the Republicans in government, or visa versa, that they will gravitate towards the 'opposite political party' in the next election. That is, unless the party in power does a wonderful job of 're-inventing itself' in a way that the American people believe will be better than what they previously delivered, and/or what the American people can expect from the opposite party, particularly in a time of war and horrible econmics.
I have more trust in the American people than I do in American politics. If I was American, would that make me 'un-patriotic'. Is it 'un-patriotic' to disdain political corruption and narcissism -- regardless of what country it stems from/ Is it 'un-patriotic' to be trumpeting what you or I perceive as a 'better' form of poltical idealism and realism than what we have? Especially when what we have is steeped in much of the worst of human nature. We have to be very careful with the words 'patriotic' and 'unpatriotic' because these are very dangerous words. The key question should be this: Patriotic to what? Corruption? Narcissism? Tyranny? Power gone bad? When talking about patriotism we need to qualify what we mean by patriostism? Do we mean: Am I patriotic to America/Canada the good? Or am I patriotic to America/Canada bad? If you are patriotic to 'America/Canada the bad' -- then you are a part of the problem, not the solution.
-- dgb, June 15th, 2008.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment