Harsh Your Mellow Monday: Non-suffering of Foolishness Edition

Avatar

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has since lived and traveled around the world several times over. Though frequently writing about politics out of a sense of duty and love of country, most of the time he would prefer discussions on history, culture, occasionally nerding on aviation, and his amateur foodie tendencies. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter @four4thefire and his writing website Yonderandhome.com

Related Post Roulette

58 Responses

  1. Avatar Philip H says:

    [HM1]

    Now Justin Amash, himself now almost a decade in office with nothing but rhetoric to show for it, will test the same theory but without the warm blanket of an R beside his name. Depending on your viewpoint he was either heroic or stupid to abandon the party on principle, vote for the Articles of Impeachment against President Trump, and now thrown his lot in with the Libertarian Party, such as it is.

    Seems to have worked well for Bernie Sanders, who at least is a household name nationally. IF Amish got on to actually legislating – even if his proposals got nowhere, that would be a good solid logical next step. We will see if he gets sent back to congress by his district.

    [HM3] – I grew up living and breathing SEC college football. We have some time yet before that season starts but I expect it will be played for television cameras only. Which will be a challenge, but at least it will be a nice diversion from the harsh reality that will no doubt have set in by then.Report

  2. Avatar Damon says:

    Americans don’t want liberty. They want their free stuff….Report

    • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Damon says:

      Correction, Americans don’t agree with your definition of liberty and freedom. Or liberty and freedom as defined by the ardent Randians at Cato as they feed on the trough money from the Kochs and the Mercers.Report

      • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        “Liberty” is one of those vague ideological abstractions that don’t really have any meaning for most people.

        Even for people who are demonstrably oppressed, like minorities who are terrified of encounters with the police, their chosen vocabulary to describe it rarely uses the word “liberty”, but instead choose words like “justice” and “dignity”, words that evoke a collective understanding of how the social order ought to be.Report

        • Avatar Saul Degraw in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          I am not sure I fully agree with the first sentence. I agree that it is a rubbery word that is hard to define and means vastly different things.Report

          • Avatar Chip Daniels in reply to Saul Degraw says:

            What I mean is that even if we take “liberty” in its most objective dictionary sense, exists only within a framework of collective order.

            It doesn’t mean anything to be free to do what you wish on your property, if your property is not secure to begin with. It doesn’t mean anything to be able to freely walk down the street if armed gangs are roving around.

            Without first having a coherent vision of what a secure order looks like, the liberty within it is meaningless.Report

        • Avatar LeeEsq in reply to Chip Daniels says:

          The word liberty seems most attractive to those that have less to fear government than other groups. The wealthy, powerful, and privileged use liberty a lot. Not other groups. The closest you get from oppressed groups is talks about liberation.Report

      • Avatar Damon in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        A simple definition: “the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views.”

        I guess it depends upon how you define “oppressive”. Nothing either the dems or repubs advocate can in any way be liberty. All they do is limit it.

        And Chip’s right…it has no meaning for most people because they are too busy putting food on the table, other personal matters, or are caught up in the distractions of the current political structure….Report

        • Avatar Philip H in reply to Damon says:

          I guess it depends upon how you define “oppressive”. Nothing either the dems or repubs advocate can in any way be liberty. All they do is limit it.

          Nothing seems a strong term here. Increasing voting access (which is mostly a Dem thing) would seem to increase liberty by your definition. Increasing access to education and healthcare – again Dem actions/ideas/issues – would seem to increase liberty by your definition. Preserving the right to choose – always a Dem position – would seem to increase liberty by your definition.Report

          • Avatar Damon in reply to Philip H says:

            That’s a fair criticism. Perhaps “nothing” is a bit much. If the Dems are increasing access, it stands to reason that it’s already limited….because it wouldn’t need to be expanded if it wasn’t limited….and there is no restriction on that “access” is there? Let’s take “the right to choose”. IIRC there are limits to how early/late you can “exercise” that right.Report

  3. [HM1] Rand Paul doesn’t even have rhetorical accomplishments to his credit now that he’s become a Trump bootlicker.Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *