Those darn liberals...

[blackdjinn]

Some years ago, a group of people decided to ruin a perfectly good mountain as a monument to great American presidents. Regardless of the party affiliation, they all share one core political outlook: liberalism. Taking them in order...

• George Washington. This man led an open armed revolt against a legitimate and internationally recognized government. He used asymmetric warfare tactics to engage a vastly superior military force and force them to capitulate because the expense of fighting finally became too great to warrant continuation.
• Thomas Jefferson. A firm believer in the rights of all people, even if he failed to live up to those beliefs. He despised tyranny, and any form of social control over what people could think and discuss. He believed that the church has no place in governing and that people were basically good and would choose the right course of action if allowed the option.
• Abraham Lincoln. Abolitionist. 'Nuff said.
• Theodore Roosevelt. My personal favorite of the bunch. His 'square deal' concept that labor deserves fair compensation from management echoes today's 'living wage' movement, something that is often equated with socialism here and now. He was also an environmental conservationist who created the system of national parks to preserve parts of the land as unspoiled.

I find it somewhat sad that Kennedy never lived to see his vision take root, but in death his vision seemed all the more important, like his death crystallized the will to make it so. But on the other side... who do we have in the last century? the dramatic failures of Hoover, Nixon, Bush II? The best was Eisenhower who would weep today to see just how many of his farewell warnings were used as a roadmap to desperation. Saint Ronald (smell that? It's sarcasm,) preached about a vision of American government that he then proceeded to do the opposite of. See, the words coming out of their mouths are always about smaller government, less interference in people's lives. Good words, kinda. But their ideas are not about helping people. People to them are just part of this vast sea of facelessness, not a /person/ the way a friend or even the person you only see once as they shake your hand before melting back into impersonality is. I have often wondered if this (fallacious) conceptual division is to blame for the seeming callousness exhibited by folks on the 'right'... they will gladly subject faceless others to horrors they would not tolerate on even the faintest of acquaintances. Perhaps this is why that same tent welcomes the bigoted and self-righteous with open arms, the others who see divisions between groups of humanity that simply aren't there in spirit.

I certainly can't claim a vast moral superiority, but I know with all that I am that all humans are born equal, endowed with inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (to paraphrase one of my personal liturgical texts.) To obey the 'golden rule' you cannot make distinction of your self as not somehow a part of the masses. You must treat others, even unseen invisible drops in the ocean of humanity, as you yourself wish to be treated by them. Is it really so hard to manage this kind of integrity? To imagine someone as a person without knowing their face or name? To have even the most rudimentary empathy for others? I guess it is...