(Untitled)

Feb 04, 2009 23:32

In the early days of this country, a mere two weeks would not have been sufficient to cause a President to admit wrongdoing. I am unsure whether to be impressed or disappointed; I suppose I may settle on 'impressed', as it befits the imperfect to admit so, and, by consensus and harmony with others, grow to improvement and wise governance.

Leave a comment

fever_crusade February 5 2009, 06:16:25 UTC
I suppose better to admit wrongdoing than to deny it.

Reply

monticello_tj February 5 2009, 06:18:24 UTC
Perhaps; better still to avoid the wrongdoing entirely.

Reply

fever_crusade February 5 2009, 06:20:09 UTC
True too. But no one is immune to making mistakes, even though we put on a pedestal (or those who place themselves on one).

Reply

monticello_tj February 5 2009, 06:24:15 UTC
No one is immune from mistakes indeed, and, by extension, the larger electorate is not immune from mistake; I find myself relieved that the new President-elect seeks to compromise, rather than use his 'mandate', if you will, for a personal agenda.

Reply

fever_crusade February 5 2009, 06:26:32 UTC
That is a relief, to be sure. Though admittedly he has much work to do. And I'll cheer him on until he's done, simply by virtue of the fact that he is not his predecessor.

Reply

monticello_tj February 5 2009, 06:29:44 UTC
His predecessor not only lacked proper consideration for universal rights - his passage of the PATRIOT Act brought me memory of the passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts by then-President John Adams - but also represented an extraordinary threat to the rights of the states. Mr. President Obama improves vastly on the former, but not the latter; it is imprudent to grant approval simply on the lack of particular disapproval.

Reply

fever_crusade February 5 2009, 06:37:33 UTC
That's a very good point. I suppose it isn't fair to give the President credit simply for not being someone else. He'll need to prove himself for who he is.

Reply

monticello_tj February 5 2009, 06:40:01 UTC
Do not we all, at the times in which our life turns?

Reply

fever_crusade February 5 2009, 06:42:32 UTC
Yes, we do. But I guess it's of somewhat more importance when you're running an entire country.

All this talk and no introductions. I'm Martha Kent.

Reply

monticello_tj February 5 2009, 06:45:29 UTC
Martha. I have known more than one woman by that name; I may tell you, it is a tall order to match their wisdom and strength.

My name is Thomas Jefferson.

Reply

fever_crusade February 5 2009, 06:48:03 UTC
I'm sure I would agree with you if I knew them. But I do try very hard to live up to my name.

Thomas Jefferson, of course. It's an honor.

Reply

monticello_tj February 5 2009, 06:49:58 UTC
You do me credit in thinking it so.

Reply

fever_crusade February 5 2009, 06:50:54 UTC
You disagree?

Reply

monticello_tj February 5 2009, 06:51:47 UTC
That it is deserved or undeserved is perhaps not for me to decide.

Reply

fever_crusade February 5 2009, 06:52:38 UTC
Well. I do admire humility in a man.

Reply

monticello_tj February 5 2009, 06:55:33 UTC
Which was perhaps not entirely the purpose of the humility itself, though I think Mr. John Adams was a master of that sort.

No, it is not humility, but a sincere desire for the generations of today to define themselves not as heirs to a Revolution, but as actors in their own. My legacy disappoints me in that there is a legacy at all.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up