1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

George Washington had it right

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by ilikeboobs, Jan 25, 2008.

  1. ilikeboobs

    ilikeboobs Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    289
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Up your butt, Jobu.
    George Washington Had It Right
    Charley Reese

    Have you ever thought how peaceful and prosperous we would be if our national leaders had followed the advice of George Washington in his "Farewell Address"?

    For starters, we would not be hopelessly in debt, and there would not be so many Americans buried in national cemeteries and in distant lands. Nor would we be as hated as we are today in so many countries, where new polls show people not only dislike American foreign policy and the American government, but are now deciding they don't like the American people.

    Washington's recommended policy can be summed up as armed neutrality, the same policy Switzerland practices. While the rest of the world participated in a slaughterhouse during the 20th century, the Swiss remained at peace.

    Washington was a very wise man. He said that no country can be trusted beyond its own self-interests. He said that habitual friendship toward a foreign country is as dangerous as habitual enmity. The policy of America should be trade with all but entangling alliances with nobody. The quarrels and vendettas in other parts of the world were none of our business, he said. As far as trade goes, all countries should be treated equal, with no favors granted to any of them.

    He warned against foreign influence, calling it a poison to republican government. While he was no doubt thinking of the French, his advice applies to Israel. No foreign country should be allowed to influence American policy because that country will always seek to influence policy to favor its interests, not ours. If we followed Washington's advice, the only thing we would be sending to the Middle East would be oil tankers and tourists.

    We could build a military force that could deter attacks on this country for a fraction of the cost we spend on trying to maintain an empire with about 745 military bases in 120 foreign countries. The only people who might attack us are a gang of terrorists, and, of course, our massive military machine is not equipped to deal with them.

    As for domestic policy, Washington said the best way to preserve the union was to obey the Constitution and to never tolerate any branch of government usurping the Constitution's power. He said that a republican form of government required a virtuous people, and since religion is the best way to instill virtue in the masses, anybody who was an enemy of religion was an enemy of republican government.

    All of that is pointless now, because we no longer have a republic - or a virtuous population, for that matter. We have an empire. We have a federal government that does nothing more than pay lip service to the Constitution, if that. Elections are decided by money, not by the people. Greed, self-indulgence and commercial entertainment seem to be the main motivations of a goodly number of our people. We will, as all empires have, bleed ourselves in foreign wars and domestic tyranny until we collapse. President Bush is a heck of a lot closer to Nero than he is to George Washington.

    Too bad, because we could be such a happy place if we had sense enough to mind our own business and to elect men and women who would obey the Constitution. We have no legal authority, no moral authority and certainly no divine authority to interfere with the internal affairs of any other nation. It should not matter to us what kind of governments other people have or what their cultures are. There is nothing in the Constitution to authorize the federal government to tax Americans and then write checks to foreign countries. There is nothing in the Constitution that authorizes the president to take us to war. That is a power reserved exclusively to Congress. The Constitution also requires a warrant based on probable cause before the government can spy on us or search our homes and businesses.

    Americans ought to read their Constitution, if for no other reason than to see what kind of government they are missing. It's written in very plain English and is easy to understand.
     
  2. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    While I often wonder what a few of our Founding Fathers would think of what America has evolved into. While I am aware of the warnings and predictions Washington made about the future of America, including what was to become the Civil War.

    Washington also warned of the rise of political parties and I think he would be overtly disgusted over the partisanship divisions that exist and how it has come from a chokehold on power from two very large and overly influencial party.

    In terms of our military presence overseas, when put into perspective and being a military man himself, I think he would see the justification for it, especially when it comes to ensuring our global trade interests.
     
  3. heyjude

    heyjude New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, on the beach
    I think that our Founding Fathers would be horrified to find that we have become Great Britian. We are an empire. We are exploiting the worlds resourses. And I think they would be ashamed. We are also taxing people to support religion which was one of the major problems they wanted to end. Well, King George won after all.
     
  4. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    .

    Nonsense. :rolleyes:

    What are resources for, but to exploit? We should leave them in the ground? What the devil are you talking about?

    No we aren't :p

    Strike three - you're out.
     
  5. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    I agree with most of the article; the only thing that strikes me as discordant are the sections on religion, but I'm pretty sure that with some word-slinging my personal philosophies and the article could come to an understanding.

    In other words, thumbs up.
     
  6. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    .

    Washington was a farmer, soldier, and 18th century statesman. He didn't realize the rise of political parties was necessarily implied by the system he helped set up. Partisanship exists because people are different and have different interests. Maybe you'd like to live in a communist country? There's no partisanship - the single party lays down the law, and evryone "agrees" (or else). I will take democracy myself.
     
  7. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    This doesn't necessarily mean "dualistic partisan system," which is really the problem we have today.
     
  8. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    .

    Yes, it does mean that. In the single-member-district system in effect in the US, opposition of all kinds to the incumbent must normally unite in one party to have any chance of unseating the incumbent. That is the dynamic driving the two party system.

    Other systems have proportional representation, like germany.
     
  9. heyjude

    heyjude New Member

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Messages:
    226
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Pacific Northwest, on the beach
    To answer only number three at this time, you are wrong. My taxes are being directed to religious organizations in direct violation of the Constitution. By presidential fiat, religions are being given tax money, (mine included) to give aid to the needy. An example: In Portland, Ore. if a person wants to get a box of food from the government because they have no food, they must go to the Salvation Army. The SA is only open for a couple of hours a day. The person seeking food must attend a religious service, complete with hymn singing, sermon, altar call, and collection. ONLY then are they allowed to pick up a box of food. That is wrong. It is a violation of the Constitution. It is forcing me to give my money to George's religion without my consent. The SA is giving out government bought food. Not food they collected on their own.
     
  10. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That's pretty nteresting, I would like to see a link to that. At any rate, no one is forced to attend any service, only those who can't provide for themselves. Not being very religious myself, I don't really agree with making them sit through a church service -- I think attending school or job training would be a much better proposition.
     
  11. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    I am pretty sure he was aware of the already growing factions in the government at the time. Partisanship has existed forever in different shapes when it comes to most forms of representative government. When it comes to the current US 2 party system, the issue is that those bodies as entities carry for to much influence and power.
    Why would you even suggest such a thing? Also, thier certainly is partisanship in communist countries. Instead of democrats and republicans, it is pro-western or hardliner.

    Interesting to note and sum it all up for you Libsmasher, Here is the text from Washingtons Farewell Address in the area of concern about political parties. Notice what he has to say about a two party system being despotic.
    The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.
     
  12. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    .

    Sorry, I don't believe you - show proof.
     
  13. Libsmasher

    Libsmasher New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    3,151
    Likes Received:
    16
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Too much power compared to what? They carry less power than eg parliamentary democracies, where the candidates are chosen by the party, as opposed to the primary system in the US.

    Nonsense - anyone who deviates from the party line is risking their life. You criticize a two party system and defend a one party system.


    Sounds like he's describing YOU - you've gotten tired of the two party system and speak approvingly of a one party system.
     
  14. Bunz

    Bunz New Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2007
    Messages:
    3,215
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Alaska
    I have never advocated for a one party system. Personally I think there should be little influence from the parties. As far as I am concerned being a Democrat or Republican or any party for that matter should be as important as being a Rotarian, or Elks/Lions Club member etc.
    Imagine if we could elect people whose loyalties lay first with thier constituents and thier priorities and not being bullied into pandering to someone else's agenda.
     
Loading...

Share This Page