Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
Very few Americans would walk into their neighbor's house, take money out of his wallet, and use it to buy health care for a homeless person - they're far more likely to use their own money.
And I doubt many people would force their neighbor at gunpoint to quit landscaping his back yard, filling in a muddy area, and building a treehouse for his kids. Even if the treehouse is unsightly, they are likely to leave the neighbor to his own devices.
And if the neighbor was in financial difficulty, most Americans would not go to all the other neighbors and force them to pay money to help the destitute neighbor. They might ASK the other neighbors, while contributing a lot of their own personal resources, offering him a job, etc.
And most Americans would certainly not go around regularly to all their neighbors, demanding to know intimate details of what they are doing, how much they are earning, how much they spent and on what things, etc., for the purpose of knowing what they could later force out of them for any of the above situations.
The vast majority of Americans would use their own personal resources, while asking only for VOLUNTARY help from neighbors if they asked at all; and only in extreme circumstances would they interfere at all. They are far more likely to let things be, and to respect the judgement and privacy of those around them, unless someone was in real trouble. And even then, they are likely to ask only politely, using no coercion other than a vague implication that one course is the right thing to do. And if meeting a refusal at that point, they will take the other's decision as the dominating imperative, acknowledging that the other is the best judge of his own capabilities. Only if he finds someone (neighbor or otherwise) doing actual direct, major harm to another, might he step in with force, and then only cautiously.
At the same time, most Americans willingly contribute to PRIVATE groups (charities, churches, hospitals, food banks etc.) that engage in methodical charity; while turning a cold shoulder to anyone who tries to compel them to do such giving.
In other words, most Americans are fundamentally CONSERVATIVE.
For the oddity where some of them will then turn around and vote for people who say they will interfere as the voter never would, coerce as the voter never would, and threaten as the voter abhors, I have no explanation. But aside from that bizarre voting tendency of some, they themselves are basically conservative in their own lives.
So, how did BO get elected with a democratic majority congress if America is predominantly conservative?
The former republican majorities in Congress and the Presidency were becoming more and more liberal, doing exactly the things that Americans would seldom if ever do, often with little or no justification from "extreme situations" such as impingent crime, terrorism, 9/11 etc. And the mostly-conservative populace didn't like it, and especially didn't like their protests being ignored on matters from spending to border security to unconstitutional decisions and entitlements.
A new guy showed up offering "Hope and Change", and describing fairly moderate approaches - more moderate than the Republicans were enacting. And barely enough of them were taken in, that the newcomer got a slim majority, as did most of the Congressional seats that changed hands.
Of course, that moderation, and hope, lasted only as long as the polls remained open, and then went hard-left to a degree that even the liberal Republicans never dreamed. And we are seeing the people's reaction to that now, and will see it starkly on Nov. 2.
And I doubt many people would force their neighbor at gunpoint to quit landscaping his back yard, filling in a muddy area, and building a treehouse for his kids. Even if the treehouse is unsightly, they are likely to leave the neighbor to his own devices.
And if the neighbor was in financial difficulty, most Americans would not go to all the other neighbors and force them to pay money to help the destitute neighbor. They might ASK the other neighbors, while contributing a lot of their own personal resources, offering him a job, etc.
And most Americans would certainly not go around regularly to all their neighbors, demanding to know intimate details of what they are doing, how much they are earning, how much they spent and on what things, etc., for the purpose of knowing what they could later force out of them for any of the above situations.
The vast majority of Americans would use their own personal resources, while asking only for VOLUNTARY help from neighbors if they asked at all; and only in extreme circumstances would they interfere at all. They are far more likely to let things be, and to respect the judgement and privacy of those around them, unless someone was in real trouble. And even then, they are likely to ask only politely, using no coercion other than a vague implication that one course is the right thing to do. And if meeting a refusal at that point, they will take the other's decision as the dominating imperative, acknowledging that the other is the best judge of his own capabilities. Only if he finds someone (neighbor or otherwise) doing actual direct, major harm to another, might he step in with force, and then only cautiously.
At the same time, most Americans willingly contribute to PRIVATE groups (charities, churches, hospitals, food banks etc.) that engage in methodical charity; while turning a cold shoulder to anyone who tries to compel them to do such giving.
In other words, most Americans are fundamentally CONSERVATIVE.
For the oddity where some of them will then turn around and vote for people who say they will interfere as the voter never would, coerce as the voter never would, and threaten as the voter abhors, I have no explanation. But aside from that bizarre voting tendency of some, they themselves are basically conservative in their own lives.
So, how did BO get elected with a democratic majority congress if America is predominantly conservative?
The former republican majorities in Congress and the Presidency were becoming more and more liberal, doing exactly the things that Americans would seldom if ever do, often with little or no justification from "extreme situations" such as impingent crime, terrorism, 9/11 etc. And the mostly-conservative populace didn't like it, and especially didn't like their protests being ignored on matters from spending to border security to unconstitutional decisions and entitlements.
A new guy showed up offering "Hope and Change", and describing fairly moderate approaches - more moderate than the Republicans were enacting. And barely enough of them were taken in, that the newcomer got a slim majority, as did most of the Congressional seats that changed hands.
Of course, that moderation, and hope, lasted only as long as the polls remained open, and then went hard-left to a degree that even the liberal Republicans never dreamed. And we are seeing the people's reaction to that now, and will see it starkly on Nov. 2.
