“The average Republican citizen, man or woman, is by and large a good person, who has a right to good, Wall-Street style Conservative leadership at the top.”
Not trying to be argumentative but how do you know this?
I’m not sure I even know what a “good” person is but let’s say it would have the characteristic of compassion. If so, then my experience, living within 65 miles of the Mexican border is that the modal Republican I know and have met throughout my life may have compassion but this compassion is most often ONLY for those that look and think like them.
Based upon your experience you may have a generous opinion. I do not.
Just a memorable quote paraphrased from the Physicist/Philosopher Karl Popper stated: One does not show tolerance to those that want to kill you.
Jim Sanders: From my own experience, most have good hearts and are misled.
I lived a good deal of my life in Southern Arizona (Tucson) and the Southern California beaches (Huntington Beach).
My experience with Mexican immigrants has been 100% good.
My experience with Republicans is that they tend to be Biblical Fundamentalists, who simply do not know better.
Alas!
But they are good people, if hard to convince with reason. Perhaps Biblical verses! LOL!
That last was meant to be a little satirical!
And don't forget, having lived in Japan, spent a month in Korea, and living a while in Germany (bilingual), I have experience with Conservatives in America and abroad.
I am able to argue over beer or coffee-and-cookies with anybody. And I mean anybody.
In 1981, on a subway in West-Berlin, a drunk sat next to me -- since I bore the USAF uniform (judge advocate) and started to complain about the American occupation. You could smell the liquor. Whew! Since my country -- Belgium (through my Mom) was occupied by the Nazis, I could verbally empathize with the administrative burdens of foreign troops on the ground. About three stops later, I and the other judge advocates (a man and a woman) both shook their heads at how I had deflected what they had mistakenly taken to be a semi-violent threat from a drunk. They were RELIEVED. Naw, it was just a negotiable difference of opinion.
My life has been helped by being able to calm waters on the other side.
I understand your position and as we have discussed in the past, know you went to college where I went and still live.
I’m not saying your position is either right or wrong as adjudicating—pun—between the two is beyond my skill set.
Nevertheless: “ My experience with Republicans is that they tend to be Biblical Fundamentalists, who simply do not know better.”
I seem to remember—admitting to a little humor here—that in law, especially in traffic laws, there is the idea that ignorance of the law in no excuse.
So what is a Biblical Fundamentalist? Isn’t that someone who accepts—believes—something based upon faith rather than evidence and reason? Isn’t a choice for which they are responsible?
Anecdotal stories do not change my reasoning, which as we have discussed in the past, relies upon a statistical Bayesian model.
I’m glad you have such a good opinion of conservatives. However, I do not have enough data that would alter my prior probabilities.
Jim Sanders: You and I argue differences with mutual respect and civility, using reason.
That discussion adds to knowledge and informs.
I am for the most part secular in values (though a practicing Catholic), but I can see both the hopelessness of Fundamentalism (how CAN they believe that stuff?) and see the sincerity of people who try to live a good life.
My secular values are very much influenced by Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Plotinus, the Speech of Pericles in the Histories of Thucydides and Book Six of the Histories of Polybius.
These give me a core of humane values to love my neighbor and to want civil society to represent all persons, even those I disagree with.
I can see easily that a person can share core values of ordered liberty in a Democracy while having vastly different views of allocation of economic resources.
Perhaps I am very outmoded, but I would instinctively support the policies of John Maynard Keynes over those of Milton Friedman or Friedrich Hayek.
But I want Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek at the table.
I, with John Maynard Keynes, cannot go unchecked.
The Milton Friedmans and Friedrich Hayeks of the world help keep me honest.
Who knows what Armando would get away with if he had no opposition. You cannot be careful enough.
Like Will Rogers, I have never met anyone I haven't liked in my 76 years. Oh, there is probably someone, but I would have to think long and hard.
But it is certainly not because of their beliefs.
I welcome and love hearing the other side.
Armando's Mom and Dad wanted him to grow up to become a Christian, but instead I am a lawyer.
So, I lay no claim to goodness.
So, I need other people to put me in check.
And 90% of the time, I have fun while they are doing that!
Now the GOP leaders are Neo-Nazi.
Millions of good people have Conservative instincts that have nothing to do with racism or Nazism. They have a right to expect Conservative institutions to responsibly represent their own positions within the core values of a Constitutional Democracy.
When we have a Republican Party that represents middle-right Conservatives like Arizona's Jeff Flake, we will fight at elections, and argue issues, without having to worry about the decline of the Republic into Fascism.
Until we have TWO responsible political parties, we are one election away from tyranny.
That is untenable.
People by inclination tend to be generous (liberal) or . . . frugal (Conservative).
That will not change.
Already, Machiavelli wrote about that in his "Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy."
So, it is in everyone's best interest that the Democrats continue as we are and the Republicans turn to responsible, Wall-Street Conservative Economics, in the stripe of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.
I will disagree with a Middle-Right Conservative, Miltonian Presidency.
But our liberties are not threatened by such a leader.
Hmmmm. Just a quick note. You mention the speech of Pericles. I find it interesting that some historians believe that speech was heavily influenced by a woman, his wife, Aspasia. Aspasia is known to have hosting events with the leading intellectuals of Greece, including Socrates, where ideas were discussed and where Aspasia is considered a great intellectual that influenced the thinking of Pericles and Socrates.
Aspasia is not as well known—by far—as either Pericles or Socrates. I posit that the reason is because SHE IS A WOMAN.
In my experience, conservatives do not respect the wisdom of women. I do. I have accumulated a long list of brilliant women whose great thinking was stolen and taken credit for by men. Thus, I do not respect men or religions that do not respect women.
I’m not suggesting you do, we have discussed this in the past and I know that you love and respect your wife and respect women. However, this creates a little cognitive dissonance for me.
When I said the Speech of Pericles, I meant the beautiful encomium on Democracy and Freedom against a Spartan disciplinary state.
It was commonly called Pericles' speech.
That Aspasia was behind the speech is no surprise, as she was a leading influence of culture and intellect.
As regards love of Woman, I could talk all day about that.
All my love of art, literature, philosophy, history, music was inspired by my Mom, who was everything to me, from our old world Wallonia (Francophone Belgium) near Charleroi.
My whole adult life has been with the Light-and-Love of My Life -- I have moved across country, because Nancy wanted to live near our grandkids in a semi-rural suburb of Memphis.
I think over coffee and cookies or over beer and dinner you and I could resolve cognitive dissonance quite easily. I find a good deal of harmony and happiness in dialogue with you.
Speaking of women . . . I am not good with the Substack software.
Upon inspection of what went out, I somehow accidentally erased 2/3 of what I wrote, none of which I can recover from the Substack drafts!
Totally erased. Gone for ever.
I had quoted major medical journals at length about women's and girls' healthcare and gave links to leading professors at Medical Schools and access to full, peer-reviewed medical literature.
All gone!
OMG!
I have to laugh at myself.
I spent a good deal of time typing and carefully quoting and highlighting and linking and commenting on women's health care.
And, poof! Somehow, I accidentally erase it all and send an aborted post.
One HAS to have a sense of humor about one's own follies.
The column I INTENDED to send had expanded fully on women's health issues at the close of the race. Vanished.
AEON just put out a good article by Rebecca Wilkins called SETTLING ACCOUNTS.
In this article is a mention of an essay ‘Disappearing Ink’ (1998). O’Neill created an inventory of philosophical works published by Early Modern women philosophers ‘to overwhelm you with the presence of women in Early Modern philosophy’
I would love to get a copy without going through the odious Amazon. Any ideas? Message me or reply if so.
The Archive.org is a very good resource, from which I have obtained a lot of materials, but in the Elaine O'Neill article was a false lead, in that the two copies of the book are cited as having been removed from circulation.
Removed from circulation? Who knew.
At any rate, it appears there is a 25-page pdf of this article available for free at:
I had just found a copy 15 minutes ago. A quick scan shows women were highly influential to male philosophers yet still written out of history by men. Some, like Leibniz actually mentions a female directly and states he changed his thinking after reading a work by a contemporary FEMALE philosopher.
At least people like Einstein credited Emmy Noether, who, without her math skills there would be no general theory of relativity. Though Noether is finally getting talked about over the past 20 years but she is still obscure to most people. Noether was one of the greatest mathematicians of all time and much of current mathematics and physics is only possible because of her many contributions.
How do men handle brilliant women? Look at Hypathia who the church accused of witchcraft and allowed a mob of men to murder her. Ok, enough from me.
Jim Sanders: The source you cite is that of Eileen O'Neill, in History of Philosophy, "Disappearing Ink: Early Modern Women Philosophers and Their Fate in History," in the book, "Philosophy in a Feminist Voice."
Now, one way to access the article, if your university or local library had an institutional subscription, would be to access DeGruyter electronically through the institution.
Now, another way, and my search was SUCCESSFUL! -- is to set up, as long ago I did, an account with https://archive.org
Log in (once you have established the account).
There are two search tools.
Use the smaller one on the upper right. (I do not know why. But this one worked; the other did not).
Search under the term, "Philosophy in a Feminist Voice."
That was one of the most wonderful 4th quarter pep talks I have ever heard!
Thank you!
And I am sipping a very nice barrel proof bourbon at the moment. Oh yes, America is the greatest country the world has ever seen for a reason, and it isn’t because of our economy or our military.
David Grenier: Thank you for your very kind thoughts.
But the joke is on me: I had typed a long disquisition on women's and girls' health care and the absolute central issue as we close being the life, safety, and healthcare of women and girls.
But -- how I don't know -- in editing, I accidentally erased the very core of my article.
What got sent out was an aborted artifact of a long article that I had written and -- I do not know how -- erased over.
Oh, well . . .
I'll send out that feature sometime later. But the joke is, Substack didn't let me archive it, so it will be a fresh effort!
Armando is a little frustrated that the reader did not benefit from the professional medical literature he had cited on women's health, a core concern of mine.
Armand, seriously -- how much do you know about the evolution of the GOP? No, I'm not going back to Lincoln. Robert La Follette Jr. was pushing "traditional, Wall-Street Conservative values"? Dwight Eisenhower? Margaret Chase Smith? Not even Nelson Rockefeller was pushing "traditional, Wall-Street Conservative values," and neither were my Republican relatives when I was growing up. "Traditional, Wall-Street Conservative values" are anti-democratic. They helped lead to the wreck of the GOP we see today. Chief Justice Earl Warren was a Republican, remember? Do you really think Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was decided in support of "traditional, Wall-Street Conservative values"?
Susanna J. Sturgis: Now this is exactly when, instead of a keyboard, I wish you and I were seated across from each other with, say, coffee and cookies to enter a fun dialogue.
I don't seriously disagree with your dissent.
I vote Democrat down to dogcatcher.
I am a mirror-image Reagan Democrat, in the sense that I was a Republican in my youth, but in 1980, when I was 32, Reagan was elected, and I became Democrat for the rest of my life.
Reagan had begun his career in Philadelphia.
Not THAT Philadelphia.
But Philadelphia, Mississippi, where the local racists killed three civil rights leaders.
So, I could never stomach the Republican Party from Reagan on.
Even George H.W. Bush made me cringe with his, "I won't sign this quota bill" (i.e., a slur on affirmative action), and when he replaced the great jurist Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas.
I read all that you wrote and concur entirely in that history and characterization.
You and I don't really differ at all.
But here is the catch: I am for John Maynard Keynes, which led to the New Deal, which also underlay The Great Society.
Conservatives tend to follow models of less regulated money and markets under Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.
I strenuously disagree with these two.
Point is, though, that Armando is a fallible, rational mortal. I need other people to correct me.
My wife, Nancy, more than recognizes my foibles, and I often receive profitable correction from her and my daughter and granddaughter.
I don't always enjoy the corrections, but they -- my well-loved wife, daughters, granddaughter -- they correct in love and with good reason.
The same in Congress.
A variety of views at the table can bring reason.
The problem with the modern Republican party is not free market theory.
The problem with the current leadership of the Republican party is neo-Fascist, even Nazi-style race baiting and a frontal attack on the dignity and health and safety of women and girls.
THAT is the problem with the current leadership of the Republican party.
Like it or not, a big part of the American economy is business, and even though my programs are those of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, these good people need responsible leadership to be responsive to their needs and insights.
As long as we have one Party of Human Rights -- the Democrats, and another Party of Race-Baiting Jim-Crow, we are always one election away from possible tyranny and an end to democracy.
We need two, responsible, Centrist political parties, so all economic interests can be at the table.
I agree with and love each of the examples you cite.
You and are are not in serious disagreement. I just want Conservatives to be represented by leaders who recognize core values of "The Federalist Papers".
“The average Republican citizen, man or woman, is by and large a good person, who has a right to good, Wall-Street style Conservative leadership at the top.”
Not trying to be argumentative but how do you know this?
I’m not sure I even know what a “good” person is but let’s say it would have the characteristic of compassion. If so, then my experience, living within 65 miles of the Mexican border is that the modal Republican I know and have met throughout my life may have compassion but this compassion is most often ONLY for those that look and think like them.
Based upon your experience you may have a generous opinion. I do not.
Just a memorable quote paraphrased from the Physicist/Philosopher Karl Popper stated: One does not show tolerance to those that want to kill you.
Jim Sanders: From my own experience, most have good hearts and are misled.
I lived a good deal of my life in Southern Arizona (Tucson) and the Southern California beaches (Huntington Beach).
My experience with Mexican immigrants has been 100% good.
My experience with Republicans is that they tend to be Biblical Fundamentalists, who simply do not know better.
Alas!
But they are good people, if hard to convince with reason. Perhaps Biblical verses! LOL!
That last was meant to be a little satirical!
And don't forget, having lived in Japan, spent a month in Korea, and living a while in Germany (bilingual), I have experience with Conservatives in America and abroad.
I am able to argue over beer or coffee-and-cookies with anybody. And I mean anybody.
In 1981, on a subway in West-Berlin, a drunk sat next to me -- since I bore the USAF uniform (judge advocate) and started to complain about the American occupation. You could smell the liquor. Whew! Since my country -- Belgium (through my Mom) was occupied by the Nazis, I could verbally empathize with the administrative burdens of foreign troops on the ground. About three stops later, I and the other judge advocates (a man and a woman) both shook their heads at how I had deflected what they had mistakenly taken to be a semi-violent threat from a drunk. They were RELIEVED. Naw, it was just a negotiable difference of opinion.
My life has been helped by being able to calm waters on the other side.
I understand your position and as we have discussed in the past, know you went to college where I went and still live.
I’m not saying your position is either right or wrong as adjudicating—pun—between the two is beyond my skill set.
Nevertheless: “ My experience with Republicans is that they tend to be Biblical Fundamentalists, who simply do not know better.”
I seem to remember—admitting to a little humor here—that in law, especially in traffic laws, there is the idea that ignorance of the law in no excuse.
So what is a Biblical Fundamentalist? Isn’t that someone who accepts—believes—something based upon faith rather than evidence and reason? Isn’t a choice for which they are responsible?
Anecdotal stories do not change my reasoning, which as we have discussed in the past, relies upon a statistical Bayesian model.
I’m glad you have such a good opinion of conservatives. However, I do not have enough data that would alter my prior probabilities.
Jim Sanders: You and I argue differences with mutual respect and civility, using reason.
That discussion adds to knowledge and informs.
I am for the most part secular in values (though a practicing Catholic), but I can see both the hopelessness of Fundamentalism (how CAN they believe that stuff?) and see the sincerity of people who try to live a good life.
My secular values are very much influenced by Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Plotinus, the Speech of Pericles in the Histories of Thucydides and Book Six of the Histories of Polybius.
These give me a core of humane values to love my neighbor and to want civil society to represent all persons, even those I disagree with.
I can see easily that a person can share core values of ordered liberty in a Democracy while having vastly different views of allocation of economic resources.
Perhaps I am very outmoded, but I would instinctively support the policies of John Maynard Keynes over those of Milton Friedman or Friedrich Hayek.
But I want Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek at the table.
I, with John Maynard Keynes, cannot go unchecked.
The Milton Friedmans and Friedrich Hayeks of the world help keep me honest.
Who knows what Armando would get away with if he had no opposition. You cannot be careful enough.
Like Will Rogers, I have never met anyone I haven't liked in my 76 years. Oh, there is probably someone, but I would have to think long and hard.
But it is certainly not because of their beliefs.
I welcome and love hearing the other side.
Armando's Mom and Dad wanted him to grow up to become a Christian, but instead I am a lawyer.
So, I lay no claim to goodness.
So, I need other people to put me in check.
And 90% of the time, I have fun while they are doing that!
Now the GOP leaders are Neo-Nazi.
Millions of good people have Conservative instincts that have nothing to do with racism or Nazism. They have a right to expect Conservative institutions to responsibly represent their own positions within the core values of a Constitutional Democracy.
When we have a Republican Party that represents middle-right Conservatives like Arizona's Jeff Flake, we will fight at elections, and argue issues, without having to worry about the decline of the Republic into Fascism.
Until we have TWO responsible political parties, we are one election away from tyranny.
That is untenable.
People by inclination tend to be generous (liberal) or . . . frugal (Conservative).
That will not change.
Already, Machiavelli wrote about that in his "Discourses on the First Ten Books of Livy."
So, it is in everyone's best interest that the Democrats continue as we are and the Republicans turn to responsible, Wall-Street Conservative Economics, in the stripe of Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.
I will disagree with a Middle-Right Conservative, Miltonian Presidency.
But our liberties are not threatened by such a leader.
Thank you! I was appalled by this and came here to ask for an explanation.
Susanna J. Sturgis: I hope my other comment helped explain that you and I share the core values.
Hmmmm. Just a quick note. You mention the speech of Pericles. I find it interesting that some historians believe that speech was heavily influenced by a woman, his wife, Aspasia. Aspasia is known to have hosting events with the leading intellectuals of Greece, including Socrates, where ideas were discussed and where Aspasia is considered a great intellectual that influenced the thinking of Pericles and Socrates.
Aspasia is not as well known—by far—as either Pericles or Socrates. I posit that the reason is because SHE IS A WOMAN.
In my experience, conservatives do not respect the wisdom of women. I do. I have accumulated a long list of brilliant women whose great thinking was stolen and taken credit for by men. Thus, I do not respect men or religions that do not respect women.
I’m not suggesting you do, we have discussed this in the past and I know that you love and respect your wife and respect women. However, this creates a little cognitive dissonance for me.
Jim Sanders: No WONDER I enjoy talking with you.
You remind me of the great Aspasia.
When I said the Speech of Pericles, I meant the beautiful encomium on Democracy and Freedom against a Spartan disciplinary state.
It was commonly called Pericles' speech.
That Aspasia was behind the speech is no surprise, as she was a leading influence of culture and intellect.
As regards love of Woman, I could talk all day about that.
All my love of art, literature, philosophy, history, music was inspired by my Mom, who was everything to me, from our old world Wallonia (Francophone Belgium) near Charleroi.
My whole adult life has been with the Light-and-Love of My Life -- I have moved across country, because Nancy wanted to live near our grandkids in a semi-rural suburb of Memphis.
I think over coffee and cookies or over beer and dinner you and I could resolve cognitive dissonance quite easily. I find a good deal of harmony and happiness in dialogue with you.
Speaking of women . . . I am not good with the Substack software.
Upon inspection of what went out, I somehow accidentally erased 2/3 of what I wrote, none of which I can recover from the Substack drafts!
Totally erased. Gone for ever.
I had quoted major medical journals at length about women's and girls' healthcare and gave links to leading professors at Medical Schools and access to full, peer-reviewed medical literature.
All gone!
OMG!
I have to laugh at myself.
I spent a good deal of time typing and carefully quoting and highlighting and linking and commenting on women's health care.
And, poof! Somehow, I accidentally erase it all and send an aborted post.
One HAS to have a sense of humor about one's own follies.
The column I INTENDED to send had expanded fully on women's health issues at the close of the race. Vanished.
Oh, well . . .
I have the same problem with substack software. Also, as I have said in the past, the respect is mutual.
Heading out. Bye.
AEON just put out a good article by Rebecca Wilkins called SETTLING ACCOUNTS.
In this article is a mention of an essay ‘Disappearing Ink’ (1998). O’Neill created an inventory of philosophical works published by Early Modern women philosophers ‘to overwhelm you with the presence of women in Early Modern philosophy’
I would love to get a copy without going through the odious Amazon. Any ideas? Message me or reply if so.
Jim Sanders: Supplement.
The Archive.org is a very good resource, from which I have obtained a lot of materials, but in the Elaine O'Neill article was a false lead, in that the two copies of the book are cited as having been removed from circulation.
Removed from circulation? Who knew.
At any rate, it appears there is a 25-page pdf of this article available for free at:
https://newnarratives.philosophy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/content/O'Neill%2C%20Disappearing%20Ink.pdf
I had just found a copy 15 minutes ago. A quick scan shows women were highly influential to male philosophers yet still written out of history by men. Some, like Leibniz actually mentions a female directly and states he changed his thinking after reading a work by a contemporary FEMALE philosopher.
At least people like Einstein credited Emmy Noether, who, without her math skills there would be no general theory of relativity. Though Noether is finally getting talked about over the past 20 years but she is still obscure to most people. Noether was one of the greatest mathematicians of all time and much of current mathematics and physics is only possible because of her many contributions.
How do men handle brilliant women? Look at Hypathia who the church accused of witchcraft and allowed a mob of men to murder her. Ok, enough from me.
Jim Sanders: The source you cite is that of Eileen O'Neill, in History of Philosophy, "Disappearing Ink: Early Modern Women Philosophers and Their Fate in History," in the book, "Philosophy in a Feminist Voice."
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9781400822324.17/html
Now, one way to access the article, if your university or local library had an institutional subscription, would be to access DeGruyter electronically through the institution.
Now, another way, and my search was SUCCESSFUL! -- is to set up, as long ago I did, an account with https://archive.org
Log in (once you have established the account).
There are two search tools.
Use the smaller one on the upper right. (I do not know why. But this one worked; the other did not).
Search under the term, "Philosophy in a Feminist Voice."
You should get:
https://archive.org/details/philosophyinfemi0000unse_d8t4
And,
https://archive.org/search?query=Philosophy+in+a+Feminist+Voice
Now, Archive will usually ask you virtually to check out the book.
Usually, there are enough copies that you should not have trouble to read the whole work during repeated check-outs.
Good searching! This worked for me. Now you have me curious to read the article, which I will!
Thank you so very much for sharing.
The article by AEON was quite interesting in showing Jean-Jacques Rousseau's reliance on Madame Louise Dupin.
I did not answer earlier, because Nancy and I are on a trip. Finally got to it.
Again, thanks so much. I enjoy our dialogues, and this is another occasion where our dialogue has enriched me with very good readings.
YES!
Armando, have you ever coached?
That was one of the most wonderful 4th quarter pep talks I have ever heard!
Thank you!
And I am sipping a very nice barrel proof bourbon at the moment. Oh yes, America is the greatest country the world has ever seen for a reason, and it isn’t because of our economy or our military.
Have a great night!
David Grenier: Thank you for your very kind thoughts.
But the joke is on me: I had typed a long disquisition on women's and girls' health care and the absolute central issue as we close being the life, safety, and healthcare of women and girls.
But -- how I don't know -- in editing, I accidentally erased the very core of my article.
What got sent out was an aborted artifact of a long article that I had written and -- I do not know how -- erased over.
Oh, well . . .
I'll send out that feature sometime later. But the joke is, Substack didn't let me archive it, so it will be a fresh effort!
Armando is a little frustrated that the reader did not benefit from the professional medical literature he had cited on women's health, a core concern of mine.
But you are most generous!
Agree!
Armand, seriously -- how much do you know about the evolution of the GOP? No, I'm not going back to Lincoln. Robert La Follette Jr. was pushing "traditional, Wall-Street Conservative values"? Dwight Eisenhower? Margaret Chase Smith? Not even Nelson Rockefeller was pushing "traditional, Wall-Street Conservative values," and neither were my Republican relatives when I was growing up. "Traditional, Wall-Street Conservative values" are anti-democratic. They helped lead to the wreck of the GOP we see today. Chief Justice Earl Warren was a Republican, remember? Do you really think Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was decided in support of "traditional, Wall-Street Conservative values"?
Susanna J. Sturgis: Now this is exactly when, instead of a keyboard, I wish you and I were seated across from each other with, say, coffee and cookies to enter a fun dialogue.
I don't seriously disagree with your dissent.
I vote Democrat down to dogcatcher.
I am a mirror-image Reagan Democrat, in the sense that I was a Republican in my youth, but in 1980, when I was 32, Reagan was elected, and I became Democrat for the rest of my life.
Reagan had begun his career in Philadelphia.
Not THAT Philadelphia.
But Philadelphia, Mississippi, where the local racists killed three civil rights leaders.
So, I could never stomach the Republican Party from Reagan on.
Even George H.W. Bush made me cringe with his, "I won't sign this quota bill" (i.e., a slur on affirmative action), and when he replaced the great jurist Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas.
I read all that you wrote and concur entirely in that history and characterization.
You and I don't really differ at all.
But here is the catch: I am for John Maynard Keynes, which led to the New Deal, which also underlay The Great Society.
Conservatives tend to follow models of less regulated money and markets under Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek.
I strenuously disagree with these two.
Point is, though, that Armando is a fallible, rational mortal. I need other people to correct me.
My wife, Nancy, more than recognizes my foibles, and I often receive profitable correction from her and my daughter and granddaughter.
I don't always enjoy the corrections, but they -- my well-loved wife, daughters, granddaughter -- they correct in love and with good reason.
The same in Congress.
A variety of views at the table can bring reason.
The problem with the modern Republican party is not free market theory.
The problem with the current leadership of the Republican party is neo-Fascist, even Nazi-style race baiting and a frontal attack on the dignity and health and safety of women and girls.
THAT is the problem with the current leadership of the Republican party.
Like it or not, a big part of the American economy is business, and even though my programs are those of Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, these good people need responsible leadership to be responsive to their needs and insights.
As long as we have one Party of Human Rights -- the Democrats, and another Party of Race-Baiting Jim-Crow, we are always one election away from possible tyranny and an end to democracy.
We need two, responsible, Centrist political parties, so all economic interests can be at the table.
I agree with and love each of the examples you cite.
You and are are not in serious disagreement. I just want Conservatives to be represented by leaders who recognize core values of "The Federalist Papers".