An Open Letter From Ben Sasse, US Senator

[cpwill]

I love how the anti-Trumpeteers, having lost any legs to stand upon, default to assuming if you're not with them you have no political principles or core beliefs. It'd be cute if it weren't such a whiny calculation on their part.

[emoji38] friend, if you were sticking to principle, then you would know they are legs to stand on, and you wouldn't be surprised when people do so

But you assumed that both Sasse and I were like you. Nope

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

 

[Lutherf]

Interesting comments. Not sure how much I agree with alot of it, but definitely food for thought. One thought that springs to mind is your opening with a similarity between liberals and conservatives, and I want to expand on that quickly.

One of my biggest pet peeves, and a point I think is important, is that one of the biggest mistakes we tend to make is to demonize the other side. The reality is, both liberals and conservatives do essentially want the same thing: an America(or whatever country the people live in) that is the best it can be. I think if we focused more on that similarity, the tone would be different in politics. I agreed with almost nothing that the republican candidates stood for politically, but I do respect that they think those stances are what they honestly believe is best for the US. I think if we showed that kind of respect to each other, maybe we could move forward a little faster kinda thing. We are almost at a point politically where we spend our efforts making sure the other guy does not get what he wants, instead of trying to get what we want, even if that means giving the other guy some of what he wants.

One of the conversations I had with a decidedly liberal professor centered on the idea that if we don't have tolerance and understanding of ideologies that generally oppose our own then we likely also don't have freedom. It comes back to the basic concept of using the least political force to achieve a desired result. If you have to force your will on someone else it's because they are resistant to your idea. If the goal is to preserve fundamental rights then that kind of force should only be used in the most extreme circumstances.

Part of the problem we have today is that so much stuff is considered to be a "right". There is no "right" to prosperity or health or approval of your lifestyle. It's nice when we have those things and societies should strive to achieve them but when the force of government is used to create (or attempt to create) them we have already headed down the path to despotism.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

One of the conversations I had with a decidedly liberal professor centered on the idea that if we don't have tolerance and understanding of ideologies that generally oppose our own then we likely also don't have freedom. It comes back to the basic concept of using the least political force to achieve a desired result. If you have to force your will on someone else it's because they are resistant to your idea. If the goal is to preserve fundamental rights then that kind of force should only be used in the most extreme circumstances.

Part of the problem we have today is that so much stuff is considered to be a "right". There is no "right" to prosperity or health or approval of your lifestyle. It's nice when we have those things and societies should strive to achieve them but when the force of government is used to create (or attempt to create) them we have already headed down the path to despotism.

But if you subscribe to the idea of "human rights," it follows that at least a minimal degree of prosperity and health care fall in that category.

 

[Hawkeye10]

But if you subscribe to the idea of "human rights," it follows that at least a minimal degree of prosperity and health care fall in that category.

Bull. There is no right to civility, it is something that must be practiced, it must be produced by the fruition of will.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Bull. There is no right to civility, it is something that must be practiced, it must be produced by the fruition of will.

WTH are you talking about? Nobody I'm aware of claims that civility is a legal right or even a human right.

 

[Hawkeye10]

WTH are you talking about? Nobody I'm aware of claims that civility is a legal right or even a human right.

Being handed money and services without working to get them is a part of civilization. If you want that stuff then civilization must be maintained. There is no such thing as a right to expect the collective to hand to you goods or services, many times the collective should do it out of self interest (education for instance) but if the collective tells you "no" then you have to know that this stands.

The tail does not wag the dog.

 

[Lutherf]

But if you subscribe to the idea of "human rights," it follows that at least a minimal degree of prosperity and health care fall in that category.

"Human Rights" is a concept designed by government for government. It's a construct founded in Enlightenment thinking but tweaked with a splash of Hegel and a spoonful of Machiavelli. The idea of independent self satisfaction necessitating dependence (and therefore respect) of others is spun up to include an obligation of a society to impose that respect on the citizenry rather than allow it to develop on its own.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

"Human Rights" is a concept designed by government for government. It's a construct founded in Enlightenment thinking but tweaked with a splash of Hegel and a spoonful of Machiavelli. The idea of independent self satisfaction necessitating dependence (and therefore respect) of others is spun up to include an obligation of a society to impose that respect on the citizenry rather than allow it to develop on its own.

That's one way to view the concept. And of course, there are others.

 

[Orly?]

-OP-

Nice Trump endorsement..

 

[Lutherf]

That's one way to view the concept. And of course, there are others.

Sure, but my definition is the only one that's right.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Sure, but my definition is the only one that's right.

In that case, given a society without an "obligation to impose...respect on the citizenry, how does it ever "develop on its own," as you suggest? The poor certainly have no power to foster that development, and the rich have no incentive.

 

[Hawkeye10]

In that case, given a society without an "obligation to impose...respect on the citizenry, how does it ever "develop on its own," as you suggest? The poor certainly have no power to foster that development, and the rich have no incentive.

Sure they do, because when societies collapse the rich and the people they care about go down along with everyone else. It is self interest that keeps the wealthy contributing to civilization, that is when they are not both greedy and stupid as they often are now.

 

[DifferentDrummr]

Sure they do, because when societies collapse the rich and the people they care about go down along with everyone else. It is self interest that keeps the wealthy contributing to civilization, that is when they are not both greedy and stupid as they often are now.

Unfortunately the rich rarely realize when society is about to collapse until it actually happens (as you implied).

 

[Hawkeye10]

Unfortunately the rich rarely realize when society is about to collapse until it actually happens (as you implied).

As we see with as stunned as the coastal elite are with the rise of Trump, backed as he is with a huge army that they never saw coming. The mistake was made long ago with the rise of gated communities, the elite self segregated to their enclaves and lost track of where the American people are.

But ya, I think the collapse in unavoidable now, we had a chance to overt that outcome through reform but I think it is at least a decade too late now.

Maybe Trump is better than I think he is?

 

[Lutherf]

In that case, given a society without an "obligation to impose...respect on the citizenry, how does it ever "develop on its own," as you suggest? The poor certainly have no power to foster that development, and the rich have no incentive.

There is an inherent interdependence in societies which necessitates respect. The farmer, for example, needs assistance in planting and harvesting as well as keeping pests out of his garden, irrigating, etc. While he can handle a lot of this on his own as the scale of his production increases it becomes beneficial to him to employ outside assistance. After he starts producing more than he can use personally he can use the excess to barter for needed assistance and trade for better tools. That need to engage outside help should encourage him to respect those he is dealing with. Even if he were to enslave another individual to help with his production he needs to at least be respectful enough of his slave to keep them alive and healthy enough to work. Furthermore, even if he's dealing with a slave he becomes somewhat dependent on that slave and so his own interests are best served by being respectful enough that the slave doesn't run off, revolt or die.

 

[poweRob]

Ben Sasse is a senator from Nebraska. I saw this open letter, and some of the reactions to it, and thought I would pass it along and see what folks here think of it. It contains a whole lot of the angst we are seeing right now with Trump as the GOP nominee. https://www.facebook.com/sassefornebraska/posts/593031420862025

In part, he says:



He goes on at some length. Some of his points are good and interesting, some are really stupid(complaining that politicians think voters are too dumb for policy discussion when the candidates that discussed policy washed out early). I find myself torn between irritation at his cynical use of the angst many are feeling over this election to push his agenda, and agreeing with the idea of less bickering, more solutions, combined with amusement of his reasoning for not having ideological purity tests.

Then there was this as well...

Paul Ryan ‘just not ready’ to support Donald Trump​

 

[Hawkeye10]

There is an inherent interdependence in societies which necessitates respect. The farmer, for example, needs assistance in planting and harvesting as well as keeping pests out of his garden, irrigating, etc. While he can handle a lot of this on his own as the scale of his production increases it becomes beneficial to him to employ outside assistance. After he starts producing more than he can use he can use the excess to barter for needed assistance and trade for better tools. That need to engage outside help should encourage him to respect those he is dealing with. Even if he were to enslave another individual to help with his production he needs to at least be respectful enough of his slave to keep them alive and healthy enough to work. Furthermore, even if he's dealing with a slave he becomes somewhat dependent on that slave and so his own interests are best served by being respectful enough that the slave doesn't run off, revolt or die.

Being a requirement for a well running collective does not equate to being a human right. Your human right in this situation is that you have the right to try to convince those around you that this , what ever this is, is a good idea, is the right thing to do. You do not get to walk up to them and say "you have to do this for me, give XYZ to me, because I have rights".

 

[polgara]

"Human Rights" is a concept designed by government for government. It's a construct founded in Enlightenment thinking but tweaked with a splash of Hegel and a spoonful of Machiavelli. The idea of independent self satisfaction necessitating dependence (and therefore respect) of others is spun up to include an obligation of a society to impose that respect on the citizenry rather than allow it to develop on its own.

Greetings, Lutherf. :2wave:

:agree: I have found that when the government, or any other entity, decides to impose any "emotionally-based" dictum on people it tends to backfire, because it creates resentment instead. Respect, as an example, is earned by the way people conduct themselves, not because someone else tells you they do, or do not, deserve it. I have more respect for those who succeed in spite of severe physical handicaps such as blindness, as an example, than I do for those that complain that they are being treated unfairly because they don't have everything they feel they deserve. Just my opinion....

 

[joG]

Ben Sasse is a senator from Nebraska. I saw this open letter, and some of the reactions to it, and thought I would pass it along and see what folks here think of it. It contains a whole lot of the angst we are seeing right now with Trump as the GOP nominee. https://www.facebook.com/sassefornebraska/posts/593031420862025

In part, he says:



He goes on at some length. Some of his points are good and interesting, some are really stupid(complaining that politicians think voters are too dumb for policy discussion when the candidates that discussed policy washed out early). I find myself torn between irritation at his cynical use of the angst many are feeling over this election to push his agenda, and agreeing with the idea of less bickering, more solutions, combined with amusement of his reasoning for not having ideological purity tests.

It is really funny. The flexibility of the US system is so much better than that I see here in Europe that it seems incredible that the perception in the US is so negative. True, there is always something to improve and democracy is a never finished and often grueling task. But I do not know of any structure ever tried of a party system that is better than the one presently used in the US. It does throw up candidates like Clinton, BS, Trump or Cruz, but that is more a problem of the electorate than the parties. I mean, the candidates are very different and that is, what choice is about.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

I think a lot of Repubs try to soothe their ruffled feelings at the complete mess the GOP is in now by saying the Dem party is just the same way. Shoot, I think I've done that, but Repubs really have zero to say about how Dems feel or should feel about their party or their candidates.

Yep. How many times here have right wing Republicans blame Trump on the Dems? Their party is a mess, and in a civil war, and has turned to someone like Trump. So who do they blame? The Dems. And they say that the Dem Party is a mess too.

There's no doubt some Dems are tired of the business as usual mess in DC. And are pissed off too. But not nearly to the level of what's going on in the GOP. For years the GOP has promised its base the Sun and the Moon on immigration, abortion, stopping Obama, impeaching Obama, stopping ACA, and they having delivered on anything. They haven't governed at all. All they've done is bicker and obstruct and name call for 7 years.

The mess in the GOP and the Trump revolution is all on them, no one else.

 

[tres borrachos]

the democrats put up 3 basic candidates (two remaining)
the republicans put up what? 17?

The Democrats actually started with 5. The Republicans started with 17. Neither party actually "put up" a candidate. The candidates chose to run on their own.

 

[cpwill]

I like how conservatives expect to be believed when they keep talking about principles and core beliefs that they claim to hold, when well over a decade of history shows that they dont act like they do.

You are confusing "conservatives" with "Republicans". There is plenty of overlap, to be sure, but if there is anything we've learned in the last year, it's that those two things are not the same.

Though I'm amused by how clownboy and gdgyva liked this post, but somehow didn't like:

I would concur. The American people have almost no interest whatsoever in honest accounting, or making difficult decisions.

And Trump is not the fix for this. He says often "the American people want all the candy that the government provides (often provided by taking more debt), so we need to find a way to provide it" (paraphrase). Trump is not the guy to teach the American people that we can't have it all, especially if we refuse to work for it.

 

[cpwill]

Then there was this as well...

Paul Ryan ‘just not ready’ to support Donald Trump​

Watching the meltdown over this has been interesting - some of the same people who have been angrily hammering Paul Ryan for not being conservative enough for the past couple of years are now furious that he's sticking with conservative principles

 

[tres borrachos]

Watching the meltdown over this has been interesting - some of the same people who have been angrily hammering Paul Ryan for not being conservative enough for the past couple of years are now furious that he's sticking with conservative principles

I've seen that as well, and can't decide if it's ironic or just downright pathetic.

 

[Moon]

I've seen that as well, and can't decide if it's ironic or just downright pathetic.

I think it's just team politics, it's just this time conservatives and Republicans find themselves on different teams.