Posted in Politics by Peter W. Schramm
For the usually sober Andy Busch, this seems a bit shrill and rhetorically over the top. Spirited it is. I for one read past the first paragraph only because Peter told me to.
Yes, it is an emotional response, one many of us share. People had emotional responses to the Fugitive Slave Act, too. Yes, to me this current legislation seems comparable. I do not blame Busch for his rhetoric. Or else, I am so sympathetically warm on the topic he does not seem overheated to me.
I believe that it is called "righteous indignation." And not feeling it strikes me as something more lacking in sobriety and reason than expressing it in this instance.
Kate - I can't tell whether your point is that the new law is, like the Fugitive Slave Law, constitutional; or that we are justifiably on the verge of civil war.
Julie - This is how Busch expresses his indignation: "This time, I put [the flag] out upside down. The U.S. Code states 'The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.' The passage of Obamacare qualifies, on both counts. "
That's self-dramatizing provocation, followed by the talking points.
For a contrasting example, this: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2010/03/healthcare-tradeoffs-and-road-ahead.html
I just stopped by lest I had been too abrupt.
As far as I can tell, our new law is unconstitutional. I would like to see some states pass personal liberty laws, most of all, those of us opposed for ethical reasons are still forced to participate. That the liberties of we have previously enjoyed appear to be at risk, which reminds me of the Fugitive Slave Law and evokes the same kind of, yes, righteous indignation. Even the way the law was passed seems unethical and offends in many ways, just as the 3/5s clause seemed to make unethical use of the Constitution..
The nation is severely divided on the issue. There are violent emotions on both sides and, just as in 1850, Democrats holler as if victimized by their political opponents, which is laughable in the circumstances. After slinging calumny at opposing Republicans they now make themselves sound like an abused group.
If those who are seriously opposed to this legislation say nothing, compromise, speak gently although we currently have no big stick of power, would that really be better? Not in a democracy. I don't think so.
I do not think civil war is possible. We do not have a geographical divide on this matter. That the law may be passed without definition when it is such an important and contentious issue should seriously affect the next election, though. However, we are out here dreading what will be established and difficult to uproot without ... what, in the meantime?
Steve, my favorite line in the blog you offer is this: "How long can the President wait before he comes clean with the American people and explains how high taxes needs to rise to pay for his vision of government?" He won't, or at least not with any honesty.
"There are violent emotions on both sides and, just as in 1850, Democrats holler as if victimized by their political opponents, which is laughable in the circumstances."
I hope you share thoughts like these with your students.
So you agree with the rest of it?
Maybe that was a step too far and a false connection. Hasty blogging: however, I know the difference between the back page of a blog and my classroom and do not muddle them. Neither should you.
Ashbrook Center at Ashland University | 401 College Avenue | Ashland, Ohio 44805 | (419) 289-5411 | (877) 289-5411 (Toll Free)