Is America Preaching Water and Drinking Wine?

Published on 2nd September 2008

Defining  'liberal' or 'conservative' in terms  weakness and strength respectively is a dangerous practice that is not only destroying the nation but also fueling partisanship.Political and philosophical gullies that have been widened by these appalling definitions abound. Life and its practice often seen in politics should never be cast as stone or concrete: It is a pendulum swing and depending on the side the pendulum is, one can and should expect to change their mind. It is no flip and or flop because if one hasn't waffled, one is not living.

Running along definitions whose meaning and application citizens don't understand is not what life is about. A more balanced and forward thinking will show that having a liberal mind is more suitable than having a conservative mind. 

Does being conservative mean that one should go ahead and beat up another nation even when he realises that he is acting on false information?  Shouldn't one upon being informed of the new information change position? Those who see themselves as 'going along to get along'  will stay on whatever side no matter the new information.

If we are going to be a nation of civility and forward thinking, we must do what is best for the people and step aside from the unhealthy labeling and definitions we have come to imbibe so much that many political operatives and practitioners blindly and sheepishly follow.
Clarence Thomas is no Obama and Obama is no Clarence Thomas.  Serving on US Supreme Court, does not make one a legal luminary but rather a political appointee/beneficiary who passed the test of the nominating president and moved on to the bench by confirmation by the Senate.Many believe that some of the Justices have less than 'third' grade thinking faculty and since some of the Justices operate along rigid philosophies, they read the law and render opinions on secured and lean judicial mantra. The difference between a Judge and Justice, is that the former sees the law from purely legal perspective while the latter should be one who considers the consequence of legal opinions on the overall society. As the last arbiter of justice, it is no longer whether law is for man, but how man reacts to law. A Justice is expected to do what is considered in English Common Law practice as 'tempering justice with mercy'-mercy representing the humane aspect of justice and law. America should stop seeing itself from the defined conducts and positions of a few Justices because of the impact their position and opinions have on the nation.Certain circumstances in life such as ethnicity, education and political connections, have unduly rewarded some but that does not mean their knowledge of matters and senses are superior or better.

We must weigh and lean on the side of what is good for the common person as opposed to the prestige of what suits and meets the litmus tests often designed and held up as the standard banner that should govern our conduct. Blacks' were enslaved according to the law of the land. For a country that wrote into its Declaration of Independence and now holds itself out to the world as the beacon on humanity and a government for the people by the people that; 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness -----, and in God We Trust', to have found it expedient to enslave blacks and deny white women early presence on the political scene- was that conservatism or liberalism?

I guess while 'blacks' are endowed by their Creator (whom I will assume under this circumstance is not the same creator of 'white' people) was it necessary that they be enslaved? Did they mean an 'Animal Farm' where all animals are equal but some are more equal than others?

Under what moral governance or compass, should another human see it fit to enslave another ? Had America stepped outside the 'We Hold these truths -----', we wouldn't be holding them to such standard. But on one hand it was said but on more expedient economic and moral contradictory grounds, the opposite was the order. It does not matter what side we debate this, it was wrong then and wrong now, and a conduct that will always stain America no matter what it says.

So folks, use the 'common sense' approach to life and politics, although 'common sense' is not common in America. Many blindly and sheepishly follow to appeal, appease and define themselves which is not what life is all about. I see politics from biblical perspective; Give to Jesus what is Jesus' and to Caesar what is his', all in Pursuit of Happiness. Now, tell me of the two, who is liberal and conservative? Your answer is as good as mine.


This article has been read 1,699 times
COMMENTS