One note. The Supreme Court, as properly understood, through judicial review, hopefully applies athe Constitution to all cases it decides. It is not a bullwark against any and every misguided(and all too frequently stupid legislation issued by the Congress.The great concentration of the sovereign power of these United Sates resides in the people's house: Who shall judge? The people's shall judge.
Your address to the Nation brings to mind a Carter redux. Never voted for the man. Thought his macroeconomic policies and resource controls were awful.(He also brought the the extrodinary Paul Volker. Alfred Kahn, and the estimable Harold Brown.And the Camp David Accords)
We should only be so blessed to elect a leader of his caliber.
Anyone who is not advocating LESS government as the solution is completely missing the root of the problem. The reason we are finding so many issues to disagree on is that the government is inhabiting more and more of them every day. If you see government as the default solution to every societal problem, you are part of the problem.
This speech is not merely NOT a cure, it is a symptom. At bottom, the speech is at war with itself. It starts with a lot of "we." But it soon devolves, Obama-like, into a litany of "I" and "my." The fundamental problem we face is the guy in the mirror, not the guy in the White House. Sixty-five years ago, we were called upon to "ask NOT what your country can do for you." Since then, we have spent nearly 40,000,000,000,000!!! more than we have earned. What will be required to right the ship is a generation or two of tighter belts. This speech is not going to get us there. I am not sure any speech can. I fear a big dose of misery is the purgative that will be required. In the words of Dr. Franklin, "Experience is a dear teacher, but fools will learn from no other." We are experiencing what happens when we waste time and treasure, deny reality, and listen to liars; and we are about to experience more.
Totally unrealistic speech! Sounds nice but it's pablum from start to finish. What can a President do to "bridge" the divide that sperates those who hold diametrically opposed ideas about what constitutes progress for our wonderful country? One sire or another muse win as there can be no compromise between those who think transing minors is child abouse and completely immond more on sociaral and those who believe it is child abuse not to do this? How do you bridge the divide between those who believe the country being ruled by an administrative state of experts is what we need more of and those who are convinced that this is the destruction of democratic control of our institutions? How do you "bridge the gap" between those who believe we are, as a country, on a path of fiscal destruction and those who want to spend more NOW to help with inequality and yet are unwilling to pay for such spending?
There are many, many more divides in basic philosophy and these will NOT be bridged by nice words and consultation but by convincing a majority of your fellow citizens of your position. Unfortunately, this often requires stern language and even vitriol to break through the fog!
I'd like to hear what this unrealistic future president would say about the complete weopanization of the US Justice system under Biden and Obama? Would he condemn this arrow aimed at the heart of comity among the citizenry? I very much doubt it because it goes contrary to the position of the "party he has supported all his life"!
One passing reference at the end...Not a strong statement, not a paragraph,,,no mention of the Declaration,,the biggest document of all,,the Abolitionists in the late 1700's employ the Declaration, not the Bible or our Constitution. The meat and bones of our society is a higher power God,, and with reverence to God we build our morals and then law..
Unfortunately, this speech assumes that the institutions and individuals that have evolved to this point: government agencies, politicians and party structure, educational institutions, labor unions, journalists and media, the judiciary and lawyers, etc. are worthy of preservation in their current form and capable of working with one another. Sadly, this is an unrealistic pipe dream. Without wholesale reform of some or all, no significant compromises are possible.
This section is most telling as well as being an indictment.
“the presidency has grown too strong, distorting the appropriate constitutional balance between the branches of government. I will work to reverse this trend. But I cannot succeed unless Congress resumes its vital legislative role.”
While I applaud the aspirational nature of the vision, until we confront the rife self dealing in government and the lack of term limits in key areas, we will not undo this division.
I subscribe to the idea that history is the story of good vs. evil or you could say moral vs. immoral. Neither ever goes away. Sadly, we have seen a dramatic increase in the immoral in the people who run or own the legacy media, our judiciary, education, congress, the democrat party, the FBI and the intelligence agencies as well. President Trump has exposed more high level immoral people than any other leader in the history of the civilized world. And if you don't know who these people are you are going to have a very rough time trying to keep them in check.
Hoping to live to see the day. Having seen voting minorities (out of the vote-eligible population) rule for so many years, I am troubled to think how to create an informed, virtuous electorate from the current situation.
Always a pleasure.
One note. The Supreme Court, as properly understood, through judicial review, hopefully applies athe Constitution to all cases it decides. It is not a bullwark against any and every misguided(and all too frequently stupid legislation issued by the Congress.The great concentration of the sovereign power of these United Sates resides in the people's house: Who shall judge? The people's shall judge.
Your address to the Nation brings to mind a Carter redux. Never voted for the man. Thought his macroeconomic policies and resource controls were awful.(He also brought the the extrodinary Paul Volker. Alfred Kahn, and the estimable Harold Brown.And the Camp David Accords)
We should only be so blessed to elect a leader of his caliber.
James Earl Carter RIP.
words, just words
Anyone who is not advocating LESS government as the solution is completely missing the root of the problem. The reason we are finding so many issues to disagree on is that the government is inhabiting more and more of them every day. If you see government as the default solution to every societal problem, you are part of the problem.
This speech is not merely NOT a cure, it is a symptom. At bottom, the speech is at war with itself. It starts with a lot of "we." But it soon devolves, Obama-like, into a litany of "I" and "my." The fundamental problem we face is the guy in the mirror, not the guy in the White House. Sixty-five years ago, we were called upon to "ask NOT what your country can do for you." Since then, we have spent nearly 40,000,000,000,000!!! more than we have earned. What will be required to right the ship is a generation or two of tighter belts. This speech is not going to get us there. I am not sure any speech can. I fear a big dose of misery is the purgative that will be required. In the words of Dr. Franklin, "Experience is a dear teacher, but fools will learn from no other." We are experiencing what happens when we waste time and treasure, deny reality, and listen to liars; and we are about to experience more.
Totally unrealistic speech! Sounds nice but it's pablum from start to finish. What can a President do to "bridge" the divide that sperates those who hold diametrically opposed ideas about what constitutes progress for our wonderful country? One sire or another muse win as there can be no compromise between those who think transing minors is child abouse and completely immond more on sociaral and those who believe it is child abuse not to do this? How do you bridge the divide between those who believe the country being ruled by an administrative state of experts is what we need more of and those who are convinced that this is the destruction of democratic control of our institutions? How do you "bridge the gap" between those who believe we are, as a country, on a path of fiscal destruction and those who want to spend more NOW to help with inequality and yet are unwilling to pay for such spending?
There are many, many more divides in basic philosophy and these will NOT be bridged by nice words and consultation but by convincing a majority of your fellow citizens of your position. Unfortunately, this often requires stern language and even vitriol to break through the fog!
I'd like to hear what this unrealistic future president would say about the complete weopanization of the US Justice system under Biden and Obama? Would he condemn this arrow aimed at the heart of comity among the citizenry? I very much doubt it because it goes contrary to the position of the "party he has supported all his life"!
Sorry for the misspellings! Didn't proofread enough.
Not one mention of God, not one mention of Individual Freedom,
One passing reference at the end...Not a strong statement, not a paragraph,,,no mention of the Declaration,,the biggest document of all,,the Abolitionists in the late 1700's employ the Declaration, not the Bible or our Constitution. The meat and bones of our society is a higher power God,, and with reverence to God we build our morals and then law..
Its wrong to steal. Period!!!!
Unfortunately, this speech assumes that the institutions and individuals that have evolved to this point: government agencies, politicians and party structure, educational institutions, labor unions, journalists and media, the judiciary and lawyers, etc. are worthy of preservation in their current form and capable of working with one another. Sadly, this is an unrealistic pipe dream. Without wholesale reform of some or all, no significant compromises are possible.
I gave a speech addressing the same question at the Global Summit to Eradicate Hate, available here: https://substack.com/home/post/p-145809642
This section is most telling as well as being an indictment.
“the presidency has grown too strong, distorting the appropriate constitutional balance between the branches of government. I will work to reverse this trend. But I cannot succeed unless Congress resumes its vital legislative role.”
While I applaud the aspirational nature of the vision, until we confront the rife self dealing in government and the lack of term limits in key areas, we will not undo this division.
I subscribe to the idea that history is the story of good vs. evil or you could say moral vs. immoral. Neither ever goes away. Sadly, we have seen a dramatic increase in the immoral in the people who run or own the legacy media, our judiciary, education, congress, the democrat party, the FBI and the intelligence agencies as well. President Trump has exposed more high level immoral people than any other leader in the history of the civilized world. And if you don't know who these people are you are going to have a very rough time trying to keep them in check.
Hoping to live to see the day. Having seen voting minorities (out of the vote-eligible population) rule for so many years, I am troubled to think how to create an informed, virtuous electorate from the current situation.
“Cure” is asking a lot. Too much? “Ease” or “salve” might be the most we can expect. And it would be a healthy start.
And who among us might utter such a brilliant speech?