Consensus; “collective or concord; general agreement or accord”

I was fortunate to be selected a few years ago for the Town hall gathering at Ventana Canyon Resort, sponsored by the Southern Arizona Leadership Council. I was equally honored to be asked to offer the opening prayer. When I returned to my table, I was even a bit more flattered, when one of the guests suggested that they were pleased that the selection committee had chosen so many ‘centrists’ as myself. I did know it showed. The direction I am going here, is one of pragmatism. It seems to me that we have to have a bit of consensus before we can ever get to the actions of advocacy.

The universe of blogging, talk radio, identity politics, ideological ranting is much more a conceit than a consensus. And moreover seems to move us further away from all propriety and consensus. Both George Will and the late William Buckley would come under the heading of propriety and protocol. Both of them always appeal to the higher self and both adhere to the classical forms of rhetoric. Those forms of Rhetoric and debate would serve us well should they be more frequent in the blogosphere. The repeated instances of non-sequiturs and content laden responses followed by defensive ripostes or simple muteness is benefiting no one in this grand nation. In fact one might wonder who is served by promulgating the status of a nation divided and the Red and Blue State middle school mindset. Not the people.

“I know what you are but what am I” is the phrase that comes to mind. Or the a line out of the movie “Pulp Fiction.” ” So do you listen or do you wait to talk?”
I too spent some time in Marine Corps Intelligence with the Provost Office, and I know full well the mechanisms of “Psy-Ops.” Yet, could we ever imagine in our wildest dreams that this is being done to us!

Maybe we can get our Editor to post Plato’s Rules of Rhetoric, which in turn all of our commenters would adhere to, and Gannett would then consider the Tucson Citizen to be one its prize possessions, and give our Editor a raise!

I w

Mike, on second thought,  the word “arrogance” is a bit too strong–I retract that.  That sentence does strike me as being a bit pompous, though.

These “Reply” buttons are going to drive me to drink…

Where? I want to re-read my comments so I can see them in context.”

“I find swiftboating un-American.  I suspect you don’t.”
The testimony I’m referring to is Kerry’s testimony in front of the House in the early seventies, when he said that American soldiers in Vietnam performed in a manner similar to that of “jen-jhis khan. 

CDR Galanti later remarked that, when his North Vietnamese captors first played that clip of Kerry’s speech for him, he was sure it was a trick.  Not only did Galanti refuse to believe that an American veteran would say such a thing…he couldn’t imagine anyone pronouncing “Genghis Khan” that way. 

It was that clip of “jen-jhis khan,” the sound of Kerry’s voice and his odd pronunciation of the Mongol leader’s name, replayed during the 2004 campaign, that triggered Galanti’s flashback.  It made Galanti remember a very desperate time in his life, when his enemies were using Kerry’s words to make things tougher for all our POWs.  It was that bitter memory of Kerry’s post-active-duty antiwar activities that motivated those Vietnam POWs to join the SwiftBoatVets. 

As for the term “swiftboating,” it’s been construed to mean deliberately falsifying someone’s military record.  I haven’t seen anything that proved the swifties “lied.” 

What is probable, is that not all of Kerry’s critics saw all of his wartime activities.  The fact that most of his crew supports him speaks well for him.  If memory serves, virtually all of Kerry’s critics were on other boats.  He may have  been a jerk on shore, but war–and life—are full of jerks.
However, I think it’s been conclusively proven that his “Christmas in Cambodia” stories, which he claimed on the Senate floor were “seared” in his mind, were fantasies. 
Thanks for the kind words.

My main point though, is that the Tea Party people are not just limited in their concerns to government spending or centralization of power in the federal government.  They are pushing the entire spectrum of far right philosophy.  They consider government “overreach” bad when it taxes them to pay for social services, but absolutely necessary when it comes to taxing them to pay to maintain the world’s largest defense budget.  

I will admit though, Don, the far right is much better at emotional appeals and fear-based motivation than the left.  This is really not so much a criticism as an admission.  This type of propaganda is really much more effective than the propaganda that comes from the American left.