What the Meaning of "Is", Is
Our former President, Bill Clinton, brought this candidly to our attention during his impeachment hearings ( you do remember this, don't you). Rhetorically speaking this is a good question.
For centuries philosophers have been struggling with perception versus reality. John Locke, George Berkeley, David Hume and Immanuel Kant wrestled with the concept of what is real, what is material. In the years following, some consensus has developed to support the idea that for the most part, perception is relativistic, that accurate perception is always the perception of a relation.
The idea of social perception came to light in the 1940's. One class was of the sensory perceptions of such things as anger or danger, a second being those perceptions that are understood by reference to their social determinants. Of this second class of social perceptions it has been said that the perceived pattern of the external world always mirrors the pattern of the needs of the perceiver.
David Baldacci recently wrote a great novel titled "The Whole Truth". The story centered on an entity that basically created perceptions of fact that were totally fabricated, but playing on human nature and one's perceptions of what should be, could imitate fact. It is fiction but it is scary because it mimics real life so closely. Accepting the premise that the perceived pattern of the external world always mirrors the pattern of the needs of the perceiver, it is easy why Barack Obama can be either the messiah or the anti-Christ.
Locke, Berkeley, Hume and Kant all accommodated the reality of material things. There are such things as facts - facts being such things which can be substantiated by sensory, empirical or scientific methods - which can logically be accepted to exist.
This brings me to the problem with liberals. Their perceptions are derived from their preconceived desire for a certain result - not from fact. The myriad of legislation passed during the Johnson era reflected the liberal desire of what should be. Much of it fact has shown, didn't work. Clinton, more of a pragmatist and faced with an opposition party congress, accepted welfare reform because the programs in place didn't work. We've spent tons of money on Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs and the issues addressed still exist, some even in greater depth than when the legislation was passed.
Like the ideas of the '60's and '70's, their policy indicates their desires and ignores the reality of the chance of accomplishment. This is seen in energy, global warming ( if there is such a thing realistically controllable by man) and foreign policy. Obama's tax plan is really a plan for redistribution of wealth. It is Karl Marx in drag. It ignores the fact that Communism was a failure, socialism is a failure, and that the American free enterprise system has worked.
The question now is whether the Democrats can sell their perceptions to the voters or whether the facts can get enough people back to reality to elect McCain. Somebody in the McCain camp needs articulate that change to the Carter days is not the change people really want. What McCain needs is the Hippocratic oath of politics - "do no harm".
For centuries philosophers have been struggling with perception versus reality. John Locke, George Berkeley, David Hume and Immanuel Kant wrestled with the concept of what is real, what is material. In the years following, some consensus has developed to support the idea that for the most part, perception is relativistic, that accurate perception is always the perception of a relation.
The idea of social perception came to light in the 1940's. One class was of the sensory perceptions of such things as anger or danger, a second being those perceptions that are understood by reference to their social determinants. Of this second class of social perceptions it has been said that the perceived pattern of the external world always mirrors the pattern of the needs of the perceiver.
David Baldacci recently wrote a great novel titled "The Whole Truth". The story centered on an entity that basically created perceptions of fact that were totally fabricated, but playing on human nature and one's perceptions of what should be, could imitate fact. It is fiction but it is scary because it mimics real life so closely. Accepting the premise that the perceived pattern of the external world always mirrors the pattern of the needs of the perceiver, it is easy why Barack Obama can be either the messiah or the anti-Christ.
Locke, Berkeley, Hume and Kant all accommodated the reality of material things. There are such things as facts - facts being such things which can be substantiated by sensory, empirical or scientific methods - which can logically be accepted to exist.
This brings me to the problem with liberals. Their perceptions are derived from their preconceived desire for a certain result - not from fact. The myriad of legislation passed during the Johnson era reflected the liberal desire of what should be. Much of it fact has shown, didn't work. Clinton, more of a pragmatist and faced with an opposition party congress, accepted welfare reform because the programs in place didn't work. We've spent tons of money on Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" programs and the issues addressed still exist, some even in greater depth than when the legislation was passed.
Like the ideas of the '60's and '70's, their policy indicates their desires and ignores the reality of the chance of accomplishment. This is seen in energy, global warming ( if there is such a thing realistically controllable by man) and foreign policy. Obama's tax plan is really a plan for redistribution of wealth. It is Karl Marx in drag. It ignores the fact that Communism was a failure, socialism is a failure, and that the American free enterprise system has worked.
The question now is whether the Democrats can sell their perceptions to the voters or whether the facts can get enough people back to reality to elect McCain. Somebody in the McCain camp needs articulate that change to the Carter days is not the change people really want. What McCain needs is the Hippocratic oath of politics - "do no harm".
Labels: Presidential Politics
posted by Oldhugh | 4:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home