Racism and The Democratic party

[Empty Hands]

Since Tellner has repeatedly LIED about the republican party's history regarding racial issues (Here and Here and Here ) I decided to do what he has not deigned to do, PROVE what I am saying is true.

You must not read very carefully. In every post you link to, Tellner makes the distinction between the old party and the party which begins to change with the Dixiecrat walkout in 1948. Posting party platforms from 1860 does nothing to disprove the LIE.

I have yet to see Tellner, or anyone else prove any nefarious scheme of racism by republicans, or any real admittance of the democratic party's continual racist words and actions.

I see then that you haven't bothered to read my posts on the Southern Strategy. Big shock.

As for "admitting" Democrat racism Tellner at least has already done both by saying that modern individuals from any group may be racist, and that the pre-Southern Strategy Democratic party involved a coalition with Southern racists.

So much for your Big Lies.

When, as occasionally happens, a republican in a position of power, the FIRST people to call him on it are REPUBLICANS.

So which Republicans have called out Ronald Reagan on his coded racist appeals? Which Republicans condemned Strom Thurmond for his past? This is particularly apropos given your harping on Byrd, considering that Byrd has apologized for his past, and Thurmond never did. Which Republicans repudiated Lee Atwater's comments and his described strategies, or Nixon's? The only Republican response I have seen to that so far is your denial that it even existed. Which is kind of funny since Mehlman actually did do what you claim Republicans in general do, and you ignored that post entirely.

Let's face it Big D, the only real thing you can point to in support of your point is the treatment of Trent Lott. You know what though, Trent Lott is still in office and wielding power behind the scenes. Let's also face the fact that Lott would never have been removed if he had the good sense to make his comments without cameras present.

In the end, what do you think matters more, the occasional Democratic hypocrisy while they make a strong stand against racism, or the Republican insistence that it doesn't exist anymore?

Be honest. At least with yourself if not with us.

 

[Big Don]

You must not read very carefully. In every post you link to, Tellner makes the distinction between the old party and the party which begins to change with the Dixiecrat walkout in 1948. Posting party platforms from 1860 does nothing to disprove the LIE.

He also claims, that sixty years of racism is STATED POLICY, yet, hasn't shown but one CAMPAIGN strategy to back him up. So, sixty years of supposed racism is worse than a long history of racism? When exactly did the democratic party apologize for advocating racism? The so called southern strategy was a campaign strategy, kind of like the fake CBS report about Bush's national guard service.

I see then that you haven't bothered to read my posts on the Southern Strategy. Big shock.

As for "admitting" Democrat racism Tellner at least has already done both by saying that modern individuals from any group may be racist, and that the pre-Southern Strategy Democratic party involved a coalition with Southern racists.

So much for your Big Lies.



So which Republicans have called out Ronald Reagan on his coded racist appeals?

Code? Supporting state's rights means you are a racist? What a crock of dung.

Let's face it Big D, the only real thing you can point to in support of your point is the treatment of Trent Lott.

Yeah, pointing out scores of racist policies and statements of democrats over more than a century, that doesn't mean a thing.

You know what though, Trent Lott is still in office and wielding power behind the scenes. Let's also face the fact that Lott would never have been removed if he had the good sense to make his comments without cameras present.

What exactly was Lott's transgression? Saying something nice to a HUNDRED year old man? Break out the tar and feathers. How is it that Jesse Jackson calls NYC Hymietown, and gets a pass, Joe Biden says

[FONT=Verdana, Times]You cannot go into a Dunkin' Donuts or a 7-Eleven unless you have a slight Indian accent.

and is running for President, his slur all but forgotten, Trent Lott lost his leadership position, and was torn apart by the major media, democrats and other morons for MONTHS, for what? For saying that (Paraphrasing here) Had Strom Thurmond been elected president when he ran we would have avoided many problems over the years? So a blatant slur is less of a wrong (although no democrat treats Biden's comments as wrong) than saying something nice to an old man, on his birthday, who, by the way DIED not long after? Are you ****ing insane?

[/FONT]

In the end, what do you think matters more, the occasional Democratic hypocrisy while they make a strong stand against racism, or the Republican insistence that it doesn't exist anymore?

Be honest. At least with yourself if not with us.

Occasional Democratic hypocrisy? Like threatening to sick the IRS on republican candidates for campaigning in churches while EVERY Democratic candidate campaigns from pulpits? Like ignoring their CENTURY LONG history of STATED racism? Like ignoring Jesse Jackson's Hymietown slur, Byrd's use of the dreaded N word on TV, Biden's slur against Indian Americans, or his slur against Obama, the race baiting of Sharpton and his ilk, this comment by Senator Fritz Hollings:

[FONT=Verdana, Times]"Everybody likes to go to Geneva. I used to do it for the Law of the Sea conferences and you'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.

in 1993? Occasional? Yeah, right.[/FONT]

 

[tellner]

There's really no use talking to Don. Facts do not make an impression. He seems incapable of reading what I actually write as opposed to what he believes I must have written to conform to his prejudices.

It's a matter of simple fact, easily established, that people of all sorts are capable of racism.

It's a matter of simple fact that the Democratic Party abandoned racism as a policy in the 1940s.

It's a matter of simple fact that the Democratic Party has been the author of the civil rights laws and programs.

It is indisputable that these have been enormously important in securing the rights of citizenship to Black people, women, religious minorities and so on.

It is a matter of simple fact that Southern Democrats began to leave the Democratic Party in the 1940s because of their opposition to equality under the Law for Black people.

It is a matter of simple fact that the Republican Party opposed all civil rights legislation and all government programs monitoring and enforcing equality under the Law for women, Black people and religious and ethnic minorities.

It is indisputable to anyone who with even a rudimentary grasp of American history that Nixon's Southern strategy, Reagan's appeal to the so-called boll weevils, and the electoral strategy of George H. Bush to some degree and George W. Bush to a great degree rested on an appeal to the racial and racialist policies of Southerners who were opposed to civil rights for people of African descent.

None of these is a lie. All are easy to verify and have been exhaustively documented. The author of Nixon's Southern Strategy recently wrote a book documenting precisely that point.

It is also beyond argument that under Reagan and both Bush's enforcement of voting rights and civil rights laws as they apply to women and ethnic minorities has been reduced. It is also a matter of indisputable fact that under the current Administration resources which had previously been dedicated to such things were reapportioned to encourage evangelical protestant groups to engage become directly involved in political campaigns and receive Federal money.

Anyone possessed of anything remotely resembling objective thought and the capacity for reason will say that what people believe currently and the policies they support say more about their values and character than do those of people who are dead.

It is beyond argument that most of the people who were members of the Democratic Party at the time when it pursued racially discriminatory policies are dead.

It is beyond argument that the policies of the Democratic Party today support civil rights and equality under the Law for racial and religious minorities and for women.

It is beyond argument that the Republican Party's policies and platform stand against such things as they have for several decades.

In short Don, your contentions are emotional, tendentious, easily disproven, devoid of logic, disrespectful of facts and so on. You accuse me of engaging in the - and I quote - "Big Lie". It is clear that you have no idea what that term means historically or how it is used. If you did you would understand that it is precisely the technique to which you have fallen victim and which you refuse to abandon. There has not been a single political, scientific or philosophical discussion in which you have shown the faintest capacity to modify any belief in the light of information or logic.

Your arguments, such as they are, in this thread, earlier ones about "traditional" sexual values, climate change and so on hit most of the common logical fallacies and do not venture beyond the limits of what you affirms your positive self image and demonizes anyone whose beliefs vary from your own in any particular.

The notable social scientist Eric Hoffer identified such things with the pathological type known as The True Believer. It is impossible to engage in reasoned discourse with such people.

Until you learn to employ facts, use reason, develop some understanding of the principles of reasoned debate and discourse you are not worth talking to. I will attempt not to waste my time in such fruitless things.

Good day, sir. My hopes for your eventual recovery.

 

[Big Don]

It's a matter of simple fact, easily established, that people of all sorts are capable of racism.

True[/quote]

It's a matter of simple fact that the Democratic Party abandoned racism as a policy in the 1940s.

It's a matter of simple fact that the Democratic Party has been the author of the civil rights laws and programs. [/quote] Got a link? It is a matter of simple fact that Democrat members of Congress filibustered Civil Rights legislation. This is indisputable.

It is indisputable that these have been enormously important in securing the rights of citizenship to Black people, women, religious minorities and so on.

It is a matter of indisputable and easily researched (I provided numerous links) that the democratic party has a LONG history of racism that continues to this day

It is a matter of simple fact that Southern Democrats began to leave the Democratic Party in the 1940s because of their opposition to equality under the Law for Black people.

It is a matter of simple fact that the Republican Party opposed all civil rights legislation and all government programs monitoring and enforcing equality under the Law for women, Black people and religious and ethnic minorities.

the portion in bold there, yeah, that is an outright and utterly unprovable LIE. Republicans supported civil rights, when democrats didn't (1964 isn't that long ago) Republicans , as a (Here's your favorite phrase) matter of stated party policy, have ALWAYS acted for freedom and equality among the races.

It is indisputable to anyone who with even a rudimentary grasp of American history that Nixon's Southern strategy, Reagan's appeal to the so-called boll weevils, and the electoral strategy of George H. Bush to some degree and George W. Bush to a great degree rested on an appeal to the racial and racialist policies of Southerners who were opposed to civil rights for people of African descent.

Why don't you try posting a link, it isn't too difficult? Oh, because you are either wrong or lying, and don't want to be exposed.

None of these is a lie. All are easy to verify and have been exhaustively documented. The author of Nixon's Southern Strategy recently wrote a book documenting precisely that point.

It is also beyond argument that under Reagan and both Bush's enforcement of voting rights and civil rights laws as they apply to women and ethnic minorities has been reduced. It is also a matter of indisputable fact that under the current Administration resources which had previously been dedicated to such things were reapportioned to encourage evangelical protestant groups to engage become directly involved in political campaigns and receive Federal money.

Anyone possessed of anything remotely resembling objective thought and the capacity for reason will say that what people believe currently and the policies they support say more about their values and character than do those of people who are dead.

It is beyond argument that most of the people who were members of the Democratic Party at the time when it pursued racially discriminatory policies are dead.

It is beyond argument that the policies of the Democratic Party today support civil rights and equality under the Law for racial and religious minorities and for women.

It is beyond argument that the Republican Party's policies and platform stand against such things as they have for several decades.

In short Don, your contentions are emotional, tendentious, easily disproven, devoid of logic, disrespectful of facts and so on. You accuse me of engaging in the - and I quote - "Big Lie". It is clear that you have no idea what that term means historically or how it is used. If you did you would understand that it is precisely the technique to which you have fallen victim and which you refuse to abandon. There has not been a single political, scientific or philosophical discussion in which you have shown the faintest capacity to modify any belief in the light of information or logic.

Your arguments, such as they are, in this thread, earlier ones about "traditional" sexual values, climate change and so on hit most of the common logical fallacies and do not venture beyond the limits of what you affirms your positive self image and demonizes anyone whose beliefs vary from your own in any particular.

The notable social scientist Eric Hoffer identified such things with the pathological type known as The True Believer. It is impossible to engage in reasoned discourse with such people.

Until you learn to employ facts, use reason, develop some understanding of the principles of reasoned debate and discourse you are not worth talking to. I will attempt not to waste my time in such fruitless things.

Good day, sir. My hopes for your eventual recovery.

You say I misstate things, but, offer no proof other than wordy versions of "I told you so" I provide links to every one of my contentions. Such as the one in my signature. The Democratic party is the Only American political party to EVER advocate slavery. That they did so 160 years ago, doesn't mean it never happened. That Democratic members of congress opposed the MAJORITY of the civil rights act1866 1871 1960 1964

• Passed 71-20
• Democrats: 42-17 (71.2% For, 28.8% Against)

Republicans: 29-3 (90.6% For, 9.4% Against)

Wait, a higher percentage of Republicans voted for it? and the percentage of Democrat senators voting against it was THREE TIMES the percentage of republicans who voted against passage? 1968
Clinton was president for two terms, Carter for one, Johnson, Kennedy, Truman, FDR, all these racial equality democrats, and a republican appointed the first TWO black Secretaries of State and the first Latino Attorney General? Were there no black people or latinos during their administrations? No, Clinton could have easily appointed Colin Powell. But, he didn't, did he?

 

[FearlessFreep]

There are two mistakes in judgement based on both sides of this issue

The first is one of philosophy.

The liberal philosophy, expressed simply, is that the government is an extension of the public will and therefore is an agent for social change. Thus the use of legislation to attempt to achieve social goals. If the goals are racial or ethnic equality, then laws expressed both as punitive restrictions on people (hiring, housing, etc..) as well as assistance (education, set-asides) are a legitimate means of accomplishing those goals, and thus opposition to the legislation that attempts to accomplish those goals is seen as opposition to those goals (and in this case, opposition to the goals is therefore considered opposition to the people helped by those goals... racism).

The conservative philosophy, very simply, is that the government is more a necessary evil, and most importantly, not a very good tool for social change. Government interference in business usually has unintended and negative side-effects; government granting of funds leads to dependence that prevents true equality. Thus, the use of legislation to achieve social goals because the government only has to direct legislative tools, punishment and reward, and neither achieves social goals with any real success. Additionally the use of government granting of money to certain groups is a certain kinda elitism (which is a form of racism)

So both sides on a philosophical side have very different opinions on the proper role of the government in achieving social change, and yet since those on either side rarely (attempt to) see the logic or rationality of the other side, they interpret their own position as trying to help and therefore the other side of not trying to help (i.e... racism) Such accusations score political points, but accomplish little.

The other issue is political power. Quite simply, politicians from neither party care much about anything above. What they care about is their own power. You are not black, white, Hispanic, woman, man, union, businessperson, or whatever. At least not in that being that matters. What you are is a vote, and more importantly, what you are is a part of a voting bloc. And all politicians care about is in adding up groups of voting blocs. Every decision and every position is a calculated risk of who will be against it and who will be for it, and which side has more votes. Hoping that when you add all the 'fors' and all the 'againsts', you got more voting for you than against you. Even if that means pitting the perceived prejudices of one group against those of another. A politician takes a stand on illegal immigration whereby he will lose the hispanic vote but pick up those fearful of immigrants, for the simple reason that he is counting on more voters on one side than the other. It's not racism, but it's a cynical, pragmatic manipulation that may be worse. "If I vote this way, I will lose X black votes but gain Y white votes". X and Y matter more than black or white

In other words, blanket accusations of racism against a whole political party misses the ideological point that at some sort of philosophical level both sides actually may be trying to do the right thing in their own vision of the best way to do it but also misses the realistic point that both sides mostly just care about what will get the most votes

On both sides

 

[tellner]

I appreciate your attempt to be even handed FF. But I think you're missing at least part of the point. Don's original contention was that the Democratic Party was a racist institution because of things that mostly happened before anyone here was born. The other side on this isn't liberal or conservative or based on the proper role of government or anything of the sort. It is that over the last sixty years the Democratic Party as an institution has rejected racism and segregation and has enacted laws to reverse them, particularly as they were expressed and enforced through existing laws. The Republican Party has opposed all such moves as a matter of policy. It has consistently supported discriminatory laws and policies at least in part as a successful electoral strategy and partly to appeal to certain segments of the population who had voted for the other Party when there was less to distinguish them on the racial score.

There's a difference between the past tense and present tense. Past is what has happened. Present is what is happening. The rather silly and stupid book this whole thing was based on misses the point on purpose.

 

[Big Don]

I appreciate your attempt to be even handed FF. But I think you're missing at least part of the point. Don's original contention was that the Democratic Party was a racist institution because of things that mostly happened before anyone here was born. The other side on this isn't liberal or conservative or based on the proper role of government or anything of the sort. It is that over the last sixty years the Democratic Party as an institution has rejected racism and segregation and has enacted laws to reverse them, particularly as they were expressed and enforced through existing laws. The Republican Party has opposed all such moves as a matter of policy. It has consistently supported discriminatory laws and policies at least in part as a successful electoral strategy and partly to appeal to certain segments of the population who had voted for the other Party when there was less to distinguish them on the racial score.

There's a difference between the past tense and present tense. Past is what has happened. Present is what is happening. The rather silly and stupid book this whole thing was based on misses the point on purpose.

Tellner, buddy, you keep saying the republican party has a policy of opposition, and yet, all you can offer is the "southern strategy" which wasn't policy, but, campaign strategy? Come on, at least have the cojones to admit when you are unable to prove it.

 

[Empty Hands]

He also claims, that sixty years of racism is STATED POLICY, yet, hasn't shown but one CAMPAIGN strategy to back him up.

So 30-40 years of concerted racism in the actual present in an effort to get votes somehow doesn't count, while a 147 year in the past party platform does?

This is kind of an ugly road to go down, you know. I think you said you were a Mormon in another thread. Shall we hang the past Mormon position on blacks or polygamy around your neck even though that position is completely different today?

When exactly did the democratic party apologize for advocating racism?

I would say that repudiating their past and consistently working against their former vision would count as something similar.

Code? Supporting state's rights means you are a racist? What a crock of dung.

It is no accident that "States Rights" was the political rallying cry of the Confederates, and the Dixiecrats 100 years later. It was a position designed to evade federal oversight so racist policies could continue. Hell, the actual official name of the Dixiecrats was the "States Rights Party". Thus, hearing the words "States Rights" means something very different to a Southern racist than it does anyone else. That is why it is a coded appeal. Not everyone is supposed to get it, only those it was intended for. The quotes I have already posted support this view.

 

[tellner]

Ah, I hadn't realized Don was a Mormon. By his own logic it would mean that he's personally in favor of murdering innocent men and women and all children old enough to talk if they have things he wants, believes that Blacks aren't quite human and are damned, and is perfectly cool with literally burning the presses of any publication he doesn't like. He is also a serial kidnapper who tears little Native children from their mothers' arms so they can be indoctrinated into his religion.

All of those sins can be laid at the door of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as an institution. The Elders and Apostles approved every single one of these. By Don's logic he and the Church are still guilty of those even though they are in the past.

Sauce for the goose. Sauce for the gander. But I suppose he'll say that's different somehow...

 

[Big Don]

Ah, I hadn't realized Don was a Mormon. By his own logic it would mean that he's personally in favor of murdering innocent men and women and all children old enough to talk if they have things he wants, believes that Blacks aren't quite human and are damned, and is perfectly cool with literally burning the presses of any publication he doesn't like. He is also a serial kidnapper who tears little Native children from their mothers' arms so they can be indoctrinated into his religion.

All of those sins can be laid at the door of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as an institution. The Elders and Apostles approved every single one of these. By Don's logic he and the Church are still guilty of those even though they are in the past.

Sauce for the goose. Sauce for the gander. But I suppose he'll say that's different somehow...

Wow, you are quite the bigot aren't you? Yet, you still refuse to acknowledge that of the two (democrats and republicans) only one party's platform ever explicitly condoned, advocated and encouraged the practice of slavery. Yep, some republicans have been racists, but, it was NEVER a stated policy of the party, as it was for democrats, and as you claim, over and over ad naseum with not a whit of proof.

 

[Tez3]

Whoa guys!! this thread is getting a bit excited! I'm totally neutral here, have no interest in either party or any of the politicians so can I be the one that says you are going to get the thread closed if it carries on this way?
You'll make me regret that Great Britain gave you independance if you squabble like this! There, you can both have a go at the Brits lol! but do remember the White House is only that coz we burned it!

 

[Empty Hands]

but do remember the White House is only that coz we burned it!

Yeah, well, you'd all be speaking German now if not for us (and the BEF escaping at Dunkirk and the RAF and the Eastern front and...)!

 

[Ray]

Ah, I hadn't realized Don was a Mormon. By his own logic it would mean that he's personally in favor of murdering innocent men and women and all children old enough to talk if they have things he wants, believes that Blacks aren't quite human and are damned, and is perfectly cool with literally burning the presses of any publication he doesn't like. He is also a serial kidnapper who tears little Native children from their mothers' arms so they can be indoctrinated into his religion.

All of those sins can be laid at the door of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as an institution. The Elders and Apostles approved every single one of these. By Don's logic he and the Church are still guilty of those even though they are in the past.

Sauce for the goose. Sauce for the gander. But I suppose he'll say that's different somehow...

Are you the guy representing himself as a democrat & who is saying that democrats aren't bigots/racists? Although we Mormons are not a race, we certainly do get to hear these type of stereotypes more than we should.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

 

[Jade Tigress]

ATTENTION ALL USERS

Please keep the conversation polite and respectful. Review posting rules here.

Pamela Piszczek
MT Super Moderator

 

[Tez3]

Yeah, well, you'd all be speaking German now if not for us (and the BEF escaping at Dunkirk and the RAF and the Eastern front and...)!

Humpf!... lol!

Too many wars, too many mistakes but while the past has helped shape us we make our own fate. Living in the past is not healthy but it has shown that with very rare exceptions people go into politics for one reason only, for themselves. They may even fool themselves into thinking they are doing it for the greater good but they aren't. It's because they want power/want to rule/believe they know best/want to be respected ans admired/come from a powerful political family ( of which there's many around the world)/just want the money whatever but ultimately they are in it for themselves. work from this admittedly cynical basis and you won't go far wrong when deciding who to vote for. After all we vote for what we think will be best for ourselves don't we?

 

[michaeledward]

Humpf!... lol!

Too many wars, too many mistakes but while the past has helped shape us we make our own fate. Living in the past is not healthy but it has shown that with very rare exceptions people go into politics for one reason only, for themselves. They may even fool themselves into thinking they are doing it for the greater good but they aren't. It's because they want power/want to rule/believe they know best/want to be respected ans admired/come from a powerful political family ( of which there's many around the world)/just want the money whatever but ultimately they are in it for themselves. work from this admittedly cynical basis and you won't go far wrong when deciding who to vote for. After all we vote for what we think will be best for ourselves don't we?

I don't believe this is a factual assessment. I think it is inaccurate when assessing the motivations of those who choose to serve. And I think it is inaccurate when assessing the motivations of those who choose to participate in the political process.

I am reminded of Houston Smith's book, 'The Worlds Religions' (Or The Religions of the World - or something like that) and his descriptions of Hinduism. While I do not believe in the The Great Wheel of reincarnation, as I recall, the point he made is that because their belief system of constant rebirth, their philosophy is to 'Do What Makes You Feel Good'. As I understand it, there are four different "levels" in which ones life (and recurring lives) will pass through; self-gratification - - service to family - service to community - enlightenment. The premise is that we experiment with all the ways we can please our selves - sex, drugs, food, material goods, etc - and find them wanting. Our eternal life force then seeks satisfaction by the bonds we make within our families - and find that wanting. Those souls that return without finding satsifaction in carnal pleasures and familial pleasures seek satsifaction through serving the community; through leadership in different organizations and political office. Finally, our lives will realize that is empty too, in the long run, and we will seek the nothingness of poverty for enlightment.

Now, I hate to try and condense a 5,000 year old religion to one paragraph. But I think our best politicians are in that 'service to community' level of Hinduism. This does not mean that some politicians are in government to seek personal prestige, but I don't think they are as successful, even if they are elected and re-elected.

And, we who vote for those who serve, many of us, no doubt, are motivated by selfishness. Just last night, I got a robo-call from 'Americans for Tax Reform' asking me to pressure the Republican Presidential Candidates who have not taken the no higher tax pledge to make the pledge. Although I will not be voting in the Republican Primary, I would never ask anyone to make that pledge, because the facts around us dictate that taxes are going to have to be raised, because our current President, with six years of Republican Congresses have overdrawn the country's checkbook. The 'greater good' recognizes the need for stable monetary policy, even while the selfishness desires lower taxes. I would vote for the former.

 

[Ray]

The 'greater good' recognizes the need for stable monetary policy, even while the selfishness desires lower taxes. I would vote for the former.

Note for those who do want to pay more: I don't know of any prohibition against making voluntary contributions to the federal gov't--do you?

 

[mrhnau]

Note for those who do want to pay more: I don't know of any prohibition against making voluntary contributions to the federal gov't--do you?

Are those tax deductible?

I'd love to see some politicians that desire more of my cash start donating some from their fat bank accounts. However, I assume the will be running to their tax accountants, just like everyone else that can afford it.

 

[Tez3]

I don't believe this is a factual assessment. I think it is inaccurate when assessing the motivations of those who choose to serve. And I think it is inaccurate when assessing the motivations of those who choose to participate in the political process.

I am reminded of Houston Smith's book, 'The Worlds Religions' (Or The Religions of the World - or something like that) and his descriptions of Hinduism. While I do not believe in the The Great Wheel of reincarnation, as I recall, the point he made is that because their belief system of constant rebirth, their philosophy is to 'Do What Makes You Feel Good'. As I understand it, there are four different "levels" in which ones life (and recurring lives) will pass through; self-gratification - - service to family - service to community - enlightenment. The premise is that we experiment with all the ways we can please our selves - sex, drugs, food, material goods, etc - and find them wanting. Our eternal life force then seeks satisfaction by the bonds we make within our families - and find that wanting. Those souls that return without finding satsifaction in carnal pleasures and familial pleasures seek satsifaction through serving the community; through leadership in different organizations and political office. Finally, our lives will realize that is empty too, in the long run, and we will seek the nothingness of poverty for enlightment.

Now, I hate to try and condense a 5,000 year old religion to one paragraph. But I think our best politicians are in that 'service to community' level of Hinduism. This does not mean that some politicians are in government to seek personal prestige, but I don't think they are as successful, even if they are elected and re-elected.

And, we who vote for those who serve, many of us, no doubt, are motivated by selfishness. Just last night, I got a robo-call from 'Americans for Tax Reform' asking me to pressure the Republican Presidential Candidates who have not taken the no higher tax pledge to make the pledge. Although I will not be voting in the Republican Primary, I would never ask anyone to make that pledge, because the facts around us dictate that taxes are going to have to be raised, because our current President, with six years of Republican Congresses have overdrawn the country's checkbook. The 'greater good' recognizes the need for stable monetary policy, even while the selfishness desires lower taxes. I would vote for the former.

Thank you for a thoughtful answer! In the light of this thread then how do we go about deciding what the motives are of our politicians? Our country like yours has the main parties and to hope to get into any position of being able to change things or do any good one has to be a member of these parties so being independant isn't really an option.
it used to be in this country at least one had a career ie military, law, teaching etc that reflected some sort of public service before one took up politics, this meant the MPs have life experience behind them and were used to making decisions, now becoming an MP is chosen as a career.
How do we decide who to vote for then? do we chose a candidate we believe is honest although we don't like the party he belongs to or do we vote for the party even though we don't like the candidate?