Rant. Forgive me.

This is in response to an opinions column a friend posted today by an acclaimed historian and writer. I would expect more from such credentials.

Even if every person registered with the Republican Party IS purposely ticking the rest of the world off because they like being dumb, this was a petty ...piece. There was no new insight on current world issues. He's re-hashing events that have already been discussed ad nauseum. If there was still a need to write about these issues, might it have been more helpful if he had explained the differences in historical perspective of American conservatism and liberalism and how they play out on street level accusations that seem ungrounded in reality? Maybe then people would be more understanding and have more tolerance for each others beliefs. That would be a good read. This is "they are stupid; we are enlightened" fluff.

I'm disheartened that educated Americans would nod in agreement because he's been approved by the publications elite. I don't buy the, "take it down to their level by acting like the worst of them" way of arguing. I find it degrading and not constructive against your opponent. But that's my taste.

I think that a lot of the problems of American politics is not that they disagree that much. Americans believe in the principles of the constitution, which is radically liberal document. They just disagree why.

One camp tends to think government is a necessary evil - and should be limited to simply upholding the rights its citizens. However, power corrupts, so power should be spread and kept as local as possible where is it held most accountable to the people. It must protect the rights of all citizens; however, government social programs are a sign that the people failed to do it privately. An ideal extreme government would be pure anarchy protected by an army.

the other camp believes a democratic government is, by nature, positive and socially centered. When the government is at it's best, all the the citizens are released to work for the greater good rather than for just personal gain because the government provides all needs: roads, infrastructure, clean water, food, shelter, jobs, education, and medicine. There is less division between branches and power is centralized because it's a good thing for the best thinkers of the nation to think globally and act locally. An ideal extreme government would be pure communism with no army.

Being a moderate, as the majority of the US is, I think that a functional government is somewhere in the middle. But somehow, the two main moderate parties of America have developed a language barrier between "liberals" and "conservatives" that the media uses (including your author) to make it sound as though it's impossible to understand the other side because the other side is incapable of understanding us. I think that's wrong, no matter how cleaver they are in doing it.

What this author should have done was create a rally cry for less entertainment and more education in the media. I'll keep dreaming.