Dear Daniel and Christine,
There is a lot that is going on in our public life that isn't readily
apparent, and certainly is seldom discussed, except in smaller circles.
Neither the Democrats or the Republicans are doing the job that needs
doing. And while politics is the art of compromise, that art isn't even
practiced today. What is practiced today is the selling of influence,
and trading in votes (vote for my bill, and I will vote for your pork
barrel). This is not compromise, but commerce.
What we see today in Washington is something in decay - perhaps at the
end of its utility. It isn't going to get better, and an obvious sign
of this is that we don't have a single true statesman as a candidate for
any party. They are all politicians by trade, and that is a sorry
calling these days - one based on ignorance and self serving behaviors.
They know little of history, nothing of economics, and certainly have no
social skills beyond those that are required to get and maintain
There is a huge difference between obtaining power (getting elected)
and its wise use. The best that politicians do these days in the use of
power is to serve a very dark god, sometimes quite intentionally.
I could go on, but I won't. I've written a lot over the years
concerning these problems and if you want details you can go to my
Jesaiah Ben-Aharon just published a new book, which all should read:
America's Global Responsibility: individuation, initiation and
threefolding. It can be ordered on line, at:
On Tue, 2003-12-30 at 08:38, Daniel Hindes wrote:
> Well, in brief... because he could win.
> Politics is the art of compromise. This is why idealists generally have such
> a horrible time with it. My ideal candidates would be completely
> unelectable. Electable candidates are all less (and often far less) than
> ideal. I wasn't thrilled with everything Clinton did, but I preferred the
> country under him than under Bush. It may be a small difference, but a
> difference none the less. Clark is capable of handling the presidency, would
> in all likelyhood be a little left of Bush, and could concievably carry
> enough of the conservative states to win. Other candidates may meet the
> first two criterion, but seem unlikely on the third.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <golden3000997@...>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 8:59 AM
> Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: [Trippy-Dippy-Hippies] Wesly
> Clark - drugwa...
> > Hello Daniel,
> > Thank you for taking the time to reply. This is what I was hoping for -
> > that will give a balanced perspective. Not just dismissal. Any personal
> > perspective on why he would be a good candidate?
> > Christine
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > To visit your group on the web, go to:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> > email@example.com
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
Joel Wendt <hermit@...>