Skip to main content

Bernie's Nuts, But He Understands People

Most people who get motivated by politics are idealists; even the people who get angry about their opponents in politics are idealists. If we don't stop these people, they're going to destroy everything. Isn't it funny how everyone says that? That shows me that we have a lot of passion, and not a lot of wisdom. There's an intellectual virtue of listening and reflecting; I know I don't have it.

The biggest problem with the "left" as it were, is that they believe two huge lies: That an unborn baby is not a person, and that nobody in Heaven and earth cares--or should--about what I do with my sexuality. Actually, replace "sexuality" with "money," and you've described a pretty big chunk of the "right," also. And of course, a few of them haven't bothered to wrestle with that fundamental realization of human personhood, either.

A lot of people are cynical about politics right now, and I suppose I understand that. Our political class is not overly-blessed with intellect, or heart, in the best sense of the word. Many seem to be bought and paid for by someone, whose relation and contribution to the good of us all is dubious, at best.

One thing you can say about Bernie Sanders: he's not cynical at all. We are going to take them all down! He's definitely angry for stretches, but that's frustrated idealism. I love idealists, as a general rule. I'm one, unapologetically. Politics, sports, you name it.

There is something inherently noble about the doomed, but idealistic presidential campaign. That's why the people who win in primaries say nice things about the vanquished: anybody who scares you almost out of a job has some people working for them that care enough to put it all on the line. I'd like to think the gestures of goodwill are not simply for good optics. We all used to care, and totally from a limitless reservoir of hope.

Let me never fail to appreciate that.

With wisdom comes the reckoning: I was flat wrong about that; I overstated that; I failed to consider... But let's never surrender to cynicism, even in these important, but lesser things.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Alyse

 Today, you’re 35. Or at least you would be, in this place. You probably know this, but we’re OK. Not great, but OK. We know you wouldn’t want us moping around and weeping all the time. We try not to. Actually, I guess part of the problem is that you didn’t know how much we loved you. And that you didn’t know how to love yourself. I hope you have gotten to Love by now. Not a place, but fills everything in every way. I’m not Him, but he probably said, “Dear daughter/sister, you have been terribly hard on yourself. Rest now, and be at peace.” Anyway, teaching is going well, and I tell the kids all about you. They all say you are pretty. I usually can keep the boys from saying something gross for a few seconds. Mom and I are going to the game tonight. And like 6 more times, before I go back to South Carolina. I have seen Nicky twice, but I myself haven’t seen your younger kids. Bob took pictures of the day we said goodbye, and we did a family picture at the Abbey. I literally almost a...
Hilarious Com-Box Quote of The Day: "I was caught immediately because it is the Acts of the Apostles, not the Acts of the Holy Spirit Acting Erratically."--Donald Todd, reacting to the inartful opposition of the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium. Mark Galli, an editor at Christianity Today, had suggested that today's "confusion" in evangelicalism replicates a confusion on the day of Pentecost. Mr. Todd commented after this reply , and the original article is here. My thoughts: By what means was this Church-less "consensus" formed? If the Council did not possess the authority to adjudicate such questions, who does? If the Council Fathers did not intend to be the arbiters, why do they say that they do? At the risk of being rude, I would define evangelicalism as, "Whatever I want or need to believe at any particular time." Ecclesial authority to settle a particular question is a step forward, but only as long as, "God alone is Lord of the con...

A Friend I Once Had, And The Dogmatic Principle

 I once had a friend, a dear friend, who helped me with personal care needs in college. Reformed Presbyterian to the core. When I was a Reformed Presbyterian, I visited their church many times. We were close. I still consider his siblings my friends. (And siblings in the Lord.) Nevertheless, when I began to consider the claims of the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, he took me out to breakfast. He implied--but never quite stated--that we would not be brothers, if I sought full communion with the Catholic Church. That came true; a couple years later, I called him on his birthday, as I'd done every year for close to ten of them. He didn't recognize my number, and it was the most strained, awkward phone call I have ever had. We haven't spoken since. We were close enough that I attended the rehearsal dinner for his wedding. His wife's uncle is a Catholic priest. I remember reading a blog post of theirs, that early in their relationship, she told him of the p...