I Believe It Matters

June 23, 2009 / 7:14 am • By Dr. Melissa Clouthier

Why argue about things that never change?

A falser premise has never been written. Life is constantly changing. It is also constantly seeking homeostasis. The environment changes and a person reacts to it. A person changes and then changes the environment.

The United States is always changing. The world economic, political, technological, medical, legal, etc. environment is always changing. The changes are rarely predictable, and so, flexibility and resilience are required for survival.

In the case of American society, someone is making those changes. One or two individuals, and then more, together, and then groups of people together coalesce around an idea and that idea motivates them to change the environment around them.

Since the Vietnam era, the American left decided that America needed to look and be different. So, they went to school, became lawyers, teachers, community activists, media personalities, etc. They introduced their ideas into curricula, laws and conversations.

America has changed because people wanted America to change. It didn’t just happen.

And, if America is going to change again, to become different and better, it’s going to happen one idea, one person, one group, one education at a time.

The cynical notion that it doesn’t make a difference no matter what we do is not only not true, it’s self-fulfilling. And right now, people are discouraged. American citizens see a country that took scores of years to build being dismantled by the political equivalent of a two-year-old knocking over a building of blocks.

Well, who allowed America to turn into a nation of brats? We did. One person, one vote, one decision to skip the school board meeting at a time. The people who believe it matters make very different choices from those who cynically figure that they have no influence.

I believe it matters.

Posted in America • Corrupted Culture

  • filioscotia

    This brings to mind something my minister said in a sermon back in the early 70s. I’ll never forget it because every word of it came true.

    He said 20th century society was changing so fast it was making his head spin. It’s changing whether we like it or not, and the only people who will be happy with the change are those who’re out there driving the change in the direction they want it to go.

    You’re right Melissa. It’s depressing to see how right he was. I’m not happy with what America has become since the 70s.

    I’m forced to admit that it’s because my generation of conservatives weren’t the ones driving the change. We didn’t care enough to stand tall and resist the Leftist takeover of our entire society. You can see the result all around us. Our children and grandchildren will have to live with the world left to them by our collective failure.

  • fuster

    Good point, Melissa. The left actively seeks change,many of the people on the right seek to resist change. We’ll all be better served when the people of the right seek to better educate their adherents so that they can advocate and articulate an alternative and can demonstrate the societal advantages in their alternative.

  • Naqamel

    The left actively seeks fascism, many of the people on the right seek to resist fascism.

    There. Fixed it for you.

  • fuster
  • Naqamel

    Another ad hominem? How quaint.

    Guess all I can do is claim victory in the discussion and say I’m up 2-0 on you, fuster.

  • fuster

    If you want to think that saying leftists are fascists means something, then I think that your declaration of victory is probably necessary for you.

    You might try to an historian who would define fascism as something belonging to, or sought by, the extreme left. You might not to able to find a reputable one would agree with your identification.

  • Naqamel

    You might try to an historian who would define fascism as something belonging to, or sought by, the extreme left. You might not to able to find a reputable one would agree with your identification.

    Read the book I linked and get back to me. The (sad) reality is that Barack Obama is the ideological equivalent of Benito Mussolini.

    You don’t have to buy it – go to your local library and check it out. Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg.

    I’ll warn you: The book is heavy in both weight and in content. Goldberg cites a lot of history and makes an extremely compelling argument that Fascism (and it’s sister socialism) are phenomena of the Left.

  • fuster

    Naq, I have to point out that Goldberg is not an historian, but rather a polemicist. I’ve read his column in the LA Times and it’s hard to think of him as someone who’s interested in much more than promoting his viewpoint. He, at least in his column, plays it a bit loose with facts.
    Try going back to his book and see if he does more than attempt to equate fascism and today’s left with anything more than a shared interest in involving the state in all societal action. To my thinking, he’s attempting to define a shared desire for a totalitarian state as conclusive and ignoring the other facets of fascism that the left does not share.
    Identical things that are different in regard to race and national identity, and have differencews in the underpinnings of their economic philosophy aren’t really identical, are they?

  • Naqamel

    Try going back to his book and see if he does more than attempt to equate fascism and today’s left with anything more than a shared interest in involving the state in all societal action.

    He does, and he documents it well.

    To my thinking, he’s attempting to define a shared desire for a totalitarian state as conclusive and ignoring the other facets of fascism that the left does not share.

    Such as?

    I’m guessing you haven’t read the book… and yet you’re commenting on what you think is in it?

    Wow.

  • fuster

    If he writes a book titled Five-Sided Triangles I won’t read that either.
    I’ve not read more than parts of page twenty-three. That was enough,Naq.

    If you can explain how he can get past the contradictions inherent in the title and in the last paragraph of my last post, I will get the book from the library.

  • Naqamel

    If you can explain how he can get past the contradictions inherent in the title

    The entire book explains that “Liberal Fascism” is not a contradiction. But, you’d have to read it.

    Thanks for admitting that you haven’t read a book, yet still feel qualified to discuss it’s contents.

    Cognitive dissonance, anyone?

  • fuster

    Thanks for explaining your understanding of the way he gets past the differences between liberalism and fascism that I noted.

  • Naqamel

    Thanks for explaining your understanding of the way he gets past the differences between liberalism and fascism that I noted.

    You didn’t note any.

  • fuster

    Race, ational identity and underpinnings of economic philosophy as noted in comment 8.
    Are you commenting on my comments without having read them?

  • Naqamel

    Race, National identity and underpinnings of economic philosophy as noted in comment 8.

    The first two were traits of the National Socialists in Germany, not the Fascisti in Italy. Had you read the book, you would have already known that.

    The third? You’re completely wrong on. See: GM Takeover, Chrysler takeover, and the upcoming attempt to take over health care.

  • fuster

    Sorry, Naq, about the fascist ideas concerning race and national identity, you look to the writings of the fascists and to works of historians documenting the actions of the fascists. Goldberg isn’t authoritive.
    But I suppose you’re attempting to critique fascist thought without having even looked at “The Doctrine of Fascism” attributed (sometimes)to Mussolini.
    Perhaps that might explain how you can swallow Goldberg’s pap and think yourself well-served.

  • Naqamel

    you look to the writings of the fascists and to works of historians documenting the actions of the fascists.

    Goldberg did, and to a much greater depth than you realize, because you haven’t read the book.

    Goldberg isn’t authoritive.

    You haven’t read the book, how can you possibly know if this statement is true?

  • fuster

    You keep telling yourself that the words of Mussolini having less bearing than those of Goldberg, that writers contemporary to the Italian fascists didn’t understand what thy saw and heard, and that only Goldberg gets to define fascism.
    Nobody can argue with that, now can they?

  • Naqamel

    You keep telling yourself that the words of Mussolini having less bearing than those of Goldberg,

    I keep trying to tell you that Goldberg uses the words and writings of Mussolini (and other fascists, and historians) to prove his case that fascism lives on the Left.

    that writers contemporary to the Italian fascists didn’t understand what thy saw and heard,

    Goldberg points out and cites editorials in the NY Times where the Left in this country *GUSHED* about how great they thought Mussolini was.

    and that only Goldberg gets to define fascism.

    Wrong again.

    Nobody can argue with that, now can they?

    You can’t, because… you haven’t read the book.

    Post again if you want, fuster. You’ve exposed yourself as nothing more than a troll, and I’ve wasted enough time on you.

    If you think you’re somehow smart enough to discuss the contents of a book you refuse to read (dismissing it with an ad hominem fallacy against the author, I might add), then there’s really no hope for you.

  • fuster

    You just keep on believing that liberals are fascists, because Jonah Goldberg says so, and keep on not reading that Mussolini defines them as opposites.
    I’ll keep thinking that you’re nuts, but your insistence has gotten me to order a copy of the book.
    You have another banana and I’ll do whatever it is that trolls do, Naq.

  • Mr. Chuckles

    Just as an aside to this little pissing contest – For those of you who think the country has gone socialist: The government now controls .21%, yes that’s POINT 21% of private industry. Sweet Jesus, run for the hills – the socialists have taken over!!!!!

  • http://blahgwrite.blogspot.com Mat

    Naq,

    It’s nice to see that you finally saw the light regarding fuster. It’s pointless arguing with someone who can’t stick to an argument.

    To be honest, liberal fascism is a contradiction because fascism is pretty conservative. However, by all means slap on communist, since they’re always tyrannical. Who’s ever heard of a truly democratic communist government?

    Mr. Chuckie,

    No, the country isn’t true-blue socialist yet, but it’s getting there. I hope you understand the concept of “implication.”