The post I wrote yesterday has been nagging me in the bottom of my gut since I clicked submit… At first I thought it was just a nagging worry I have about going full-bore to endorse John Edwards only to find that he is indeed just a smarmy trial lawyer behind a facade that convinced even my self-proclaimed-expert scrutiny. (Everyone thinks them the best at spotting a fake, no?) But I came back to re-read my post this morning and began to wonder if I actually believe some of the things I wrote.

I think its common sense to assume that people will ultimately make their decision regarding a candidate, or any other political decision, based to some extent on their emotions. But does this break democracy? Fear can break a democracy, that is certain. But fear and emotion are very different things. What about feelings, passions that come from the heart and from the gut. Are emotion and reason irreconcilable? My article yesterday notwithstanding, I believe the answer is a resounding no. In fact, I believe that without both we are crippled. I grew up with Kirk and Spock, after all.

Can anyone deny the emotion in these words of democracy:

As a long and violent abuse of power is generally the means of calling the right of it in question, (and in matters too which might never have been thought of, had not the sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry,) and as the king of England hath undertaken in his own right, to support the parliament in what he calls theirs, and as the good people of this country are grievously oppressed by the combination, they have an undoubted privilege to inquire into the pretensions of both, and equally to reject the usurpations of either.

Or these words:

The sun never shined on a cause of greater worth. ‘Tis not the affair of a city, a country, a province, or a kingdom, but of a continent- of at least one eighth part of the habitable globe. ‘Tis not the concern of a day, a year, or an age; posterity are virtually involved in the contest, and will be more or less affected, even to the end of time, by the proceedings now. Now is the seed time of continental union, faith and honor. The least fracture now will be like a name engraved with the point of a pin on the tender rind of a young oak; The wound will enlarge with the tree, and posterity read it in full grown characters.

(both by Thomas Paine, Common Sense)

(more…)

(note: I respond to the things I’ve written here in the very next post)

It interests me to hear on news broadcasts what drives people to select a presidential candidate. It seems like this time around, more than ever, a great many people are making this democratic primary an emotional choice. For the first time in history, an African American has a legitimate shot at the White House. For the second time in history, a woman has a legitimate shot. Both of these people are remarkable individuals, and indeed remarkable candidates. Nevertheless, I believe that should a majority of democrats nominate a candidate based on their emotional feelings regarding a candidate’s gender or the color of their skin, we will have further proof that our democracy is broken. (more…)

… and Nick’s response to my article is certainly an intelligently crafted one. Though I could, however, childishly point out that his argument is guilty of a logical fallacy called the appeal to common practice, I believe I will refrain from such and instead focus on the question he ended with:

“Do current attitudes toward illegal immigrants characterize a depraved United States, fat on its own glory, turning a back on the ideals it claims for its past?

(more…)

In a recent commentary, Phil Loring expressed some awkwardness regarding a perceived contradiction between a movement to save Ellis Island and the grass roots furor overillegal immigration which probably had a share in defeating Comprehensive Immigration Reform, the Dream Act, and New York state’s Driver’s License initiative. There is an important distinction, however, which has been overlooked in his commentary. Whatever your feelings towards Ellis Island, it was a processing center for immigrants. By definition, those immigrants admitted through the Island station were legal. There is no connection between those immigrants and measures in Texas and Florida that are designed to prevent illegal immigration. (more…)