Gathering 2004, Part 14

Gathering 2004, Part 14
Political Unification, Part 2

JJ: We’ll read it through the rest of the Principles of Political Unification and offer one or two comments at the most then we’ll move on.

[4] I commit myself to sending goodwill and the spirit of friendship to all involved in the political process especially those with differing political views.

This is going to be a hard one in the present situation. So basically, we’re committing ourselves to being nice to each other

(5) Even though the majority may not always support my views I realize that the majority view, when properly informed, rarely will lead us on a dangerous path. I therefore seek to honor the will of the people. When I disagree with the will of the people I will not seek to forcefully control them or change them but will use peaceful means to inform and educate them.

One thing you notice in today’s society is that the common man on the street seems to be a lot smarter than the average politician. Many common people like us have more common sense on what should be done than Congress, which is controlled by leaders and people not representing the will of the people.

(6) There are a number of issues that cause division, heated debate and anger. Examples are abortion, gun control, social programs, drug legalization, military activities and others. Most cannot be resolved in the near future through the conversion of the one side to the other. I support the following unifying approach: To support the principle of fairness on controversial issues, both sides must be heard even though the other side may be repulsive to me, for free speech and thought is the most important principle and the prime directive of unification and ultimate peace. I therefore commit to the principle of fair play realizing that both sides deserve to be heard and have their representatives in positions of power according to the will of the people.

This illustrates a big problem we currently have. Both sides are trying to squelch the other side so they can’t be heard and there can’t be fairness in debate. They only want their side to be heard. The commitment in this one is basically the principle of fair play. Let both sides be heard. Let everyone be free to speak. Let both views be put before the public. If we don’t like it we can write our congressman and tell him we don’t like it.

(7) I believe in integrity and honesty and will seek to be truthful no matter what the opponents do. I seek not to distort or lie for the benefit of my party or for personal gain.

JJ: This is going to be tough for the politicians, isn’t it?

(8) I accept that we must be fiscally responsible and will do all in my power to create a balanced budget, except in times of national crisis. I will only support social programs that can be funded or continued without increasing the burden on the taxpayer.

Audience: I see that this could be problematic. Social programs are not the role of government.

JJ: Almost everybody supports a certain amount of social programs. Even many die hard conservatives are not against Social Security funds. One of the problems we have that both parties recognize is that we’re spending ourselves into oblivion and it needs to be controlled responsibly.

Audience: Instead of itemizing why not write the last sentence so it reflects balancing the budget. Remove the word ‘social’ and leave programs.

JJ: That might be good. The trouble with social programs is that people are very polarized with them and want to spend whatever it takes to keep them going no matter what. Both sides claim to be working on balancing the budget but in deed neither does it.

(9) I agree that the people are taxed enough and seek to keep the budget within the range of current tax revenues and to not raise the percentage of taxes on anyone.

JJ: Approximately 50% of our earned money goes to taxes, when all are taken into account, and most people feel that’s enough. Almost every legislator will say we’re taxed enough.

JJ: So let’s make them commit to that. They can work with what they’ve are currently taken and hopefully much less.

Audience: We can’t assume that every country has the same taxes we do.

JJ: The citizens and inhabitants of every single nation feel like they don’t want any more taxes. They all feel they’re taxed enough.

Audience: comment inaudible.

JJ: Yes it is. They really feel like they’re taxed enough in France.

Audience: A lot of countries may never have freedom of speech either.

JJ: Eventually we all will. We’ll progress toward greater freedom. Some of them will take a while to achieve.

Audience: I think we will lose some people too sticking with the current taxes because a lot of people think it’s way too high and needs to be brought down.

JJ: That doesn’t mean it can’t go down. It just can’t go up.

Audience: It doesn’t read that way.

JJ: My intent was that it can’t go up but it can go down. We’ll may need to change the wording on that if it is misunderstood. We can say ‘the current tax or below.

Audience: That raises the point that some people think we aren’t taxed enough and it should be raised. (general chatter)

(10) I agree to put the security of my country and the world above the views or actions of my own political party. If others of my party sabotage national security or undermine a just effort toward the elimination of threats I will be just as critical of them as the opposing party.

JJ: Any quick comment on that? The security of the country is more important than a political party.

(11) I accept the fact that there is great waste and inefficiency in government spending and commit myself to eliminate waste and increase efficiency wherever and whenever possible.

JJ: I think everybody will agree with that.

(12) I accept and support the idea that we can save ourselves much grief by learning from the mistakes of history so we do not repeat them. It is therefore of extreme importance that the youth be accurately taught, without censorship, national and world history in a way that is of interest and will be absorbed by them. I will oppose all those who revise history in distorted fashion for political gain.

JJ: This is really important because if we don’t learn the lessons of history then we repeat it. What led up to WWII is really important for this generation to read and understand. If we understood it we could prevent it from happening again.

Audience: JJ, the only way that can happen is if you can return the control of education to the parents.

JJ: There are a lot of different opinions on how that can happen but we won’t go into that. We want people to agree that it should happen. People should learn history and learn it accurately.

Audience: Some parents don’t want their children to know.

(13) I agree that extremism has been and is the cause of many problems in the world and seek to not impose extreme views on the people. If I happen to have extreme views, which I believe to be of value, I will seek to persuade by education rather than by force of law. It is also a problem when political opponents are called extremists when over a third of the public support them. Such accusations are extremism in disguise. I seek to not be extreme myself in distorting the image of opponents by calling them extremists when such is not true. For instance, it is not extremism to be simply for or against abortion as there are many on both sides of the equation.

JJ: This is good because both sides are calling the other extreme right or extreme left and this is very divisive. With abortion, half is on one side and half on the other so how can you be extreme when half the people in the country support you? Neither side is extreme. They just extremely disagree. This principle allows for the true extremist to function in society but it says if I happen to have extreme views I will not try to force them on others.

Audience: I think it would be better to streamline this into two or three sentences.

JJ: Good idea. Maybe we should simply them and add an exposition below.

(14) I support the elimination of poverty but realize there are two approaches to this. The first is to give a helping handout and the second is to provide circumstances so the person may help himself. Extremists on this issue have warred against each other and have been the cause of much division. I reject extremism on both sides and seek to recognize the value of both sides. There are times of helplessness when people need direct assistance and times when they need encouraged to stand on their own feet. I do not support handouts to those who are capable of helping themselves and refuse to do so.

Audience: Well what are you going to do with the people who refuse to help themselves? If you don’t give them handouts, what are you going to do with them?

JJ: In that case it’s what they do with themselves if they are capable of working.

Audience: So many times we put them in prison and that costs us $30,000 a year.

JJ: That costs us a lot. There are times when people do need help and these should be helped. On the other hand, I’ve met a lot of people in my life who just don’t want to work and expect others to take care of them. That’s not right.

Audience: Concerning the word extremists, you use it here but said earlier to avoid it but there are a lot of people on each side of this issue so they’re not really extremists.

JJ: The ones who are warring are usually extremists. That’s my point. The people who aren’t extremists rarely aggressively attack. That’s a good thing to consider though. I’ll consider taking that out.

Audience: Social programs should be handled through voluntary organizations so in number fourteen you’re going to lose all of them.

JJ: I don’t think we will because where would we lose them?

Audience: Because you’re assuming it’s the government that gives a helping hand out.

JJ: I don’t say who is giving the helping hand out. For those who believe the government should be giving a hand out or those who don’t, the door is open there.

(15) I support the separation of church and state, but reject extremism on both sides. I reject the extreme of specific religious influence dictating public policy even though all religions have the freedom to express their views. I also reject the other extreme that any mention of God, religious values, or the public display of religious symbols is to not be tolerated.

JJ: Both of these are agreed on by most citizens.

(16) I support equal rights for all races, both sexes and members of all religions and ideologies. I recognize that the large majority both sides of the political spectrum seek what is best for all races and minorities (even though the opposition has a different approach) and refuse to manufacture accusations for political gain.

Audience: We should encourage religions to express.

JJ: People are worried about religions dictating to them.

Audience: Influence should be changed to actual legislative powers or something like that. Religions not only can but should influence the political process but they should not have the power where they are actually dictating.

(17) I recognize that the large majority both sides of the political spectrum seek what is best for the environment but again both sides have a different approach. Two extremes causing division are: The first seeks to conserve the environment even if there is strong economic and job loss. The second is seeking profits at the expense of the environment. The truth is the two are interdependent. A strong economy can provide funds to help the environment and a healthy environment provides for a good long-term good economy. I seek therefore to work with both sides of this issue and will seek cooperation rather than assigning blame. I seek to aid the environment without harming the economic structure.

JJ: This is a big problem we have. One extreme says we need to save a certain bug even though everything else around it is destroyed. The other says heck with the bug. We need to reach a common ground between these two so that the bug can be saved without destroying the economy. If we don’t have a good economy we couldn’t make improvements in the environment that we have. A lot of the third world nations have tremendous environmental problems that they do not have the money to solve.

(18) I recognize we are a nation of laws and will not support the subversion of law for political gain. I will condemn such subversion of those who share my views as well as those who do not.

JJ: The two political parties will often be willing to break the law for political gain. That’s something we’ll try to get them not to do.

(19) I will only support the establishment of necessary law as well as the elimination of bad, as well as useless laws that clutter the system.

JJ: We have a lot of useless laws. There are still laws against spitting on the sidewalk or kissing in public. There are a lot of weird laws on the book. We need people to go through these useless laws and eliminate them all.

Audience: chatter on bad vs useless

JJ: The big problem we have in politics today is that our legislators think it’s their job to make laws and spend money. So even, if a law is not needed they’ll twiddle their thumbs and think a new one up. So they pass a lot of laws. A lot of times these laws are used for entrapment later on so people can go after their enemies for violating some silly law that’s only on the books because the legislators were creatively thinking of a law they could pass.

(20) In the end, I support the example of John Kennedy who, while campaigning, found good things to say about his opposition and instead of tearing down he said “we can do better.” I support the idea of converting by good works and ideas rather than tearing down the opposition.

JJ: I was just a young boy during the campaign of Kennedy and Nixon. One thing I noticed about Kennedy was that he didn’t call Eisenhower a criminal or a rat or a slug. He admitted that Eisenhower had been a pretty good president. He said, “Eisenhower did okay, but I can do better.”

I really liked that. That really sold me on Kennedy. His attitude made me admire him a lot. I haven’t seen any other politician do that since him. When politicians campaign now they demolish the other guy. “He’s a snake in the grass. He’s a liar, a cheat and a weasel. I don’t know why his wife even puts up with him.” So we need to change this attitude instead of saying the other side is a weasel we need say they did a few good things, but we can do better. It’d be nice to have politicians present us with another way instead of saying, “Vote for me because the other side is Satan incarnate and has 666 tattooed on his forehead. Because of that you need to vote for me.”

Audience: To go back to a comment that there is an astral war going on compared to the Civil War do you think there had to be a physical war to settle some things at that time. There are astral causalities and I think a lot of people won’t agree with this because of the astral war.

JJ: That’s true, but I think the general John Q Public will accept it. Both Democrat and Republican guys on the street will read this and think it’s good, but there will be a lot of politicians who read this and say, “I want to be able to fight dirty for my side. I want to be able to call the other guy scum.”

Audience: comment on using the idea instead of Kennedy’s name. The principle of goodwill and the idea behind it should be used instead of a name.

JJ: One of the reasons I like to use Kennedy is because he’s an example people remember, especially people my age. It was a powerful debate between Kennedy and Nixon, but it was civil.

Audience: You mentioned editing them to make them shorter and tighter and adding comments below. That might be more of a comment than a principle.

JJ: It might be a good idea to rewrite them so they’re as simple as possible. On the web an advantage is that you can allow a person to click below each principle for more details.

Audience: When you get into details you could also start losing some people. It needs to be as concise as possible.

JJ: What do you guys think? Overall, would the common person agree with them? Politics is as metaphysical as anything else. People shy away from it, but when you think of it, politics is such a powerful influence in our lives. Many political problems need to be solved before the Masters can materialize upon the Earth again. They can’t come here and teach us if they’re going to be put in jail.

If an idea’s worth having once, it’s worth having twice. Tom Stoppard (1937 – )

Posted July 1, 2005

Copyright by J J Dewey 

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *