Unknown's avatar

About Lib-Whisperer

Hello and thanks for visiting the Lib-Whisperer blog site. The Lib-Whisperer is the expression of personal opinions. I hope to grow the site as time goes by and enthusiasm grows. I am sarcastic by nature, but always well intended. I am an admitted history & policy-wonk. I enjoy discussions with people who are curious, flexible and above all else, informed; willing to have their convictions tested through polite fact-based discussions. I’m informed through studying the works of giants like Bastiat, Montesquieu, John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Sowell, Milton Friedman, Washington, Jefferson, Adams, our U.S. Constitution, The Federalist Papers, the pamphleteers & landmark SCOTUS opinions to name a few. The Lib Whisperer site hopefully offers insight into the core principles & ideology of a segment of American citizens who believe urgent course changes are necessary to guide our country toward fiscal responsibility, national security, Federalism, conservative values and true representative government. A foundational belief I hold is constituencies constantly form & harden around single issues. History is replete with examples that prove these singular constituencies are routinely high-jacked by traditional established groups and purposely used to divide folks along narrow ideological lines. We must find ways to re-unite citizens who have allowed themselves to become labelled and isolated, and worse, conscripted & unknowingly aligned with larger ideological groups that espouse the need to destroy our country’s historical foundation. For example, witness the origins of the Tea Party and what it eventually became. Mocked & derided by the traditional Left, and then co-opted by the traditional Right. The high-jackings are not always sinister; rather, they are a more a consequence of natural human behavior. There is power in groups, and existing groups who are organized, funded and like-minded typically see new ones as either threats or opportunities. If they are threats- they need to be diminished and eliminated; if they are opportunities, they need to be purposely subordinated, conscripted and melded with the larger group. The intrinsic threat of a new group is it will siphon off members from the established ones. Power, money, prestige and influence moving en masse away from traditional groups is a powerful motivator. Our nation’s two party political-system is a perfect example of hardened constituencies. Labels- once adopted by individuals provide comfort but can induce a subtle intellectual laziness, diminish curiosity, and polarize the adopter. Fiscal cliffs, nuclear Armageddon, financial system instability and corruption, porous borders, the collapse of our public education system, endless wars on drugs, terrorism, polarized ineffective leadership…this is what we are greeted with each day. The future for our kin hangs in the balance; we cannot continue to do things the same way and expect different results. Better ideas are required to solve our problems. Agreeing on what hasn’t worked seems to be a good place to start. Thanks for joining me in the modern “public square” to make sense of all of this.

Groundhog Day

What does the second presidential debate of 2012 have to do with Groundhog Day? Certainly no comparison to Punxsutawney Phil emerging from winter hibernation in search of his shadow, instead- Bill Murray’s 1983 film-comedy about a guy destined to wake up each morning only to re-live the previous day in exact detail.

clock We are witness to the new normal in the age of endless election seasons punctuated with multi-media carpet-bombing. For you ice cream lovers, think 41 flavors. Each candidate has a flavor they know you’ll love, and with patience you can find it with your tiny spoon. Tell me you watched last night’s clash and thought to your self “wow- I didn’t know that”. Not likely. At this point we know each player’s dialogue so well we’re left looking only for “bloopers” or digression from the script.

A third debate…oh boy! In an alternate universe wouldn’t it be fantastic fun if the candidates were forced to make a bold departure from traditional debate sniping for the best & final rumble? I propose limiting remarks to personal achievement and plans, and waiving the tired ventriloquist routine. In this fantasy the moderator would be charged with invoking an automatic forfeiture of remaining time if any version of “my opponent a) believes, b) has said, c) has clearly demonstrated, d) doesn’t understand…” is uttered in response to a question.