A child’s curiosity and natural desire to learn are like a tiny flame, easily extinguished unless it’s protected and given fuel. This book will help you as a parent both protect that flame of curiosity and supply it with the fuel necessary to make it burn bright throughout your child’s life. Let’s ignite our children’s natural love of learning!
October 14th, 2008
Principle in Practice
A common way to disarm your opponent is to speak favorably of his stance on an issue you’re discussing. This softens the blow when you advance your own position by making your opponent think that you understand and generally agree with their position, but given the added insight or experience you may claim to have, you think that in a specific scenario the implemented policy should differ.
One recent example of this practice is when President Bush discussed the $700 billion bailout on television, in an attempt to convince the American people of the necessity of its implementation. Praising free market capitalism, he then advocated it be stabbed in the back:
I’m a strong believer in free enterprise, so my natural instinct is to oppose government intervention. I believe companies that make bad decisions should be allowed to go out of business.
Under normal circumstances, I would have followed this course. But these are not normal circumstances. The market is not functioning properly. There has been a widespread loss of confidence, and major sectors of America’s financial system are at risk of shutting down.
The government’s top economic experts warn that, without immediate action by Congress, America could slip into a financial panic and a distressing scenario would unfold. (George Bush, Sep. 24, 2008)
Note that those who claim to believe one thing, yet openly advocate the opposite, do not believe what they claim to. This is akin to claiming to believe in God, yet openly disavowing his existence; claiming to believe that children should obey their parents, yet not enforcing the rules you’ve set for your own children; claiming to believe that we should help the poor, yet refusing to donate time and money to do so.
Belief without corresponding action is nothing but empty rhetoric designed to flatter and deceive.
Thus did Jesus admonish us to look at people’s fruits—the byproduct of their beliefs. Those who divorce politics from principle favor a self-indulgent practicality that advances their own power or fortune.
Few individuals seem immune to the deceit, thus trusting their leaders when they argue that “this time is an exception”. Principled leaders, however, stand their ground regardless of the consequences. It’s not surprising, then, that scarcely any politicians truly put principle into practice.
13 Responses to “Principle in Practice”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Leave your opinion here. Please be nice. Your Email address will be kept private.
VERY well said. You’ve done it again. Thanks.
A. Men.
I wish more of America would wake up the the double-speak which our government leaders constantly use. However – just as you stated – their actions make their intentions perfectly clear. Why do so many voters forget this when our “public servants” campaign for office?
In reaction to the news about our government’s plan to buy shares in private banks, Hugo Chavez said yesterday, “Bush is to the left of me now”.
Are we being played for fools or does Bush really not understand what he’s doing to our country, as Chavez suggests?
Either way, yikes.
I agree with this. Free-market capitalists who argue that the market is not functioning properly when it fails to do what we expect or want it to do are not actually committed to the notion of a free market.
Of course, I don’t believe that free-market capitalism is the answer anyhoo.
In an excellent article published today, Accuracy in Media comments thusly on George Bush’s hypocrisy (and the complicity of both current presidential candidates):
Connor, you’re so out of touch here — don’t you know it’s just going to take time? (About 10 years, like the Great Depression.) 🙂
And today Bush is playing the same game,
“If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy”
He went on to say that “under normal circumstances” he would say that the auto industry gets what it deserves, but “in the midst of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action. The question is how we can best give it a chance to succeed.”
Why are these circumstances so un-normal?
Justin- that’s what I’ve been wondering too.
I believe in the free market, but only during times of economic growth and prosperity.
Just like:
I believe in no nation building, unless I see a dictator I don’t like.
From Bush’s announcement on the auto bailout:
I’m scratching my head over here, wondering where in the Constitution the federal government was given the charge to safeguard the economy.
And of course, we have this:
When are circumstances ever ordinary? Welcome to the real world, Mr. Bush.
And lest we wonder about why he’s doing it:
So whenever Congress doesn’t do what Bush wants, it’s his responsibility to do it himself. Lovely.
This from Dick Cheney:
Looks like Bush doesn’t mind laying his cards on the table now that he’s on his way out:
Ah, vindication.
My wife pointed me to this gem from Spencer W. Kimball:
Later in that talk he says the following:
How prophetic…