IDEALISM: THE SOUL OF AMERICA by Paul R. Lehto

[kpete]

IDEALISM: THE SOUL OF AMERICA

by Paul R Lehto, Attorney at Law
[e-mail]

Speaking at an Ohio State University commencement ceremony, President George W. Bush reminded graduating seniors that "idealism is needed in America." Walter Lippman defined it: "Ideals are an imaginative understanding of that which is desirable within that which is possible." Given America's idealism and its focus on imaginative possibilities, it follows that Americans of all parties are focused on an optimistic view of the future; things that are possible and desirable and thus constitute ideals are generally not contained in the present, but instead are realized in the future.


America is distinguished as the first country in the history of the world ever founded upon a cause or an ideal. Great Americans celebrate their own ideals, and American ideals. President Woodrow Wilson said "Sometimes people call me an idealist. Well, that is the way I know I am an American. … America is the only idealist nation in the world."


Americans are called to progressively achieve our ideals: Indeed, "the American," as President John F. Kennedy said, "builds best when called upon to build greatly." We started by building a great Declaration of Independence and Constitution, intended, as Founder Henry Clay put it, "for endless perpetual posterity."


This legal heritage of individual rights was not only considered a gift to perpetuity, it was consciously intended as a gift to the entire world. Ben Franklin observed it was not unusual but a "common observation here that our cause is the cause of mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in securing our own." Thomas Paine, the author of "Common Sense" and the most important American of that era according to both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, wrote confidently to the Colonists: "We have it in our power to begin the world anew." The ethical approach of the Founders extended not only to the present location and time, but was for the entire world and for all time, all of which was a fit subject for moral consideration.


Considering the highest of political moralities, President George H.W. Bush (Sr.) wrote: "I sometimes wonder if we've forgotten who we are. But we're the people who sundered a nation rather than allow a sin called slavery, and we're the people who rose from the ghettoes and the deserts." He also wrote: "America is never wholly herself unless she is engaged in high moral principle. We as a people have such a purpose today. It is to make kinder the face of the nation, and gentler the face of the world."


American ideals have always been geared towards the creation of a progressively more just society that increasingly serves We the People. Vice President Nelson Rockefeller said during the 1970s: "America is not just a power, it is a promise. It is not enough for our country to be extraordinary in might, it must be exemplary in meaning. Our honor and our role in the world finally depend on the living proof that we are a just society." President Woodrow Wilson: "Our greatness is built upon our freedom, it is moral, not material. We have a great ardor for gain, but we have a deep passion for the rights of man."


Concerning the rights of man or humanity, the Founders could think of their purpose in no other way. President John Adams asked incredulously: "If we do not lay out ourselves in the service of mankind, whom should we serve?" America was not a selfish project, it was an intervention in world history designed not only for freedom, but to rid the New World of European class system and aristocracy and the dangers of absolutism in all of its forms.


Absolutism, whether it is absolutism of power or absolutism of claims to truth, is defeated entirely by the concept of inalienable individual rights, set forth in our Declaration of Independence. Through these rights, the individual becomes a center of power, not just the government. The prohibitions in the Bill of Rights against the government taking sides via censorship, in favor of the freedom of the press, and the prohibition against government endorsements of ultimate religious truth via the separation of church and state, all of these are profoundly influenced by this nonabsolutist perspective: no one has a lock or a monopoly on truth; it is always better to keep the marketplace of ideas wide open, together with the various doors of religious worship.


The linkages of rights and American values form a perfect circle that reinforces over time and pushes America forward with continually reinforced idealism, whenever these principles are remembered:



1. First, governments are founded, wrote Thomas Jefferson, for the purpose of protecting (not granting) Individual Rights.



2. Protecting Individual Rights unleashes the energies and potentials of every Citizen, maximizing them.



3. The resulting supremacy of Individual Human Rights, as FDR observed, is the very definition of Freedom.



4. From the unleashed energies of Freedom of the citizens springs an inherent Idealism



5. Out of Idealism springs both a Future focus and the proverbial American Optimism



6. Out of a Future focus and American Optimism springs the inevitability of Change, usually for the better, which is Progress



7. With Progress, we are asked in each generation to enlarge the sphere of Individual Rights, via Progressivism. (if successful, repeat from Step 1, above).



The celebration and the future of this country is going to be wherever folks are arguing DEMOCRACY and FREEDOM and WE THE PEOPLE.
Just (1) Don't diss the idealism of America and (2) don't doubt it, either. Although ideals may never be realized fully, they are like guidestars, without ideals to reckon by, individuals and nations get lost.


If any President of the United States wants to accomplish something in our country, for better or for worse, he will invoke this power of American idealism:


"Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul." --George W. Bush, 2d Inaugural address.


So, Yes, I'm an Idealist, a believer in the power of American Ideals. Like the architect of the American Revolution Thomas Paine, who said " My country is the world, my religion is to do good " I'm sometimes a "do-gooder." These ideals for me, like President Woodrow Wilson, are "how I know that I'm an American."


Regarding those who just can't handle idealists and do-gooders, I quote the immortal Mr. T. from the A-Team: "Pity the Fool." Nevertheless, we're still hoping they can make it to the American Party, because there is still a power and a magic there that makes us remember where we came from, where we're going, and what direction to take to get back on track.


This magic is on behalf of all humanity, and it's for all time. It's power for human rights, which are then maximized to create Freedom, which in turn spawns Possibilities, leading to more Faith in the Future, breeding new Optimism, fueling the processes of Change, pushing toward historic Progress, and knowing no bounds, continually expanding the sphere of human rights, all of which is connected to the single force in the American soul that alone has the power to begin the world anew: Idealism.

[ninkasi]

1. I can not recommend this post strongly enough.

Kpete, you've done it again, by posting this incredible article. Land Shark, you are truly an inspiration. I wish I could give it more than my own recommendation.

[kpete]

3. Land Shark

has written a Masterpiece...

spread the word...kpete

[ninkasi]

6. It is, indeed, a masterpiece

I fully intend to share this with others. Giving it another kick. Kpete, :yourock: So do you, Land Shark.

[Land Shark]

8. Thanks ninkasi, for appreciating this piece

To me, it speaks well of what's inside your soul! Welcome to the party!

[Land Shark]

4. Thank you, you can give it a life on the internet if you like via email

permission to blog this or email it, with attribution, is hereby granted.

---Paul R Lehto (aka Land Shark)

[ninkasi]

5. Oh, thanks!

There are several family members who will want to read this, and will want to pass it on to others, as well. That was beautiful.

[Land Shark]

7. Just thought of this: Maybe it's a Thanksgiving piece, or a toast of sorts....

[kpete]

25. "We have it in our power to begin the world anew" Thomas Paine

I can feel possibilities and hope in this piece...

I look to your "guidestars" - I believe in the "magic"

Land Shark - YOU have "reinforced" my "idealism"

[Seabiscuit]

39. Thank you, Land Shark. It is now my "Thanksgiving piece."

Just another "idealist" chiming in. :)

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

-- George Washington, in a speech of January 7, 1790


"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1814


"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without a rebellion."
-Thomas Jefferson



"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759


"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it." -- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861


"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." -- H.L. Mencken


"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." -- John F. Kennedy

[ninkasi]

2. Once more...

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[galloglas]

9. K'n'R 5

[Swamp Rat]

10. k&r

[lonestarnot]

11. Another most excellent post tonight! Thank you!

[Wilms]

12. Well done, Paul.

You and Dave Berman make such simple sense of the Grand Experiment.

Thanks.

[rumpel]

13. Happy Thanksgiving, kpete & Land Shark

a beautiful piece

:)

[FogerRox]

36. I . second that motion, KnR

[Mythsaje]

14. As I myself have said...

America's greatest power is not in its force of arms, or its economic strength, but in what it has represented to the rest of the world.

And it is that which George W. Bush and his cabal has betrayed.

Kicked and recommended. (not like you need MY K&R for such an outstanding piece).

[GuvWurld]

15. Free Market Place of Ideas

Land Shark wrote: "...no one has a lock or a monopoly on truth; it is always better to keep the marketplace of ideas wide open..."

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/redlion.html

RED LION BROADCASTING CO., INC., ET AL. v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION ET AL.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
395 U.S. 367
June 9, 1969, Decided

"...It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee..."


Sabotage = the human nature tendency to make trouble for ourselves
Progress = the result that occurs when we stop making trouble for ourselves

Yin <> Yang

The most idealistic thing we can do is stick to and stand up for our principles. For most of us, this is harder than it should be. This OP is a good reminder to keep us focused.

[Land Shark]

18. thanks guv, some false alternatives out there in the marketplace too, eh? : )

[eridani]

16. Very, very good! n/t

[galloglas]

17. Two quotes, especially, strike me...

(Great, thoughtful essay, Paul!)



First, from George H.W. Bush,

"I sometimes wonder if we've forgotten who we are. But we're the people who sundered a nation rather than allow a sin called slavery, and we're the people who rose from the ghettoes and the deserts." He also wrote: "America is never wholly herself unless she is engaged in high moral principle. We as a people have such a purpose today. It is to make kinder the face of the nation, and gentler the face of the world."

This evoked a comparison I heard, earlier tonight, regarding the difference between George H. W. Bush and his eldest son, Dubya. It concerned the phrase "noblesse oblige". Though often used ironically, its translation (from the French)is "nobility obliges".

Its usage in American parlance, traditionally taught to students of history and government, is generally along the lines of "Those who are privileged are obliged, by duty, to use their privileged positions for the benefit of those less fortunate."

It is obvious from George, Sr.'s words that he, at the very least, understands that concept.

It may be equally obvious that, by any of the words that tumble from the mouth of the son, if he does perchance understand the meaning of the phrase, he not only does not believe the axiom, he must indeed ridicule it!


The second is, I believe, your own formulation?

Absolutism, whether it is absolutism of power or absolutism of claims to truth, is defeated entirely by the concept of inalienable individual rights, set forth in our Declaration of Independence. Through these rights, the individual becomes a center of power, not just the government.

It raises a more important question than the first. The first merely points out, better than most, the truth of Homer's words, "For rarely are sons similar to their fathers: most are worse, and a few are better than their fathers." In Dubya's case, far worse, IMHO.

Though the words you have written are undoubtedly true, they raise disturbing thoughts about our current state of affairs under this current President, that son "so not similar to his father". For you have quoted the Declaration of Independence (probably to Dubya, just another "Goddamned piece of paper") which points eloquently to our "inalienable rights". Those rights which "We the People" own, inalienably.

Yet the last sentence speaks of both government and the individual, referring to both as "centers of power". And rightly so.

Yet the power of the individual is rooted in those "inalienable rights". And all the while, we individuals travel through this dark period, marred by "free elections" and encroachment upon our Constitutional rights, by the very government which was formed to secure them.

Indeed, it seems that the government itself, as a center of power, moves toward absolutism by alienating from us those "inalienable rights" of ours. It assumes that, if our "inalienable rights" are seized, or granted in name but not in deed (as in granting a voting franchise while refusing to allow the vote to be counted), that the government will absolutely gather all powers unto itself. Even those rights granted to the citizenry, despite its inability to actually use them.

In so doing, the government acts as the dog in the manger. It cannot exercise those individual "inalienable rights", any more than the dog may eat the hay in the manger. Yet, laying in the manger, it prevents others from feeding there, as the government prevents the individuals access to their rights.

This seems absolutist, but also untenable.

How long will either the dog or the government persist at its selfish but, ultimately, fruitless task. The barn animals must either remove the dog or go elsewhere. And the individuals must either retrieve their "inalienable rights" or... affect some other change.

In the bipartite power structure in your quote, the absolute seizure of power by either party must ultimately result in the failure of the entire structure. Chaos and anarchy result, if all power is in the hands of individuals, tyranny, if all power is taken by the government.


It raises some questions, simply put.


Does the govermment own the people or do the people own the government?


Can a people survive without governance and can a government survive without people?


How hungry must the ox become before it gores the dog in the manger?


What becomes of a people, deprived of their inalienable rights?


Do they hunger?
Do they survive?
Do they retake, eventually, what is inalienably theirs, ?


And, if so, how do they do these things? And when???

[cascadiance]

23. Nicely said Paul... Thom Hartmann would applaud your words here!

You and he think a lot a like. I'm sure he'd love to talk to you on his show!

As noted here, the constitution emphasizes that we have inherent rights that don't need to be specified literally in it to be protected. When judges look at the constitution to guide their decisions, they should be looking at it to see if there are limits we've in effect agreed to (by it's languages), not permissions we're given by it through it's language. In other words, we've got rights to certain behaviors, etc. unless our constitution and body of laws expressly limit our rights.

We don't need government to give us permission to do things. Rather we've given the government the power to certain limits on our rights through our constitution "contract" that describes these limits. That was what was troubling about folks like certain recent judicial candidates for SCOTUS looking at the constitution as more of a "permissions" document that they would be inclined to rule against people's rights unless the constitution expressly supported them rather than looking for express limitations of citizen's behavior that would guide them in decisions and deferring to people's inalienable individual rights if the constitution doesn't expressly limit them.

We need more people in office with these principles in mind moving forward. Hopefully we have just put more of those people in office now and we can have truly a spirit-filled Thanksgiving holiday to celebrate this weekend with this in mind. Our first in a number of years where we can feel this way!

[Joe Chi Minh]

19. Great post, Paul. I found the last few sentences particularly

inspiring. It's no secret anywhere on the planet that your victory will in some measure be shared by all of us.

[IndyOp]

20. It's a very nice thought and Idealism can go very, very wrong...

I am extremely wary of the elite talking morality and of the people being transfixed by Ideals. When the "powerful" focus on Grand Ideals, they often do so to keep the public distracted from seeing what they are really doing.

The quote from G.H.W. Bush that you include makes me VERY angry because his words conflict dramatically with his actions -- this CIA member who has caused untold suffering around the world and ought to be profoundly ashamed, too ashamed to ever speak of a "gentler nation and gentler world". He is a damned LIAR.

The elite want the masses to have religion -- not just church, but Grand Ideals, that would PUFF THEM UP and keep them confused about the reality of what the leaders are doing, and what they as citizens are being called to do. "Blindspot" - a film with an extended interview of Hitler's secretary - includes a terribly memorable quote from a man who was a guard in a concentration camp and who steered people to their deaths in the gas chambers. The man was asked - "But didn't you feel pity for the people?" He replied, "Of course, but I had to steel myself against those feelings and do what was right to protect my nation." He had been brainwashed, along with millions of German Christians, into believing that if the Russians invaded Germany the Jews would rise up and fight with the Russians to kill the German Christians -- so, exterminating the Jews was simply pre-emptive self-defense.

Hitler talked a great Idealism game, too:

"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."

"There is a road to freedom. Its milestones are Obedience, Endeavor, Honesty, Order, Cleanliness, Sobriety, Truthfulness, Sacrifice, and love of country."

"What we have to fight for...is the freedom and independence of our nation, so that our people may be enabled to fulfill the mission assigned to it by the Creator."

"The Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."

"We must turn all the sentiments of the people, all its thinking, acting, even its beliefs, away from the anti-Christian, smug individualism of the past, from egotism and stupid personal arrogance, and we must educate the youth in particular in the spirit of those of Christ's words that we must interpret anew: love one another; be considerate of your fellow man..."

On Edit: Clarity of title.

[Land Shark]

27. that the Devil can cite scripture too is quite beside the point of what scripture really means

I was careful to mention that any president that wants to get something done will invoke the idealism -- because of its power -- and sure, anything powerful can also be misused. You are correct. But I think your caution may prevent some from fully realizing the proper use of idealism in our heritage. Or, at least I fear so. Hope you do not mind me pointing that out in response to your post here.

[annabanana]

21. An excellent reminder

of why we should give Thanks this Thanksgiving. We live in a country where idealism is codified. Now lets get out there and protect our heritage!

[kpete]

26. A TRUE American Value

Idealism

[H2O Man]

22. Very good!

Nominated.

[GeorgeGist]

24. Given the disgraceful means ...

by which it came to be -- theft, deceit, genocide, enslavement, chauvinism, manifest destiny etc, etc, etc -- it's difficult to see American idealism beginning the world anew.

[elehhhhna]

28. Democracy: We'll fight for it over HERE, so we can stop Fake-fighting for it

over THERE.

Everyone is looking for a leader.

Leading by example works best.

Therefore...

[grizmaster]

29. Ever read Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration?

He wanted to go considerably further in putting idealism in the foundation of our country. His original draft called for the abolishment of slavery for one thing.

We could have been spared the Civil War if there weren't those saying he was being too "idealistic".

I had done a couple posts on the subject about a week ago for those wanting to poke into what Jefferson intended.

the first is on the original draft

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2729021#2732392

The second is on what is called the "SUMMARY VIEW OF THE RIGHTS OF BRITISH AMERICA" which Jefferson wrote and was the main reason he was chosen to write the Declaration.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2734156

[Land Shark]

30. Thanks for these links grizmaster!

[grizmaster]

31. Jefferson was an amazing writer

another bit from the "summary" on the subject of slavery

(btw- the last link at the bottom of the summary has a great examination of the logic of Jefferson's writing)

"For the most trifling reasons, and sometimes for no conceivable reason at all, his majesty has rejected laws of the most salutary tendency. The abolition of domestic slavery is the great object of desire in those colonies, where it was unhappily introduced in their infant state. But previous to the enfranchisement of the slaves we have, it is necessary to exclude all further importations from Africa; yet our repeated attempts to effect this by prohibitions, and by imposing duties which might amount to a prohibition, have been hitherto defeated by his majesty's negative: Thus preferring the immediate advantages of a few African corsairs to the lasting interests of the American states, and to the rights of human nature, deeply wounded by this infamous practice."

[stellanoir]

32. woh

In perusing this stunning treatise which echos and reinforces our inherently and ultimately inalienable hope and idealism, I was reminded of several things:

From an early text:

"As honest Abe once quilled so succinctly. . .

"The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country."

I rather presumptuously further amend, . . . "and surely, our planet in it's entirety."

"For some strange reason, I spent a good deal of time on July 4, 2003
rereading and amending the Declaration of Independence

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document

for our then circumstances.

I dissected it line by line and it amazed me how similarly the complaints of the Colonists against King George, paralleled almost identically the gripes of all progressives about the unenlightenly stubborn and most incurious George Dubious. Perhaps I'll post that amended version for upcoming 231 anniversary of it's signing.

Though scholars have told me that all signatures did not appear on that particular piece of parchment until late August of 1776. I guess horseback was slightly slower than e-mail. We were still at war though. Another historian clarified that July 4th and the Declaration is the date of our statement of intent of our eventual separation from the crown. Other scholars have insisted that our nation was really formed on November 15, 1777, when the Articles of Confederation were signed. That perspective always made a tremendous amount of sense to me. Our behavior has certainly been more Scorpionic than Cancerian IMHO."

Our national credo has only been the shared hope and belief that life would improve over time. That would be until the last 6 years of fear and smear of course.

The piece also reminded me of the lyric. . .one of my all time faves. . .

"The thought that life can be better is woven indellibly into our hearts. . .and our brains. . . "

"Train in the Distance"-Paul Simon

Thanks Land Shark and kpete for all you both do and contribute.

R'd earlier and finally kickin'

Great work as always,

[Land Shark]

33. I'll check out that last link too, thanks

[NVMojo]

34. K&R and bookmarking to send on to as many as I know!

Paul Lehto is great! Thanks for all you do for us!

[Land Shark]

35. thanks so much NVMojo, and thanks for sending it on...

you can include a msg saying the author is ok with forwarding via email, blogging, etc., with attribution

[Ellipsis]

37. kick

[Martin Eden]

38. IDEALISM must be tempered by REALISM

Without IDEALISM we are a ship without a rudder.
Without REALISM we cannot navigate the course we set.

I have a few problems with Lehto's essay. His Wilsonianism isn't a far cry from the idealistic component of the neoconservatism that led to our intervention in Iraq. He quotes GW Bush, without a caution that idealism can be employed as a rationale for the worst kind of folly. Consider that context with this passage from Lehto:

This legal heritage of individual rights was not only considered a gift to perpetuity, it was consciously intended as a gift to the entire world. Ben Franklin observed it was not unusual but a "common observation here that our cause is the cause of mankind, and that we are fighting for their liberty in securing our own." Thomas Paine, the author of "Common Sense" and the most important American of that era according to both Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, wrote confidently to the Colonists: "We have it in our power to begin the world anew." The ethical approach of the Founders extended not only to the present location and time, but was for the entire world and for all time, all of which was a fit subject for moral consideration.

Considering the highest of political moralities, President George H.W. Bush (Sr.) wrote: "I sometimes wonder if we've forgotten who we are. But we're the people who sundered a nation rather than allow a sin called slavery, and we're the people who rose from the ghettoes and the deserts." He also wrote: "America is never wholly herself unless she is engaged in high moral principle. We as a people have such a purpose today. It is to make kinder the face of the nation, and gentler the face of the world."

Those are fine ideals indeed. But I would have been reassured if Lehto included this quote from John Quincy Adams regarding American ideals:

But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.

She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.

To be sure, the neoconservative agenda is not driven by our highest ideals. The idealistic rhetoric spouted by GW Bush was a cloak for the venality and power lust behind the intervention in Iraq. However, American neoconservatism has an ingredient of Wilsonian ambition that calls for a proactive approach to spreading American ideals. In the wake of the cold war, neoconservatives saw a historical opportunity for the United States as the world's only superpower to forcibly bring about change in the Middle East that otherwise would not occur. They viewed our political/economic system as "the single sustainable model for national success" and believed in the efficacy of military power for spreading it. Of course, the reality is more akin to neo-imperalism than idealism. And while they considered themselves to be end-justifies-the-means hard-headed realists, their ideology blinded them to reality. Even if you ascribe zero idealistic motivation to any aspect of neoconservatism, they nevertheless employed American idealism (and some of what Lehto expressed) to bolster their public rationale.

Absolutism, whether it is absolutism of power or absolutism of claims to truth, is defeated entirely by the concept of inalienable individual rights, set forth in our Declaration of Independence. Through these rights, the individual becomes a center of power, not just the government. The prohibitions in the Bill of Rights against the government taking sides via censorship, in favor of the freedom of the press, and the prohibition against government endorsements of ultimate religious truth via the separation of church and state, all of these are profoundly influenced by this nonabsolutist perspective: no one has a lock or a monopoly on truth; it is always better to keep the marketplace of ideas wide open, together with the various doors of religious worship.

I agree, but at the same time the certainty in which the above ideas are expressed has an absolutism about it. Is it for us to say that "religious truth" should never be the foundation for any other government in a foreign society fundamentally different from our own? Might a nation, exercising their inalienable rights through democracy, choose religion as an integral component of their constitution? That would never be my choice, but WE cannot rule it out as theirs.

I really didn't mean to rain on anybody's parade regarding Lehto's essay. I'm an idealist myself and I agree wholeheartedly with the meaning of his ideas. It's just that taken as a whole, untempered by cautions to realism, there is a little bit too much of the crusading spirit that I have recently seen employed by those we most vehemently oppose.

[grizmaster]

40. kicking just cuz it's so damn good

well thought reminder of the importance of ideals