In my Western Political Heritage class, we just got finished studying Machiavelli. One of Mach's theories is that to be a powerful ruler, aggression is crucial. With Machiavelli, he doesn't care whats right or good in the moral sense, but he considers any action right or good if it furthers a Prince's power and glory.
Anyway, our teacher, as an example of aggression that furthered a ruler's power, referenced Newt Gingrich's response to a question asked in the South Carolina Primary. The debate host asked Newt if he would like to comment on the fact that Newt's ex-wife interviewed with ABC that day, and said Newt asked her to have an open marriage while Gingrich himself was having relationships... ahem... on the side (at least that is what my professor said...).
Instead of answering like a man, Newt lashed out. He evaded a question about his personal values and convictions that is now firmly unsettling in my mind... and he evaded it in a angry and demeaning manner! Yikes.
Consider Dr Ron Paul. A good yardstick is one simple Yes or No question, "Do you believe in Torture?" (i.e.Waterboarding). If the answer is "Yes", discard that candidate, because they condone torture and align themselves with all the despotic dictators in this world.
ReplyDeleteAmen to all of this. It's scary the possibilities of who could run our country. YIKES!! Plus, he is just so not good looking.
ReplyDelete