Decent leaders will say "here is a tradeoff - if we want lower taxes, we need to put up with more potholes." And those decisions can be debated by people of good will, on their practical and philosophical terms. And those are the kinds of decisions we need our government to make.
Decent leaders will say "here is a tradeoff - if we want lower taxes, we need to put up with more potholes." And those decisions can be debated by people of good will, on their practical and philosophical terms. And those are the kinds of decisions we need our government to make.
What Abbott did has nothing to do with that. It was pure political grandstanding on the backs of his own constituents. There's no tradeoff involved. For Abbott, it was tails I win, heads you lose.
The problem is that there are some people who want what Abbott did. They want a negative objective outcome for the sake of some emotional salve. This is self-destructive behavior, and any normal person who does this would be met by their friends and family in an intervention. How do you stage an intervention for a political party?
Important to note that Abbot and DeSantis aren't looking for "emotional salve", nor are they culture warriors. They are just warriors seeking to replace the state with themselves.
George Marshall was a warrior and a statesman. So was Ghengis Khan -- warrior and tyrant. Warriors are not necessarily inclined to be tyrants, and certainly not all tyrants are warriors. Is Eddie Gallagher, of Trump Pardon fame, or William Calley warriors?
"Warrior" is an troublesome concept, much muddled, the kind of word we use thoughtlessly as if it had a clear meaning. But when we take a closer look at the gamut of circumstances in in which we variously use it, "warrior" turns out to be anything but clear. Like "hero". Like "Justice". Like "Honor".
What probably we both want to mean by "warrior" would be
Re: the willingness to do harm.
Decent leaders will say "here is a tradeoff - if we want lower taxes, we need to put up with more potholes." And those decisions can be debated by people of good will, on their practical and philosophical terms. And those are the kinds of decisions we need our government to make.
What Abbott did has nothing to do with that. It was pure political grandstanding on the backs of his own constituents. There's no tradeoff involved. For Abbott, it was tails I win, heads you lose.
The problem is that there are some people who want what Abbott did. They want a negative objective outcome for the sake of some emotional salve. This is self-destructive behavior, and any normal person who does this would be met by their friends and family in an intervention. How do you stage an intervention for a political party?
Important to note that Abbot and DeSantis aren't looking for "emotional salve", nor are they culture warriors. They are just warriors seeking to replace the state with themselves.
George Marshall was a warrior and a statesman. So was Ghengis Khan -- warrior and tyrant. Warriors are not necessarily inclined to be tyrants, and certainly not all tyrants are warriors. Is Eddie Gallagher, of Trump Pardon fame, or William Calley warriors?
"Warrior" is an troublesome concept, much muddled, the kind of word we use thoughtlessly as if it had a clear meaning. But when we take a closer look at the gamut of circumstances in in which we variously use it, "warrior" turns out to be anything but clear. Like "hero". Like "Justice". Like "Honor".
What probably we both want to mean by "warrior" would be
A KNYGHT ... and that a worthy man,
That fro the tyme that he first bigan
To riden out, he loved chivalrie,
Trouthe and honour, fredom and curteisie.
Ful worthy was he in his lordes werre,
And therto hadde he riden, no man ferre,
As wel in cristendom as in hethenesse,
And evere honoured for his worthynesse.
There has always been a shortage of these.