■음양의 조화, 좌우의 조화를 거부하는 자는 탄핵(彈劾)되어야

[석수]

음양의 조화, 좌우의 조화를 거부하는 자는 탄핵되어야 한다

좌파 우파는 음양의 관계에 있다

이 둘은 서로 싸우는 게 아니라 서로 협력하고 도와야 한다

사람 몸은 본래 좌우대칭으로 합해져 만들어졌다

따라서 한 쪽을 거부하는 것은 병신을 자초하는 짓이다

거부하여야 할 자는 인권민주주의를 거부하는 자들이다

남한의 극우파는 민주화되어야 한다

극좌파인 북한은 독재파이므로 사실상 좌파라고 할 수 없다.

남한의 좌우파는 북한 독재파에 철저히 대비해야 한다

음이 양보다 더 먼저 시작되었고 더 중요해

일적이음립 십거이양작




Is it possible to reconcile the left and the right?

좌파와 우파를 조화시키는 것은 가능할까?


그렇습니다. 차이가 "혈통과 철", 즉 부족 간의 차이가 아니라 정책 간의 차이인 한 말입니다.

좌파와 우파 모두 제도주의자일 때 협력할 수 있다. 길고 딱딱하고 흔하지 않은 단어다. 제3세계를 여행하는 사람들이 곧 알게 되듯이, 이는 미국적 사고방식의 핵심이기도 하다.

제도주의자들은 우리 국가의 제도를 강화하는 데 동의할 수 있습니다. 즉, 민주주의가 공평한 경쟁의 장에서 운영되고, 모든 사람이 동일한 규칙을 따르며, 부패한 정치인이 단지 당신 편이라는 이유만으로 그들을 용납하지 않도록 보장하는 것입니다. 같은 부족 출신이라 하더라도 부족에 대한 충성심을 내세우는 사람들도 마찬가지입니다.

제도주의자들은 비당파적 선거구 재조정과 같은 구체적인 조치에 동의할 수 있다. 정치인이 직접 출마한 선거를 감독하도록 하여 선거가 죄악처럼 보이지 않도록 보장하는 것, 다수의 의지와 소수의 권리를 존중하는 것 등이 있다.

제도주의자의 적은 부족주의, 선동 정치, 뇌물 수수, 유권자보다 대규모 기부자에게 더 흔들리는 것, 다수결주의, 비열하게 이기는 것에 안주하는 것입니다.

불행히도 지금 공화당은 열성적인 추종자들의 최악이고 가장 부족적인 충동을 자극하고, 사기극을 통해 권력을 유지함으로써 지배력을 유지하고 있습니다. 그리고 많은 공화당 유권자들은 그것에 전혀 개의치 않습니다.

지금 몇몇 주에서는 민주당 주지사와 다른 주 공무원들이 취임하려 하고 있고, 주 의회는 조작 선거구와 유권자 억압(그리고 어떤 경우에는 노골적인 투표 도용)을 통해 공화당을 고수하고 있습니다. 공화당 의회는 새 민주당 주지사/검찰총장 등의 권한 대부분을 박탈하고 그 권한을 주 의회에 주는 법안을 강행 처리하고 있습니다.

전술적으로는 효과가 있을지 몰라도 소문자 d 민주주의에는 독이 됩니다. 더 나은 세상이라면, 그 주의 공화당 유권자들은 이 일에 공모한 모든 공화당 의원들을 소환할 겁니다. 노골적인 권력 장악은 부족들이 하는 짓이지, 제도주의자들이 하는 짓이 아닙니다.

모든 공화당과 민주당 유권자는 깨끗한 선거와 초당파적 선거구 획정을 요구하는 데 힘을 합쳐야 합니다. 그러지 않는 사람들은 민주주의를 원하지 않는 것입니다.

Is it possible to reconcile the left and the right?


There has to be a big goal or existential crisis that brings us together for something bigger than either of the parties.

In the 1930s the Republicans were as intransigent as they are now, intent on destroying the nation through return to the Classical economic system that got us into the Depression; they were isolationists; the did not want to spend any money on Defense; they were unwilling to help Allies overseas; they wanted small government. They hated FDR. However, World War 2 shook the nation to the core and brought everyone to work together to fight a bigger enemy, a common cause - the Germans. Once they got into the habit, the same sense of fighting something bigger, Communism, took hold as well. Everyone had to fight the commies and the more we did, the closer we got. Then it was the Moon Program. Here, being American and able to put a man on the moon AND beat the Communists at the same time was MUCH better than being a “Republican” or a “Democrat”.

Now, America is divided. We have lost our sense of purpose. We feel the American dream is going away; we don’t see a better tomorrow so we look to a mythical better yesterday. Perhaps “Making America Great” isn’t about a time - it’s about a feeling, when we always knew there were better things on the horizon. But now, it means believing the pie is only so big and that to make sure White Men get theirs, someone else has to lose their. Instead, we have to know that everyone can get more, not just this or that group.

Others have talked about changing voting rules or laws, and those things would be nice - proportional districts as specified by the Constitution should be computer generated, not done by partisans; everyone should be registered to vote and only an “opt out” should be allowed; illegal immigration should be fought vigorously (but by ethical, effective and legal means, not by building K-Mart concentration camps, ripping children from families or building walls that don’t work). But those things don’t heal divides, they only intensify them.

Up until the time of Gingrich there were Congressional Golf Outings and dinners and boondoggles where Republicans and Democrats were required to play together and by doing so they saw each other as people. Gingrich killed most of that - he wanted there to be division. People fight harder when they hate. But when the parties ate together, golfed together and did things together they came together as friends external to the party.

But the big things are national goals, major national goals. The Republicans have tried and failed to make the Iraqis and the Muslims the big “Hitlers” of our time, but people have become too savvy. They realize that this is not true. We need bigger enemies and the Russians, who truly are the enemy of mankind, would serve that purpose again. But even not having that we need major projects.

The first is a manned mission to Mars. Who cares if it’s needed? Who cares if it’s scientifically valid or valuable? Being the country to put a man on Mars would bring back national, not party, pride. And it would be good for the economy. Franky, I don’t even care if people die in the attempt as long as it’s hard, focused and a media circus so that people are always looking at that program. We NEED a big national goal and Americans are competitive. “Letting” someone else to Mars first would be a big national failure and hurt us more and divide us more.

We also need a massive infrastructure program along the lines of the Interstate Highway Act. That program would be the implementation of moving water from the Great White (soon to be brown) North to the US for irrigation. A national program of this scale would serve many, many purposes. It would help water the parched soil; it would employ millions; it would make the Midwest livably viable again; it would protect our crop-growing abilities. It would protect communities along the Mississippi from flooding, as part of the program would be about flood control. It would use all kinds of American made steel and concrete and trucks, something that would spur American jobs and prides in a way that a concentration camp wall along the border would not.

The way to heal the political divide is by providing something that benefits both parties and creates unity. That something has to be bigger than anything either party can do on its own, or bigger than the racism of the right and the pandering of the left.

Once, Tip O’Neill, who had served in Congress longer than anyone else in the 1990s, was asked how good or bad Congress is now compared to the 1950s or 1940s. He said the Congress of today is far more ethical and honest than it ever has been. He also said it was far less effective today. In those days, when Congressmen were raging drunks, fist-fighting in the aisles and taking bribes from the windows of their Cadillacs while some floozy was blowing them, they were still able to come together for the common good from time to time - not just for the party’s good.