Parallels between USA now and Late Roman Republic

[Doug H]

This is one for the history buffs out there.

I've given much thought to US conduct in the War on Terror and something borderline worrisome. Tell me if I'm off my rocker.

There seems to be several parallels between the USA now and Roman Republic in the last two centuries BC.

1) US and Rome were the preeminate military powers of their day.
After the fall of Carthage in the 3rd Punic War, Rome was THE military power in the Mediterranean. On her borders, only the Parthian Empire could match Rome, and they often fought to a standstill.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War, the US was the only superpower in the world. On their own, the best the Chinese and the Russians could do is hold us, they couldn't take us.

2) Military expansion propelled by fear of safety at home.
Rome's expansion outside the Italian peninsula began when Carthage began building colonies in Spain. A particular Roman Senator is reported as ending every speech to the Senate, irregardless of actual subject, with the Latin equivalent of "Carthage must be destroyed." After that, the modus operandi was to get any potential threats as far away from Rome as geographically possible.
US policy since 9/11 has been to not let them come to us, but to go after them. 9/11 must not happen again. We're going to chase these people into their caves, and then methodically pry them out. And we won't be happy until we have. Any government that shows any schmidgen of support is on a "watch your step" list.

3) Finding themselves up against a threat they can contain, but not conquer.
For Rome, this was coming into contact with the Germanic peoples for the first time during the reign of Octavian Augustus. It took 4 centuries but Germanic Goths would eventually put the final nail in the coffin of the Western Roman Empire. They sacked Rome because Constantinople bought them off.
For the US, the rise of Middle Eastern terrorist groups during the Arab-Israeli conflict has posed the only credible threat to US homeland security since the collapse of the Soviet Union. While I doubt that US soceity will collapse because of them, they are causing a major overhaul of our law enforcement, intelligience gathering, and judicial procedures. The military also finds itself in a pseudo-police role that they're trying to adjust to.

4) Internal politics are rife with divisive rhetoric over almost any and all issues, with the loudest participants primarily interested in increasing their personal power.
In Rome, assassination became a major tool of political advancement. Also, political power plays for political gain ranged all issues, and even effected war policies. Read about the wars with Jugurtha of Numidia.
In the US, while a politician is probably physically safe from his rivals, the media is more than willing to question anyone's character and motives, and often with slimmest of evidence. Also, attempts to polarize an issue in the court of public opinion are common, so that one can be one side of an issue while placing your opponent on the other. Even decisions about going to war and the conduct of the war are matters for public debate and political bickering.

I doubt the situation is alarming, but I'm sure the Roman citizenry didn't think so while Augustus was Emperor. There does, however, seem to be an opportunity to learn from history. And knowledge of history is something that American's have a reputation for short-shrifting themselves on.

Doug H.

[Doug H]

This is one for the history buffs out there.

I've given much thought to US conduct in the War on Terror and something borderline worrisome. Tell me if I'm off my rocker.

There seems to be several parallels between the USA now and Roman Republic in the last two centuries BC.

1) US and Rome were the preeminate military powers of their day.
After the fall of Carthage in the 3rd Punic War, Rome was THE military power in the Mediterranean. On her borders, only the Parthian Empire could match Rome, and they often fought to a standstill.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War, the US was the only superpower in the world. On their own, the best the Chinese and the Russians could do is hold us, they couldn't take us.

2) Military expansion propelled by fear of safety at home.
Rome's expansion outside the Italian peninsula began when Carthage began building colonies in Spain. A particular Roman Senator is reported as ending every speech to the Senate, irregardless of actual subject, with the Latin equivalent of "Carthage must be destroyed." After that, the modus operandi was to get any potential threats as far away from Rome as geographically possible.
US policy since 9/11 has been to not let them come to us, but to go after them. 9/11 must not happen again. We're going to chase these people into their caves, and then methodically pry them out. And we won't be happy until we have. Any government that shows any schmidgen of support is on a "watch your step" list.

3) Finding themselves up against a threat they can contain, but not conquer.
For Rome, this was coming into contact with the Germanic peoples for the first time during the reign of Octavian Augustus. It took 4 centuries but Germanic Goths would eventually put the final nail in the coffin of the Western Roman Empire. They sacked Rome because Constantinople bought them off.
For the US, the rise of Middle Eastern terrorist groups during the Arab-Israeli conflict has posed the only credible threat to US homeland security since the collapse of the Soviet Union. While I doubt that US soceity will collapse because of them, they are causing a major overhaul of our law enforcement, intelligience gathering, and judicial procedures. The military also finds itself in a pseudo-police role that they're trying to adjust to.

4) Internal politics are rife with divisive rhetoric over almost any and all issues, with the loudest participants primarily interested in increasing their personal power.
In Rome, assassination became a major tool of political advancement. Also, political power plays for political gain ranged all issues, and even effected war policies. Read about the wars with Jugurtha of Numidia.
In the US, while a politician is probably physically safe from his rivals, the media is more than willing to question anyone's character and motives, and often with slimmest of evidence. Also, attempts to polarize an issue in the court of public opinion are common, so that one can be one side of an issue while placing your opponent on the other. Even decisions about going to war and the conduct of the war are matters for public debate and political bickering.

I doubt the situation is alarming, but I'm sure the Roman citizenry didn't think so while Augustus was Emperor. There does, however, seem to be an opportunity to learn from history. And knowledge of history is something that American's have a reputation for short-shrifting themselves on.

Doug H.

[Prometheus]

I would be interested in reading what course corrections you would recommend to avoid the decline of western society.

One thing to remember is that Rome got rich by taking things from their conquests rather than through their own innovations. In effect, they were using the surrounding countries as raw material, which was fairly typical at the time. Once the Roman army came into conflict with the Germanic tribes, they reached the limits of their expansion and the empire began to decline from lack of new resources.

Also, the heavy taxes levied by the Roman government on the rural farmers led many people to move into Rome itself, and the society became top-heavy.

I don't think the US has yet had a MAJOR problem with either of the issues I have just mentioned. Should we keep an eye on the "wars for oil" and our immigration policies? Perhaps, but not if it means becoming isolationist. Look at the two World Wars to see how poorly US isolationism worked.

[Doug H]

Media sensationalism and political backbiting go hand in hand. Controversy sells newspapers and polarized political issues get people to the voting booth.

If someone could find a valid economic way to discourage this news-as-shock-as-enterntainment rut that mainstream news has become, I'd be interested in hearing it. We don't want the government doing this, that would be censorship. The media has little incentive to (and even economic encouragement not to) do this themselves.

That would limit the media-based character assassination that our politicians seemingly love to indulge in (with personal gain, and nothing else, in mind) As for the politics of polarization, I don't know. We've had two Presidents in the last 30 years who were more interested in generating and building consensus on issues that on making grand ideological stands. They both got raked over the coals by the media and their political colleagues because they were seen as being unwilling to stand for anything. Maybe if we got the sensationalism in the media down to a dull roar maybe soceity would begin to see value in moderation in the political realm again.

On the subject of resources, American industry is in the process, much to the chagrin of the great trade unions, of switching from a manufacturing, which requires raw materials to a service sector orientation. Software development, business sector consultation, and other job sectors which are human dependent. And when it comes to technological innovation and high level education, the US is still the leader. Unlike the Romans, the US is willing to TRADE for what it wants. The US is both the world's largest importer and the world's largest exporter of goods and services. So I don't think we have much to worry about on that score.

As for the expanding our interests so thin that we overstretch our military. THAT is worrisome. I support current policy, but am concerned about how far it might go. This has been a problem for every empire the world has known since the dawn of time.

Doug H.

[tarsus]

i may have missed it so if someone already said this; sorry.
one thing the romans did was make wine in lead pots, they loved their wine. cladius was stupid it seems,caguligla [spelled wrong,but you try it!]was a total mad man,who had sex with his sister and later killed her. nero was crazy,as was most rulers in the day. makes you wonder what some of our leaders are cooking in.

[NudeAl]

Well we may not have an empire as it was defined then but we certainly have scattered our military around the far flung reaches of the world. This is after we have down sized the military to reap some sort of tax rebate after winning the cold war.

Another similarity is that with in our military it is largely made up of the poor and the minorities matching the trend in the late Roman empire when it no longer became fashionable to have done military service. The effect was that these folks had less to loose if the worst should happen and the empire was to fall. Not as much incentive to fight hard when it is only lousy wages and not very much respect you are fighting for.

[Doug H]

There are those who wondered if the US military, after being embarrassed in Vietnam, would overthrow the government in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal. I was a military brat and I can tell you first hand that military morale in the 70's was low. The fiascos in Iran and Lebanon didn't do much to help.

One difference in the US military now and the Roman military then is the level of dependence on conquered peoples to fill the ranks. There were Slavs, Germans, Celts, Africans, Middle Easterners, Greeks, and Anatolians in the Late Roman armies. These people really didn't consider themselves to be Roman. Subjects of the Emperor, yes. Roman, no. Soldiers in Late Rome were dependent on their officers for their pay and supplies as the central government eventually had trouble funding them. This helped move the soldiers' allegience to their officers and away from the government. Scenario ripe for military takeovers, and Rome had her share of those.

Yes, the US military now is a very ethnically and racially diverse organization. That said, I have little doubt that members of these diverse groups consider themselves Americans first and something else second. The Federal government is still finding ways to keep the flow of pay and supplies to the troops. This keeps some loyalty to the government amongst the troops. We're hardly to Caesar and the Wars of the Triumvirate stage yet.

But what happens when the ratio of Vietnams to Desert Storms starts tilting the wrong way? What if nothing is done to reduce the national debt and funding for the military dries up, but this level of overseas commitment continues? What happens when media sensationalism and personal political powerplaying rise to an even higher level than now? Something to ponder...

Doug H.

[Jochanaan]

I too have been interested in the similarities between the Roman and American empires. But there seems to be one crucial difference: Independent multinational corporations. You never hear of business interests dominating the Roman Empire (please correct me if I'm wrong, Roman historians) like they have for so long in the US. It was President Coolidge, I believe, who stated: "The business of America is business." What has changed since?

This latest war in the Middle East was just as much to secure our oil supply as to get rid of a tyrant. If not, why haven't we invaded North Korea? Kim Jong-Il is even more dangerous than Saddam Hussein was, but NK doesn't have oil or any other natural resource in quantity. (And if we did invade NK, they'd probably nuke Tokyo! /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif )

Maybe we should look not just at US politics, but at US businesses and their politics, to find out just how much they resemble the Roman Empire.

[David77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
You never hear of business interests dominating the Roman Empire. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm no historian, but it is my understanding that there was commerce among the surrounding dominated regions, but that the main objective of Rome was to dominate the outer regions to exploit them; mainly in taxes in one form or another: the "spoils system" at work.

Thus the Roman citizen would not have to work but could live a "grand life" of "bread and circuses" so to speak. Of course, this would require a strong armed forces for security and to implement government exploitation.

I do not think that the USA went to war with Iraq to exploit Iraq's oil, but was a response to our security being greatly threatened after attacks on the World Trade Towers in New York City, and attack on the Pentigon (behind the White House) attacks on embassies, etc.

Our collective national fear and our survival was our motive, and will be our motive in the forseeable future.

[Kenny G]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David77:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jochanaan:
[qb]


Our collective national fear and our survival was our motive, and will be our motive in the forseeable future. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Let's hope you're right, for those who don't learn from the mistakes in history are doomed to repeat them!

[Doug H]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jochanaan:
But there seems to be one crucial difference: Independent multinational corporations. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I think you've hit on something. Something scary. Because the people who run them are subject to no one but their shareholders. It's considered standard business practice to move the business to where the laws are in your favor. (And that's legit. The only way to solve that is make globally standard laws. Fat chance in this millenium.) Also, individual corporations have been known to flout the law when they thought they could get away with it. (That's bad)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It was President Coolidge, I believe, who stated: "The business of America is business." What has changed since? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It was the laissez-faire policies of his administration that allowed Wall Street to become like a gambling house and setup the Crash of 1929. Add that to a big bank vs. small bank mentality at the Federal Reserve and you have the worst economic downturn in the nation's history.

As for the War in Iraq, I don't think it was the motive for going to war, but that has never prevented Big Oil from taking advantage of an opportunity to elbow their way in.

As for North Korea, I think we are able to bring more effective pressure on them, notably China. Many of whose people would be without jobs if they wanted to isolate themselves again. Yes, Kim Jong-Il himself is worrisome. But his neighbors like us better than Saddam Hussein's do.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Maybe we should look not just at US politics, but at US businesses and their politics, to find out just how much they resemble the Roman Empire. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That would make an interesting research paper. Any college history majors out there?

I do agree that better regulation of international corporations is necessary. I also don't think there is an international organization in existence right now that can.

Doug H.

[tarsus]

think about this.
look at just about anything you own shoes, t.v's
tools, and yes computers;it seems nothing is made
in america any more;well i did just buy a post hole digger made in america [south america].
most of everything we own comes from china,korea,japan etc.i do not own anything made in iran or iraq. a great many things come from pakistan and india. all but one have one thing in common,and we are under treaty to protect it i belive. always pick on someone you can beat up.
yes they hit below the belt; but how many die in autos,drugs,bad medical care and a host of other things every year? and do not get me wrong if i lived in most of the above mentioned places i would be imprisoned or killed out right for speaking my mind. the u.s.a. is still the best place on earth to live.

[Doug H]

The reason manufacturing that used to be done in the US is moving overseas is that the required labor is available significantly cheaper elsewhere. That's why you need a college degree or professional certification to make a decent living here. Without it, you flip hamburgers or mop floors for minimum wage. Most of the low-skill, living-wage jobs have disappearred here.

Before anyone gets started on the "corporate greed" thing, (and yes, it is getting out of hand, I agree) corporate America, operating profitably and trading globally, is the reason the US is so affluent.

The great colonial empires that collapsed after WW2 have been replaced by international corporate empires. I just hope the international political and legal systems can catch up to a point where they can effectively regulate the current global business situation.

Doug H.

[Doug H]

That, I think, finally points to why the USA can become a convenient symbol of the dark side of globalization. Most of these multinational corporations are headquartered in the US. And some of the corporations probably are conducting their operations in a shady and/or exploitive manner. To someone under- or mis-educated on the reality, separating the policy of an American corporation from the policy of the American government would be understandably difficult.

Another reason to push for a more effective international regulatory climate.

Doug H.

[threadbare]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug H:
The reason manufacturing that used to be done in the US is moving overseas is that the required labor is available significantly cheaper elsewhere. That's why you need a college degree or professional certification to make a decent living here. Without it, you flip hamburgers or mop floors for minimum wage. Most of the low-skill, living-wage jobs have disappearred here.
Doug H. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And the reason for this is(I'll probably catch a rash of sh*t for this) labor unions. Don't get me wrong, when unions were first formed they were a good thing. Back then the man leading the union actually worked on the line with others. Now, all who are in the union are working hard, getting overpaid, and the head of the union sits in an office, doesn't do a damn thing and makes 6-figures.
For instance, at the GM parts warehouse not far from me, a friend of mine worked part-time during college ( this was in '82 ), sat on a stool, took one part off a conveyer, put in a box and put it back on the conveyer------ he made $15.50/hr. The only union job where I've seen a man get paid what he was worth was a friend uncle, he made $92.00/hr-----he hung on a rope and welded watertowers together.
Everyone deserves the right to EARN a living.

I better quit, I could go on!

[missouriboy]

And more than just labor has driven our factories offshore... excessive government regulation has also played a significant part. The EPA, OSHA, EEOC, and ADA, just to name four, are now a crushing burden on business, as well as labor union demands. I'm not saying their original goals were bad things, just that the pendulum has now swung so far against American business that it has been literally driven out of the country by the excesses.

Oh, and I almost forgot... the sue-happy tort lawyers who wring obscenely excessive damage awards out of stupid, unthinking juries. ONLY in America!

[Jochanaan]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug H:
The reason manufacturing that used to be done in the US is moving overseas is that the required labor is available significantly cheaper elsewhere. That's why you need a college degree or professional certification to make a decent living here. Without it, you flip hamburgers or mop floors for minimum wage. Most of the low-skill, living-wage jobs have disappearred here.

Doug H. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>And with it. I hold a Bachelor's in Music, but I was a Customer Service Representative till two years ago and have been unemployed for a long time now. (I'd better stop here before I get me and others REALLY depressed!)

[Frank R]

[/QUOTE]It was the laissez-faire policies of his administration that allowed Wall Street to become like a gambling house and setup the Crash of 1929. Add that to a big bank vs. small bank mentality at the Federal Reserve and you have the worst economic downturn in the nation's history.
Doug H. [/QB][/QUOTE]

On the contrary Doug, if you will read Anthony C. Sutton's books ("Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler" "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution" and several others) you will see that the Federal Reserve carefully planned and carried out the Great Depression. Indeed, when the Federal Reserve Act was passed in Congress, Congressman Charles Lindbergh stated "From now on, recession, depression, boom and panic will be scientifically created." FDR used the Great Depression to foster socialism on the USA and his policies were intended to prolong the depression (which they did quite well). Indeed, the second worse year in American Economic history was 1938, after 5 years of FDR's policies.

[Doug H]

My intent here was not to discuss conspiracy theories. Being a cynic, my personal belief is that if someone wants to find support for such theories, they will find it. That being said thanks for referencing sources. Now matter how much some published entity may want to hype up what they're reporting on, the real situation is actually worse than the public wants to believe. Whether it's as bad as what makes it into print is often debatable, however.

So far I've seen two things that the modern US government has to deal with that the Roman Senate didn't have to. 1) Sensationalized widely (and efficiently) distributed media reports by organizations that are largely unregulated by anyone. 2) Large, international, privately owning trade conglomerates with a capacity for large financial, ecomonic, and political influence that rivals any government.

I thought of some other parallels to the Athenians, but will be presented in topic of its own.

Doug H.

[fred950]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Doug H:
[QB] The reason manufacturing that used to be done in the US is moving overseas is that the required labor is available significantly cheaper elsewhere. That's why you need a college degree or professional certification to make a decent living here. Without it, you flip hamburgers or mop floors for minimum wage. Most of the low-skill, living-wage jobs have disappearred here.

Then isn't it odd we now have Toyotas made in KY,IN and CA...Nissans made in TN...Hondas made in OH...Mitsubishis made in IL...BMWs made in SC...Mercedes-Benz made in AL (a Bubba-Benz?)(and this is only a partial list) This is mostly due to two reasons. Threatened trade hanky-panky and Americans are amoung the most productive workers in the world.

The last time I worked in an industrial setting was the mid 80's, an era of "Leveraged Buyouts" and "Hostile takeovers" where all the the corperate rage. And it was just such a "Hostile Takeover" that caused the factory I worked for for nine years to close. In order to pay off the debts from buying out 'my' company, the buyers had to break it to bits and then sell the pieces!

[Ren]

Certainly the major parallel that exists between the US and the Roman Empire is that it is a superpower. However, with the immense passage of time, a cohesive comparison cannot be drawn (except to say we're blindly wielding said superpowerdom).

The world today is settled and has boundaries and has some sort of international community. Like all superpowers, the United States and this current President saw fit to discard the international community in his conquest to do things in Iraq. I say this hazily, because the citizenry has been consistently lied to about the purposes of the US in Iraq, since a) the WMDs were not imminent dangers as promised (though how anyone could think Iraq could get the US is illogical), b) Hussein has been deposed and victory declared yet the US has still not served objective A and soldiers keep dying in this ended war, and c) the first words Bush said in his reach-out to the Iraqi people was not to burn their oil fields. The transparency and falsehoods have come flying at us, and all that is happening that we know for sure is that our soldiers are unhappy and at risk when they needn't have been. The Romans did have risks and borders to watch with uncertainty. The US's problems sometimes are of the US's creation, with interference in many regions perhaps it doesn't belong.

There is a difference between isolationism and intelligence. That difference is diplomacy, something this administration has been short-sighted on. The US did not recognize the United Nations and tramped on international law to form it's own conquest, yet today, Colin Powell is begging for international help in Iraq. That is both hypocritical and shows incredible cojones. Oh, that and the US wants to be in charge. The Romans did not need diplomacy, since there wasn't much with whom to be diplomatic. It was indeed an isolationist empire by design, but conquesting at the same time, since resistence was little.

In the case of North Korea, the only reason the US hasn't run rampant there is DNK's atomic power. Liberia held no money interest for the US, so it took tremendous international pressure to bring the US there.

And then in this country, freedom is being stomped on by the administration via the so-called Patriot Act. Now, maybe there's a parallel there with the Romans, since all regimes tend to have paranoia at the top. Yet while here and now, the politics are dictated by stoking fear in the public, then there was nothing of which to be conceivably afraid.

The US has exploited it's own tragedy to recreate foreign policy out of fear. The Roman Empire's tragedy was it's falling point. Perhaps if anything, the current administration is afraid of falling out of power because of these tragedies and mismanagements.

There is hope in the name of Howard Dean, who is seeking to return the US not to a heyday, but to a renewed sense of pride in what once made the US great (the same stuff that is suffering currently) and what could make the US a true global leader rather than an isolated superpower running through the world's streets aimlessly.

We need more social freedom and social justice in this country to succeed, without the special interests of big oil and business and religious zealotry trying to misuse the Constitution for greed and hate.

The Roman Empire lasted longer, because it didn't have the tests the US has. The comparison is, that like the Roman Empire, the US's chief problem isn't a threat from the outside, it is the shortsightedness within.

[S.M.A.]

In response to Ren:

I'm a moderate Republican, but even I've had enough of Dubya. Even a bleeding-heart lefty like Dr. Dean looks good in comparison.

(I wish I could write more, but I'm real tired right now.)

[Ren]

To SMA, et al...

Dean is the one with ideas, at the very least. I think the Repubs and Dems are scared of him because he isn't an establishment type and really he is a threat to Bush no matter what anyone tries to spin out there. But the Dems (Lieberman, Gephardt, Kerry) probably aren't thrilled because he is making them look like Republicans.

I actually left the Democratic party for the Green party because of the war. I found it unbelievable that the Democrats, almost to a man, did not even question our motives or reasons for battling. It was appalling. So, while I probably won't vote for a Green Party candidate (unless it is Lieberman vs. Bush, at which point I might start looking into Canada), I felt that philosophically they at least identify with my views on the environment and social freedoms. Then Dean came along, who is the best "insider" politically to come along in a long time. And he questioned the war, so I don't feel morally agitated by him. And while Kerry is my senator and I've voted for him, I do question his revisionism about the whole war now that Bush was proven a liar.

Really though, my views are hardly politically motivated in that I don't think there's a party that represents my liberalism that has developed over the years. But in a way, my views, however liberal, are similar to small government Republican principles of yore, something that party has abandoned. I feel that too often we are having laws made to protect us from ourselves. And these "Patriot" Acts are just another in a succession of freedom-quellers out there.

What I don't get is how Bush lied about something that has gotten people killed on both sides and there is little questioning going on. Clinton lied about his sex life and he nearly lost his job. I expect my leaders to lie about things that matter little, but an affair is peanuts compared to destabilizing the Middle East via blatant misinformation.

So, I think Dean would be good for revolutionizing the country and bringing it into this century. I think Kerry could work to heal the recent mishaps, but probably won't do much that lasts. I think Bush or Lieberman would cause irreparable damage to our global standing and perhaps become the downfall.

Political parties are the worst things for politics, since they usually quell ideas. Elections shouldn't be about toeing the party line. They should be about selecting the person with the best progressive ideas.

[Buzzer]

I don't know who is lying the most, anymore. (As if I ever did !) But, it seems to me that progress parallels destruction too often. The environment is crucial for our living. Yet, anyone (Or so it seems, if the media is reporting correctly.) who speaks up for conservation is deemed a "tree hugger", oddball, or not "paying their way". In many cities sidewalk are not available through the whole town, just the busiest sections, much less bicycle paths. (There is even a group that claim bicyclists in the U.S. arenn't paying their way. Apparently these people haven't ridden a bicycle for seven days a week over long distances. That's work, as enjoyable. (Provided you leave in time)

[Doug H]

As for those with non-center political views branding anyone from the center over to be on "the other side," I think that's life with media sensationalism. The good news for a candidate with strong views and a spine is that he will find allies somewhere. The bad news is that moderate, consensus-building candidates will get raked over the coals by both sides, and have very few friends. I do honestly hope that in the next election, that a candidate with moderate views and consensus building skills will be in the running, and if there is one, I hope the American people can see through the media sludge to understand that candidate's true value.

Doug H.

[Ren]

But, a consensus of whom? Are you talking between political parties or what? The problem lies within the idea that non-radical change is the answer. The US was built on principles that took far too long to evolve within the spirit of the Constitution's writing. The country calls for all to be free and yet, it took 70 years to stop slavery, 130 years to give women the right to vote, 170 years to make a dent in civil rights, and today's battle is for gay rights. It takes those who are not looking for a consensus, but are looking for what is right, both humanistically and within the law, to make this country great again. If we have a consensus, we will continue to live in a cold-war-esque socially segregated society. We have made some progress in this country, but proceed to be taking giant steps backward as well when it comes to the rights of all our citizens.