#michael lind | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

nicklloydnow · 10 months

Text

“The cult of the American founding has no parallels in other English-speaking democracies. A British prime minister who declared that 21st-century Britain must turn for guidance to Horace Walpole or Pitt the Younger would be considered daft. Many Canadians would find it difficult to identify John A. MacDonald, the chief founder of their confederation. As for Australia, one authority observes: “There is arguably no more neglected group of people in Australian history than those who produced the Australian Constitution…. Most Australians would be hard pressed to name more than the smallest handful of the Founders.”

Ironically, some of the American Founding Fathers themselves seem to have foreseen the future cult devoted to their veneration. In 1790, John Adams complained in a letter to Benjamin Rush: “The history of our Revolution will be one continued lie from one end to the other. The essence of the whole will be that Dr. Franklin’s electrical rod smote the earth and out sprung George Washington.” At least that would be more interesting than the present version of American political ancestor-worship, in which the Founders like a cloud of ghosts hover over our shoulders, smiling in approval or shuddering in disgust.

The cult of the Founders in its present form is only a few generations old. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, Republicans honored Alexander Hamilton and disparaged Jefferson; Democrats did the reverse. True, Abraham Lincoln, in opposing slavery and defending the union, followed the example of Henry Clay in calling for a return to the idealism of the founding period. But in his Annual Address to Congress in 1862, Lincoln observed, “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise to the equation. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew.”

Modern Founders-ism is a relic of the second half of the 20th century. It served two purposes for the American nation-state: providing a nonracist definition of the American nation during the civil-rights revolution, and supplying the American state with a missionary creed that could rival Marxism-Leninism during the Cold War.

(…)

At the same time that it provided an alternative to the traditional Teutonic Protestant version of American national identity, postwar democratic universalism was worked up into an evangelical secular creed that could contest Marxism-Leninism in the Cold War struggle to win the “hearts and minds” of people in postcolonial Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. The Federalist Papers and Alexis de Toqueville’s Democracy in America were recast as sacred scriptures to be promoted abroad and taught to children at home.

(…)

Even after World War II, significant political subcultures in the United States ignored the cult of the Founding Fathers. Squabbling Marxist sectarians identified with Lenin or Trotsky or Bukharin or Luxembourg or Kautsky, not Madison or Hamilton or Jefferson. Libertarians had little use for either Jefferson’s agrarianism or Hamilton’s developmentalism and neomercantilism, and found their prophets in modern émigrés from Russia (Ayn Rand) or Austria (Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek), not the early American republic.

Meanwhile, the powerful technocratic progressive strain on the American center left has for more than a century championed expert rule informed by social science, which, like natural science, is supposed to be constantly updated by new findings. In this vision, there is little value in social science more than a decade or two old, much less 18th-century political philosophy. No wonder that references to the founding are rare among today’s progressives, except when they quote Jefferson and other Founding Fathers on the separation of church and state. Barack Obama’s slogan in his Inaugural Address, a “new foundation,” sank when launched and was quickly replaced by the slogan “win the future,” which was closer to the orientation of American progressivism. Meanwhile, the identity-politics faction, the other important school on today’s left, has no use for the Founders at all, except as defendants to be arraigned on charges of racism, genocide, patriarchy, and homophobia.

This means that there are only two groups of Americans in the electorate who might be influenced by appeals to the Founders and their era: populists, who can be either on the left or right but nowadays tend to be on the right; and Buckley-Goldwater-Reagan “fusionist” or “movement” conservatives, who favor an incoherent mix of foreign-policy hawkishness, Christian conservatism, and libertarian economics.

American populists, however, tend to identify with the grassroots anti-British rebels of the War of Independence, not with the bewigged gentlemen in stockings and buckled shoes who wrote the federal Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787. The preferred iconography of American populism includes the Boston Tea Party, the Gadsden flag with a rattlesnake, and Archibald M. Willard’s famous centennial painting of 1876, “The Spirit of ’76.” That last depicts a boy and an old man marching with the Continental line and beating drums while a soldier with a bandaged head plays on a fife, the Stars and Stripes fluttering behind them.

In contrast to populists, elite fusionist conservatives since the 1950s have privileged 1787 over 1776. They have treated the federal Constitution as the equivalent of the Ten Commandments, teaching the American people, “Thou Shalt Not Have Nice Things,” like a living wage, labor unions, guaranteed access to inexpensive health care, or adequate social insurance. The Founders thus become ventriloquist dummies for rich donors who fund fusionist magazines that few but the same donors read.

(…)

When the last idolater of the Founders has boarded the last National Review cruise and sailed off into the sunset, the acronym WWTFD—“What Would the Founders Do?”—will leave Americans as baffled as contemporary Singaporeans would be by veneration of Sir Stamford Raffles, the 19th-century British imperial official credited as the “founder” of their island city-state. This isn’t to say there is nothing to be learned from individual American Founders, like Hamilton on industrial policy or Jefferson on religious liberty. But their relevant views can and should be defended on their merits, without deferring to a sacral authority.

If anyone could have been expected to stress the continuity of American history and the need to rely on the wisdom of the Founders, it would have been John Hay. He was the private secretary of Abraham Lincoln, later serving as secretary of state under President William McKinley. In his memorial address in 1901 for McKinley, the second of two assassinated presidents whom he had served, Hay, then 67, with the wisdom of experience and age declared:

The past gives no clue to the future. The fathers, where are they? And the prophets, do they live forever? We are ourselves the fathers! We are ourselves the prophets! The questions that are put to us, we must answer without delay, without help—for the sphinx allows no one to pass.”

#lind #Michael lind #founding fathers #america

1 note · View note

redtoondevils · 3 months

Text

Giving my opinion, about Michael De Santa from GTA 5. So, from my experience, he is shown himself, time and time again as a flaw character.

He is a stuck-up flaw character, that at times his actions were despicable, and with his decisions that he made were unforgivable at times.

But, however, with my key points, of why I think it saves him from getting eliminated, or/loose everything is when he realizes how wrong he was. And he is in fact, aware of himself. I've seen a post on Reddit saying is Michael evil?

So...The full history of his background, is unknown. He did explain what he did, and we can put this into context, that he would willingly take the opportunity, regardless of what consequence, and risk he has. To what he will receive.

The rest of it, like what he said, was "Complicated." But then, with some of the hints inside his big house, there are some hidden family moments, that are not all terrible. But, I'll come back to it, with my reasons once I explain my meanings of it.

Back to Michael, his character boasts around, being selfish, egolistical, and greedy. He puts his safety before himself, than to his friends. He get's carried away, and forgets to fill in the Importance to the people that likes him, such as his family.

In truth, he actually attempted to take out Trevor, because he knows how unstable his friend is, and he was worried that he might harm his family, at some point.

When his plan foiled, he changed his name, and fled the snowy town, to a much sunny area, sitting in a house full of glory, carelessness, and cowardice.

When talking about Michael's character, as being Evil. My answer to that one, is No. While I say "No." I can definitely see why that is coming from.

But, if I were to paint this man in colors, you know when you say, nothing is ever, 'Black and white.' but when you mix it, it turns grey. And if you think about it, his house is mostly while.

The white walls, with a few grey spots, here and there. It turns shadowy, when it becomes night-time.

I think, he fit's around there, in the grey shade. Not too light, not too dark either. *Me realizing something.*-Not to mention, he does occasionally, wear that grey suit. When he does make decisions, he tends to become careless, a lot.

Though, when he thinks about his family, no matter how much drama he dealt with. He never left them. He could have, if he wanted to. But he didn't. His wife screamed at him, insulted him multiple times.

Would cause him to get stressed out, and snap at her. She is not Mrs. Perfect, either. His son, and daughter are very spoiled. They ignore him, mouth talk him, say hurtful things to him, such as "I hate you." Take his money, Jimmy sold his boat, and drugged him.

Then got him into even more trouble. Trample all over him, but despite all of that. By some miracle, he stayed patient with them. And agreed to stay with them. Once they found some family therapy.

When he met Franklin for the first time.... ....When he first introduces himself. Michael gave him a glance, and let him take a seat next to him. When he get's up again, he accepted Franklin right away as a friend, and was about to take him to the beer shop, that's until Jimmy called him up, and interrupted them both.

There had been times, where Michael had shown his loyalty quite a few times to be exact. And again, Franklin, and Trevor-Are more loyal, than what he is. Only Michael, his loyalty changes between taking opportunities, and caring for his family, he's got that mixture when he's fixed on the task.

So, when he comes up to rescue Jimmy, he helped save him from the Yacht. He accepted to save Tracy from that stalker, when she was standing out on the streets, when she was signing contracts. He was surprised about that, even though he's not a good father.

He poorly helps them , when he's mostly absent. However, he did pay attention, to her safety and gave her advice, on how to be more careful, out in a big city.

And told her to make better decisions for herself, for her to stay safe. He gives Franklin life advice, and checks on him when he passes out inside the FIB building in that mission, when you blow it up.

Except, when he forgotten about one team member, who has died when he celebrated, too early. He comes back to Lester, and checks back up on him, and owns up to his mistake, he did years ago, back at North Yankton.

He saves Tracy again, and even Amanda. And he even came swerving back for his family, when they were in a raid by the Merry weather. And while he was fighting back against those men, you see he had all sorts of emotional moments, between the girls.

One of them was Tracy, when she called out for her dad, she was in tears, and crying saying that she does love him. To the part when, Michael get's knocked down, and was at gun point with one grunt. When she was saying "Fuck...Fuck..." in a panicked voice.

Breaking down in tears. For him to call out, and reassure them that "It's going to be alright." Proves that the family doesn't really want him to die.

Then afterwards, he became furious, and upset with the situation.

Over in North Yankton, even though he once planned on getting rid of Trevor, he did say previously before, that he "Doesn't know." how to handle it, once Trevor has arrived.

That once they confronted each other, they weren't afraid of dying, but you can see the emotional connection the two of them have when they refused to shoot each other.

Then over with fresh meat, when Michael get's kidnapped, Franklin comes over to rescue him, before it's too late. And when he get's attacked, Michael shoots a gun man in the head, across the meat hooks, at a far distance and guided him out.

When choosing the ending affects the characters, and the story lines completely. If Franklin goes to kill Trevor, then he is going to go through another wave of deception, and with the fact that Michael agreed to help you.

Made Trevor's friendship stale, broken, and worthless. As he get's backstabbed once again from his first partner and crime, to now somebody, that he liked, and respected. Tossed away twice more than last time. And his trust is shattered.

Then shortly after, this is the part where Michael's character changes drastically, and does lead up into being evil. He becomes paranoid, and distant of Franklin, and shoved his delusions in his face. Which Franklin, ger's confused about, and felt offended with his response.

And Michael will get a phone call from Jimmy, asking him what did he do to Trevor, and when he tells him, Jimmy pauses, and get's stuck with what to say. Because he couldn't believe what his father, has done. And was not sure if he could trust him. Franklin, makes up the story. And that makes this relationship, even more deceiving.

If Franklin chooses to kill Michael, it is still sad. Because, that is the part where he finally get's his life together, he even sounded happy for Tracy to go to college. And he was very happy for her.

When he sees that Franklin is acting very strange, he get's confused with him, and asked "What? What is this?" Then, when he found out, that Franklin came to kill him, he get's this side of hurt. What's heart breaking, is the fact that Michael also thought of him as a son, so that made this scene to sting.

And this, battle between the two of them does not make sense so much. And it is, to be honest disrespectful, for Franklin to do that.

Not only that, even Franklin turns in a direction very coldly, just like how Michael was. Later, when he spoke to Lamar, he was talking in sentences to where he doesn't fully open to say what truly happened.

Michael's family then hates Franklin, and Amanda gives him a message, furious, but also terrified of him saying, that if he comes near her children, she will personally kill him.

And Jimmy will lose his trust in him. Their brotherly relationship is broken. Thus, Franklin becomes a monster.

If Franklin chooses option C. (Best fitting choice for the game.) Then, he'll get to keep both Trevor, and Michael together. And see them build up their friendship, and then also see a big change in Michael. Which I really do want to say this. Michael, the man that usually chooses something else, over his friends.

Really steps himself up, and saves Trevor. He volunteers to take on Stretch, when Franklin was in the middle of deciding if he should take Stretch on.

And lastly, Michael apologizes to Trevor, and say's that he is sorry, and that he admits that he screwed him over. Trevor, after a bit of doubt, accepted his apology.

And Michael just managed to save his friendship, with Trevor's. He does improve to own up to the wrong doings that he done. If he is truly evil, then he would not be doing that, unlike many other evil characters.

Who would just screw over the people they knew, by not owning up to it. That was the thing, that saved him from getting eliminated. He's the character that reminds me of a few other ones, that kind of ranges with their story. I picked these three, just because I know them, and their from the same company.

John Marston, Arthur Morgan. And Dutch Van Der Linde. John, because, at first as it turns out, he didn't feel close to Jack, he didn't want to, once he found out that he wasn't related to him. He probably felt shunned, and embarrassed of the boy.

But then also, because he probably felt some pain, after loosing his daughter, some time ago. So, he probably felt partly unsure, a with his connection. He was rude, and shooed the boy away, but then once after he get's kidnapped he has felt so bad about it. And ashamed.

This is something similar, to when Michael first came into his kids lives, I assumed, he let himself get carried away, and was not really there, for the most of their lives.

Though, we don't know how much of that really was going on, because of how selfish he was. But, then there are the family photos, in his house that shows, otherwise.

It looks like it wasn't so bad. It wasn't all like that. They looked happier, So I think in general, his behaviors weren't good. Yet, you can see that he was trying.

Arthur Morgan, once a cold blooded, ruthless killer that deliberately did things that are unforgivable. If it wasn't for the TB, he did say that it was this wake up call, that got him to change his perception of the world, and the people in his life. Even though, he can't fix it, but he surely redeemed himself, and strife to become a better, and honorable man.

Dutch Van De Linde, was once a respected man, and leader for his group. He was also Arthur's father figure, and teacher, that was in charge of making plans to do what he can to help support the camp, and collect resources to feed them, and keep them safe.

He is very intelligent, and when he chose to switch sides between Arthur, and Micah. Dutch appeared to have a centered mindset for himself, and Arthur, when he saw that happen couldn't believe his very eyes.

And felt disappointed, and disgruntled with his decision. It was not until later, that when Dutch came back to Arthur, he looked at him with his reflection of his dishonorable back turn. No different than that of Big smoke.

This was still sad, because he walked away feeling regret, and knowing he let down Arthur.

In my conclusion, you know he's this character that you are disappointed in, but I don't think it is enough to say, "Oh well...He deserves to die." Especially, coming from these characters. They did, so many things.

Yet, to take into consideration, he is aware of himself, when he admits that "I've done so many things, that I ain't proud of." That line is such a remorseful thing.

Among the other killers, I listed too. Fans love these 2 legends between Arthur, and John. But, when it comes down to Michael, there's another opinion.

This is coming from my opinion, the thing is, that even though this man is a cold blooded killer, that through out his life, he's been trying to make things right.

I don't think he's evil, and he has a duty to protect the family, that he's got. Because, that's the only thing that plays in his part, that keeps him going.

I hope you enjoy reading my full heart, confession about Michael. If I get any details wrong, this is only coming from my gameplay experience.

I just wanted to say, what I believe needed to be said, about his character. With the credit, that I thought about, and brought all together. So, you're welcome.

11 notes · View notes