I happily recite the Pledge of Allegiance, and do so after a fashion every day when I look at the flag flying from our upper balcony. However, I am actually against having school children recite it, and perhaps even against allowing them to recite it in a formal setting until the age of majority. Having a child take a pledge before the child is capable of understanding what a pledge is, and to what he or she is pledging allegiance, seems inappropriate to me.
Let’s have the adults who feel the urge get together and recite it, and have the children see them do so as they grow up, and perhaps decide that they might want to do the same eventually.
This country is a terrific idea, and worth protecting and defending, and pushing through bad times and bad events to recover and keep the idea alive and pass it on. I’m not sure that it’s a worthy idea, to think that children should recite a pledge to it, before knowing what it means to pledge something, and particularly before they can possibly understand what a revolutionary feat the establishment of this country was and how richly it deserves to be kept whole and safe.
The question we should be asking, particularly now but truly quite often in any event, is, “Shall we be a nation?” What we do depends on our answer to that, every day.
Here’s part of the problem with the Liberal (political) view: Some cannot grasp the concept of getting rid of overreach and unnecessary bureaucrats while keeping essential services. The problem seems to be that they can’t distinguish between things that matter and things that don’t, or actually shouldn’t be done, so we just have to keep everything that anyone every thought of forever. That would explain a lot in our staggering and every-increasing debt.
Trump, like Sanders and Carson and Fiorina, draws people who are truly sick and tired of business as usual, which certainly includes me. I wish we could make political parties obsolete by reaching out electronically and directly to voters with very close to zero expenditure and no need to depend on big donors. That would give us no reason to accommodate same.
I can’t honestly claim to be optimistic about that, but it is the only way I am interested in proceeding.
Business, even big business, is a key element of a healthy economy, and we should be as business friendly as it is humanly possible to be, short of allowing cronyism, special privilege, influence based on money given to folks in government. We need government to make sure there are some reasonable rules and that they are followed by everyone, and beyond that we need to let entrepreneurs run their businesses and not punish them for success.
Here’s a very narrow example: Let’s not do government supplied or guaranteed loans on the front end, lending to folks who might be able to do a thing, such as Solyndra, who got the money and went out of business, profitably it seemed to me, if you were a principal. Let’s establish a goal and a prize: If you achieve XYZ, then you get K dollars. That way, they put their own money at risk, and probably only if there’s a reasonable chance of getting it done. And, if they do, bonanza! I can imagine that there are things it would be important enough for us to encourage business, but let’s do so by rewarding success, not doling out money for trying based on influence.
We’re supposed to be the revolutionaries. Let’s be revolutionary!