Whatever Happened to the “Common Good”?

Recommitting ourselves to the general welfare could solve the deepest problems this country and the world now face

  • Share
  • Read Later
Getty Images

There is an ancient idea that we have lost, but can and should find again. It’s called simply the common good. It goes back many centuries, but the need for a new dialogue about what it means and what its practice would require of us has never seemed more critical. Our politics have become so polarized and increasingly volatile; and our political institutions have lost the public trust. Few Americans today would suggest their political leaders are serving the common good.

The common good has origins in the beginings of Chrisitanity. An early church father, John Chrysostom (c. 347–407), once wrote: This is the rule of most perfect Christianity, its most exact definition, its highest point, namely, the seeking of the common good . . . for nothing can so make a person an imitator of Christ as caring for his neighbors.” Of course, all our religious traditions say that we are indeed our neighbor’s keeper, but today people of every faith don’t often actually say and do the things that their faith says and stands for.

(MORE: The Limitations of Being “Spiritual But Not Religious”)

The notion of the common good has both religious and secular roots going back to Catholic social teaching, the Protestant social gospel, Judaism, Islam, and in the American Constitution itself, which says that government should promote “the general welfare.” It is our fundamental political inclination: don’t go right, don’t go left; go deeper. But we’ve lost touch with that moral compass in Washington D.C., where it has been replaced by both ideology and money.

A commitment to the common good could bring us together and solve the deepest problems this country and the world now face: How do we work together? How do we treat each other, especially the poorest and most vulnerable? How do we take care of not just ourselves but also one another?

The common good is also the best way to find common ground with other people—even with those who don’t agree with us or share our politics.  Both liberals and conservatives could affirm the moral standard of the common good. And that commitment is especially attractive to young people, who are among the fastest-growing group in surveys who eschew specific religious affiliation.

(MORE: Empty Pews: Everyone is Misreading the new Numbers of Religiously ‘Unaffiliated’)

The common good should impact all the decisions we  make in our personal, family, vocational, financial, congregational, communal, and yes, public lives. It is those individual and communal choices—from how we raise our own children, to how we engage with our local communities, to what we are willing to bring to our elected officials—that will ultimately create the cultural shifts and social movements that really do change politics in the long run. The nation will soon be deciding on immigration reform, new efforts to prevent gun violence, and how to find a path to fiscal sustainability that reflects our nation’s soul. Only by inspiring a spiritual and practical commitment to the common good can we help make our common life better.

59 comments
liberryteacher
liberryteacher

For those of you getting your knickers in a twist about the "common good" being rooted in early Christianity, I believe Wallis was referring to the term itself, since he quoted it and put the term in BOLD print.  Seeing as how he acknowledged it also had roots in Judaism, which as we all know is thousands of years older than Christianity, I don't think he meant the idea of it. But I do think your other points are well taken and I hope that Wallis learns about the sacred texts of other religions as well. 

gaiasoul
gaiasoul

Have to echo the comments below...the common good started way before any concept of any inkling of Christianity.  The writer is biased and assumes facts not in evidence.  The article would have had more impact had it dealt with the alleged Christian Right's argument against why Christianity does not align with a social contract of common good in society.  If you base your premise on lies, then the rest just does not ring true.  Christianity does align with the common good, it just is not where it originated in the history of human behavior.

madhavikaji
madhavikaji

I beg to differ, Mr. Wallis, with your statement: "The common good has origins in the beginings of Chrisitanity." Centuries before the birth of Christ, Hinduism spread the value of "Lok Sangrah" which in English could be translated to mean Common Good. Maybe Christians, like Mr. Wallis, need to read and understand Bhagvad Gita to know that the concept existed way before Jesus Christ founded Christianity. It is not a Judeo-Christian concept. It is good that you, Mr. Wallis, see the point even though in "Johnny Come Lately" Christian manner. We Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Zoroastrians and the rest will accept you into our fold of humanity.

But if telling the intended audience a little "white lie" about the Christian origins of Common Good, maybe the only way to bring some sense into the crazy political scene our elected (and non-elected?) leaders seem to have created, taking us from one self-inflicted wound to another, from one cliff to the next, then I understand your intention but do not agree with your statement.

nitrat
nitrat

How interesting that just a couple of days apart, there are op-eds about the common good and the lack of empathy displayed by so many Republicans.

If you have no empathy for your fellow citizens, you have no sense of the common good.

Leftcoastrocky
Leftcoastrocky

And the Teapublicans say  "Common Good"?  You mean doing whatever it takes to destroy the Obama presidency.

T.P.Chia
T.P.Chia

The American people have yet to be truely educated that they have the right and duty to promote the common good of the society or nation. Life, liberty, equality and the pursuit of happiness are taught as constitutional rights -- not as what is good for the society or nation. The common good of the society or nation--the general welfare and public interest--is less appreciated by the Amercan society that is culturally, ideologically and politically divided. We do not have a common understanding of what the common good is.

Personal or individual interests have overwhelmed the common good of the society or nation,  And it is difficult for the common good to prevail over special interest with money and political power. 

It is unfortunate that gun control is associaed with public safety and for the common good of the American society, but those who oppose stricter gun regulations do not hesiate to place their own interests and selfishness above societal or national interests.

The value of the common good has been so politicized that public decisions may not necessarily be based on what is right or proper. It is difficult to change the culture of ignoring the common good in American society.  Perhaps, America, as a nation, should improve the quality of civic edcation in public schools.

notLostInSpace
notLostInSpace

Common good has been replaced by selfishness.  Ronnie Raygun was I think the largest leader of this movement when he won a Presidency by asking "are you better off than you were four years ago?" with an implication that his policies will make YOUR life better, forget the other folks.    Today, that is still a winning lie, oops, line for any political wannabe.   Ronnie's coronation as King of the US lead to a period of deep tax cuts and massive military spending.  Poverty and illness are largely worse in many places in the richest country of the world.  Churches are fundamentally unable to take care of the problem, but the right wing would have us believe that government is not needed to help, that faith based solutions will take care of the problem.  We used to vote for politicians that would be able to look at the "big picture".  That has degenerated to the point of "what have you done for me lately", which is where we have come to be represented by these morons in Congress that would not vote for a tax increase even if it was paired with much larger cuts.

JohnDavidDeatherage
JohnDavidDeatherage

The Common Good is best served by Adam Smith's "invisible hand". By each of us pursuing our own economic self interests, we satisfy demand with supply and establish fair prices for all. Innovation is rewarded.  

The alternative is a small group of people deciding what the common good for the rest of us.  If such models (Communism, Socialism) worked, they would dominate the world.  Capitalism for all its faults has delivered the greatest economic benefits to the most people in the history of mankind.  

Epicurious
Epicurious

The lack of "common good" is what this article is all about!! Nowhere in the world does "common good" exist. Thats exactly the point that the author of this piece is trying to get across. Maybe some people to to read an entire article, witha little understanding, before they embarass themselves by posting such asinine comments. Just sayin'......

how_are_you_not_yourself?
how_are_you_not_yourself?

Bible:  "You will eat the fruit of your labor; blessings and prosperity will be yours."

Bhagavad-gita:  "You have the right to your labor, but not the fruits of your labor. Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your actions, and never be attached to not doing your duty."


RebeccaKlein
RebeccaKlein

The "common good" was ALWAYS simply a euphemism for "white middle-class interests".  People have become more aware of this point now, so the term has fallen out of favor.  

fidelius
fidelius

Our society has steadily become more selfish.  We no longer protect the most vulnerable (the unborn children aborted every day), we prop up institutions that steal billions from us (Fannie and Freddie, and just about every major bank) instead of helping people keep their homes, we send more of our wealth overseas to prop up foreign economies, we purchase goods from those same foreign nations rather than supporting domestic manufacturers, we ignore global climate change because acknowledging it would for us to make some minor sacrifices, etc.  In short, we have become self centered and selfish, short sighted and uncaring.  Our politicians (who we vote in) reflect our societal values. 

If we want to see real change, it has to start in four places:  our homes, our schools, our places of worship and in the media.  The last two are probably the most critical, in that both have a huge impact on shaping societal norms. 

GaryJackson
GaryJackson

Want to promote things for the common good? Ban liberals and liberalism! Liberalism is NOT compatible with civilized society. Never has been, never will be. It's a cancer on all of humanity.


This article is nothing more than a push for new age communism under the guise of religion. There's a special place in hell for liberals who go this route.

DeweySayenoff
DeweySayenoff

Human nature demands survival first.  This is intrinsically egocentric behavior.  But mankind didn't evolve as individuals.  Mankind evolved in tribal units.  For at LEAST hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of years, mankind evolved in families/tribes. We've only had civilization for a few thousands of years which isn't enough time to evolve out of a tribal mentality toward our collective approach to life.  Civilization tends to break down tribes, blurring the lines and making it difficult to find one to which we all can "belong".  It is our lack of tribal identification, and our yearning for it, that causes us to diverge from one another.

But when speaking of "the common good", one is always, always, always talking about THEIR OWN TRIBE.  In our fractured society, that is often simply the self, because an individual often doesn't identify closely with one of the many tribes that abound today - race, social status, religion, etc.  In other cases it is a group - political, social, religious, cultural, national, etc.- to which "the common good" is applied.  Only in these "tribes" do we find consensus as to what "good" is and for whom "common" will include.

This explains why a conservative will have a view of "common good" that is so divergent from what a liberal or moderate feels is "the common good".  The same is said of religions, or social castes or even bridge clubs.  "The common good" relates to the tribe in which the members find themselves.

The only way that "the common good" will EVER become universally applied to all people is to get all people to identify themselves individually as a member one, single "tribe".  Until that universal tribal identity is established, "the common good" will be neither common or good to a large number (if not a majority) of others, rendering the notion of "common good" utterly and completely moot.

FrancisMulhare
FrancisMulhare

I think of this every time I drive down the third world quality streets in my neighborhood of million dollar condos and multimillion dollar homes. We live in this Randian society where the pursuit of individual satisfaction is supposed to magically dovetail into a functional whole that is ultimately beneficial for all. What actually happens is that such a society degenerates into an anarchistic  dog-eat-dog free for all where nobody gives a whit about anything beyond their own immediate needs. Humans are naturally selfish and focused on their own survival and prosperity and if you build a society that  enshrines these traits as guiding principles you wind up with an ultimately destructive civilization. It is possible to have a societal structure which harnesses and rewards individual ambition but places sensible restraints on it so that the common good is also served.

richard.easbey
richard.easbey

The alleged "common good" is a collectivist LIE, designed to persuade you that others have a higher claim on your life than YOU do. Otherwise, why do the collectivists among us always insist that we must use government, which is nothing more or less than naked FORCE, to achieve their Utopian goals? I'm wildly in favor of PRIVATE, charitable acts. And yes, I "walk the walk."

SidneyAllenJohnson
SidneyAllenJohnson

Christianity is not and never has been about seeking the common good. This is a lie.

boomeradvisor
boomeradvisor

The common good only matters when all sides agree on what it is.

In this country,  we have a history of dropping our differences  unite against trauma.

This usually happens when all sides are threatened by a singular  trauma (Pearl Harbor, 9/11 (for about 5 minutes), Ronald Reagan's "alien invasion" comment as example).

Our founding fathers were mostly united  with the trauma of removing the British.  With the Constitution. they  attempted to write a guide to achieving the common good.  

Today, everyone has their version of what defines the common good  (our laws notwithstanding).  We draw lines in the sand and stop talking to each other.  

Are we headed towards "the last man standing?"

If that is what it takes to get to the common good, then so be it.  Just know that is a pretty rough path to take with a lot of collateral damage.


notLostInSpace
notLostInSpace

@JohnDavidDeatherage The invisible hand in my life is usually a big bank, insurer, or pharmaceutical slapping me or some loved one in the face.  I don't think Adam Smith foresaw how large companies and lobbies would buy politicians anymore than our forefathers thought that having a strong militia would be somehow construed as everyone should own as many killing weapons as they possibly can. 

jerryj33606
jerryj33606

@RebeccaKlein Because the white middle class deserves to be decimated in favor of special interests from every conceivable angle? 

Smiling1809
Smiling1809

@fidelius Many moral and ethical people do not have places of worship, while many immoral people have places of worship. Human decency and church have nothing to do with each other. As a matter of fact, churches often promote things that aren't decent such as repression of women, glorification of men, and hatred of groups such as gays. Never mind that the millennials , who have the highest rate of atheisim of any age group are more likely to volunteer and help others, and less likely to  support the ism's (sexism, racism, etc...)

I'm not saying that atheist are better than all religous people, or that religious people are better than atheists  I myself and not an atheist by any means. But over 80% of Americans are Christian, yet according to you, "we have become self centered and selfish, short sighted and uncaring." This, despite the fact that a majority of people are religious.

I think that it is incredibly dismissive of those who are atheists to make the assumption that positive society norms could only come from a place of worship when so many damaging ones have come from religious institutions. 



RebeccaKlein
RebeccaKlein

@fidelius I assume you are a social conservative (because of your anti-abortion comment), but I wonder if you realize that nearly all the problems you mentioned except the abortion issue are problems of the excesses of laissez-faire capitalism.  The problem is that social conservatives such as yourself are reluctant to embrace socialism as an alternative because you tend to associate it with liberal cultural issues (such as abortion and the sexual revolution).  I could be wrong, but I assume you are Republican for cultural issues though you have misgivings about their business policies.  Am I right? 

HowardCihak
HowardCihak

@GaryJackson You obviously didn't read the article too carefully.  "The common good" doesn't consist of condemning any group of people in any part of the political spectrum.  It consists of a willingness to embrace the idea that everyone, at sometime, has the most valid idea about how to deal with one of our national problems, that no one is always right or always wrong.

Frankly, your last two sentences read like a proclamation of political extremism.

BTW, and for the record, I consider myself a "centrist" and an agnostic.

 

Smiling1809
Smiling1809

@DeweySayenoff In psychology, what you are talking about is in group/out group. That mentality is dangerous to society and very unproductive, as it keeps us from listening to the ideas an opinions of those who don't agree with us or who are not in our group, when their ideas may actually be good. The interesting thing that people seem to ignore is that meeting in the middle often produces the best results. For example, having a safety net for the poor, but requiring them to put in hours improving their own community to get it (i.e. providing child care for poor working families, serving meals to the homeless, improving homes of the elderly in the community, local beautification projects, etc.. ) If the sides worked together, we could come up with ideas that would benefit everyone. 

But, all anyone cares about is winning, which makes us all lose.

fidelius
fidelius

@FrancisMulhare If you've ever read Rand, you would understand that she is not about the pursuit of individual satisfaction.  Rather, her philosophy is more about self fulfillment:  productive people should not have the fruits of their labor stolen from them to support those who are unwilling to support themselves.  It's very much survival of the fittest but has very little to do with simple individual satisfaction.  Not saying her philosophy is actually applicable to a just society, but it is much different than simple satisfaction.

Smiling1809
Smiling1809

@richard.easbey The reason government had to get involved in helping the poor is because everyone relied on others doing charitable acts and never did them themselves. If Christians actually lived as Jesus did and were generous and charitable, then we would have no need for the government to have to forcefully take our money. 

One thing I find interesting is that people who want to do away with government aid don't even give consideration to the fact that without it, people would be begging in the streets, breaking into houses, and we would have starving homeless children and elderly. We would also be known as one of the most hateful barbaric countries in the world, which does little for diplomatic relations. The consequences would be horrible. 

RenegadeFL
RenegadeFL

@richard.easbey OK I guess your teacher assigned Ayn Rand this week.  Get back to us when you've read some other books.

BrianCh16
BrianCh16

@boomeradvisor, very well put.  It's getting harder and harder to find someone who isn't dripping with cynicism.

JohnDavidDeatherage
JohnDavidDeatherage

@notLostInSpace @JohnDavidDeatherage You would replace Smith's "invisible hand" with what, the 5 year economic plan from the Central Committee?

Free Market Capitalism is not perfect but it's far better to anything that has been tried in the past. You are living in the largest economy in the world. China's economy is booming because they have adopted to Capitalism. What countries are staying with centrally planned economies?  North Korea? Cuba?  Hardly success stories.

token_username
token_username

@RebeccaKlein @fidelius Unfortunately, fidelius is right and selfishness is the root of the problem. Whether you live under laissez-faire capitalism or socialism or communism, selfish people always get in the way of the common good.

GaryJackson
GaryJackson

@HowardCihak Yeah, I read the article and am very familiar with left wing radical communist Jim Wallis and his radical "Sojourners" group. Wallis is a radical communist who uses his fake "religion" to hide his radical anti-American agenda. He, like all liberals, is a cancer on all of humanity. 

 Oh, and why is it every radical leftist claims to be a "centrist" when cornered? If you are a believer in the crap Wallis is slinging, you are a radical leftist and the enemy of all of humanity. Period. 

fuzzybat
fuzzybat

@fidelius " If you've ever read Rand, you would understand that she is not about the pursuit of individual satisfaction." 

You really haven't contradicted his original point in any way. You've merely replaced his original descriptor with a synonym to present him as being mistaken in some way, but you've actually only proved his point. The problem here is that you put "productive people" on a pedestal while ignoring the fact that some people are never even given the CHANCE to be productive due to the society that we live in. The system is currently set up so that you have to have property, a phone number, etc. in order to even be CONSIDERED for a job. A person who has lost their home and means of livelihood (say through an event like hurricane Sandy) is basically screwed. 

What I find fascinating is that, based on your past posts here, you seem to be a Christian, but you defend Randian philosophy which couldn't be MORE anti-Christian (at least if we're defining Christianity by the principles of Christ). It's something that's always boggled my mind about modern American conservatism. 

Smiling1809
Smiling1809

@jerryj33606 @SidneyAllenJohnson Why would she even have to be religious to say this? A spokesperson would play something up to be better than it is. An outsider would probably give a more realistic view of religion than a spokesperson. 

SidneyAllenJohnson
SidneyAllenJohnson

@jerryj33606 @SidneyAllenJohnson Absolutely I am. I have the authority. That comes from an understanding of the Gospel. Jesus is not about the common good. As so many others here have said, that is indeterminable. Jesus came for the salvation of each of us...individually. No one can accept it for you and no concept of "common" good can save you without it.

notLostInSpace
notLostInSpace

@JohnDavidDeatherage @notLostInSpace  Yeah, that's exactly what I said, you pulled that assertion out of thin air.  A combination of government intervention and "invisible hand" worked perfectly for the US from the 40's to the 80's, when big business and tax cut enthusiasts were allowed to tip the scales in their favor (resembling truly the uncontrolled "invisible hand" of the sacred marketplace).  But I'm sure JohnDavid that you just thought the Reagan and Bush eras were wonderful.  And they were for that 1-2% at the top of the food chain.  The rest of us get your crumbs. 

ronajrny
ronajrny

smiling1809   Thank you for your commentary.While I respect anyones right to disagree with whatever they like, the notion that repeated acerbic diatribes are effective ways to make a point is lost on me. What I think Gary Jackson is likely doing is having someone read these posts to him. Expecting him to comprehend any of it is a lost cause. It has been proposed that "there is none so blind as he who will not see". I think Mr. Jackson is so blinded by his rage that he cannot even see the fallacy of his rants, or cut and paste jobs as that is what most of his rhetoric appears to be, muchthise less the logic that is presented in the article and many of these comments.

I would submit that while sociopathic and delusional are good descriptors of some of his pathology, "he is most likely" these things doesn't fit my analysis. I would have said "is absolutely a sociopath and delusional", but your points are well taken nonetheless, and you obviously have more class and descretion than I do.

My references regarding two out of three of his examples naturally referred to Hitler and Stalin but to know that would require a rudimentary knowledge of history, and of course, not being so blind as to not be able to see. The Rush Limbaugh comment was just a fun dig, but I noticed that no protest was made about curling up with a gun. I rest my case.

GaryJackson
GaryJackson

@Smiling1809@ronajrny 

Following the 1979 refugee crisis in Vietnam, Wallis lashed out at the desperate masses fleeing North Vietnam's communist forces by boat. These refugees, as Wallis saw it, had been "inoculated" by capitalist influences during the war and were absconding "to support their consumer habit in other lands." Wallis then admonished critics against pointing to the boat people to "discredit" the righteousness of Vietnam's newly victorious Communist regime.

In 1979, Time magazine hailed Wallis as one of the "50 Faces for America's Future." That same year, the journal Mission Tracks published an interview with Wallis, in which the activist evangelical expressed his hope that "more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes."

Wallis blamed America entirely for the political tensions of the Cold War era. "At each step in the Cold War," he wrote in November 1982, "the U.S. was presented with a choice between very different but equally plausible interpretations of Soviet intentions, each of which would have led to very different responses. At every turn, U.S. policy-makers have chosen to assume the very worst about their Soviet counterparts."

In the 1980s Wallis embarked on an editorial crusade in Sojourners to undercut public support for a confrontational U.S. foreign policy toward the spread of Communism in Central America. He published bitter denunciations of the American government's sponsorship of anti-Communist Contra rebels against Nicaragua's Sandinista dictatorship. After visiting Nicaragua in 1983, in the company of the pro-Sandinista group Witness for Peace, Wallis and then-Sojourners associate editor Joyce Hollyday co-authored several articles in which they whitewashed the brutality of the Sandinista government while condemning the United States for waging an "undeclared war" against "the people of Nicaragua."

GaryJackson
GaryJackson

@Smiling1809@ronajrnyI love how anti-intelligence liberals are. How facts absolutely repel you!Nothing but zombies, little more than wards of the state! Jim Wallis was a VIOLENT Marxist in the 60s and 70s, and couldn't be more anti-American, anti-humanity, if he tried!


From Discover the Networks:

Jim Wallis:

  • Activist preacher and editor of the leftwing Christian magazine Sojourners
  • Democratic Party operative
  • Apologist for communist atrocities in Cambodia and Vietnam
  • Dedicated foe of capitalism
  • Contends that Biblical scripture calls for large central government to aid the poor 
  • A self-described activist preacher, Jim Wallis was born into an evangelical family in Detroit, Michigan in June 1948. In the 1960s his religious views drove him to join the civil-rights movement and the anti-Vietnam War movement. His participation in peace protests nearly resulted in his expulsion from the Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Illinois, a conservative Christian seminary where he was then enrolled. While at Trinity, Wallis founded an anti-capitalist magazine called the Post-American which identified wealth redistribution and government-managed economies as the keys to achieving "social justice." He also railed against American foreign policy and joined the Students for a Democratic Society.

    In 1971 Wallis and his Post-American colleagues changed the name of their publication to Sojourners, and in the mid-1970s they moved their base of operation from Chicago to Washington, D.C.  Wallis has served as Sojourners’ editor ever since.

    In parallel with his magazine's stridently antiwar position during the Seventies, Wallis championed the cause of communism. Forgiving its brutal standard-bearers in Vietnam and Cambodia the most abominable of atrocities, Wallis was unsparing in his execration of American military efforts. Demanding greater levels of "social justice" in the U.S., he was silent on the subject of the murderous rampages of Cambodia's Khmer Rouge. Very much to the contrary, several Sojourners editorials attempted to exculpate the Khmer Rouge of the charges of genocide, instead shifting blame squarely onto the United States.

    Giving voice to Sojourners' intense anti-Americanism, Jim Wallis called the U.S. "… the great power, the great seducer, the great captor and destroyer of human life, the great master of humanity and history in its totalitarian claims and designs.”

GaryJackson
GaryJackson

@ronajrny Yes, liberalism, Marxism really, has EVERYTHING to do with it. I understand liberal democrats are not very intelligent, but what you wrote is just sad. Lots of words to say absolutely NOTHING. Oh, and what does Rush have to do with anything? Most people I know have JOBS and don't have time to listen to Rush, or any other talk show. 


What we DO have time for is education, and the research needed to figure out who is trying to destroy America and who is trying to save it. Wallis is a radical anti-American MARXIST and an enemy of all of humanity, like every other liberal.

Smiling1809
Smiling1809

@ronajrny -While I appreciate what you have to say, as it is intelligent and well-thought out, do you really think Gary Jackson is going to read or try to comprehend one word of what you said? He is most likely a sociopath who is delusional and thinks he knows everything when all he knows is his own perverted way of thinking.  And, you are right, people like him are quite dangerous.I think that many Republicans and Democrats alike would agree with that statement.

ronajrny
ronajrny

GaryJackson

There is nothing more dangerous to a society than enraged, hate filled, intolerant loudmouth ignoramous's who think that they are the bearer of the message of salvation of humanity. You sir fit the description perfectly. If you were as informed as you claim, then the information about your own lunacy could not have escaped your self-proclaimed crystal clear vision.

You would do well to addopt the axiom: "better to say nothing and have people think you a fool than to open your mouth and prove them right". Since you are trying to use your perverted interpretation of world history, let me offer you another bit of wisdom: "the further behind us we look, the further in front of us we can see", (Sir Winston Churchill) Your pearls of historical reference, two out of three times show how an ideology spawned by enraged egomaniacs curshed the very people they proposed to enslave, by the tens of millions. Liberalism had nothing whatsoever to do with your examples. Looking behind is should have taught us how dangerous to humanity that people like you who are blinded by their own hubris and ignorance are. Go curl up with your gun and your Rush Limbaugh collection and leave civilized people in peace.

GaryJackson
GaryJackson

@HowardCihak  I'm an "extremist"? You are hilarious! Unlike you, I am an informed citizen. Wallis is a radical anti-American MARXIST. Maybe instead of wasting your time here, you should do some actual research about the communist filth Time allows a byline. 

 Liberalism is not compatible with civilized society. It destroys humanity. It is the enemy of all of humanity. Liberalism created then destroyed the Soviet Union, liberalism created, then destroyed Nazi Germany, and liberalism has destroyed the European Union. With nothing left to destroy, liberals are now setting about destroying America. 

You are incredibly ignorant, and there is nothing more dangerous to society than ignorant people.

HowardCihak
HowardCihak

@GaryJackson @HowardCihak Clearly, from the very tone of your reply, you ARE an extremist.  That means you are among the most dangerous persons in our society.