Promoted from the Ricochet Member Feed by Editors Created with Sketch. Individualism: Just One of the Things They Don’t Get

 

88f9bd526d28d753d3689200ce900021

This political season has been a confusing one for the media and elites of both parties. In truth, the last few years have been confusing, especially the last three-odd congressional elections.

They are only now starting to act as if they might “get” part of the decided tendency voters are showing toward what have been called the “outsiders.” Donald Trump seemed to be opening the door for the non-establishment political newcomer. But GOP voters have given top-tier status to three plain-speaking candidates, none of whom have held elective office before. They are all accomplished, independent people. The pundit class is beginning to grasp a few things about their connection to the public — but the essence of it is still out of their wheelhouse.

Several factors play into their confusion. But for now, I’ll focus on just one. Something about the basic American character that the pundits and the Beltway Cartel completely miss. Individualism.

In this new age of intellectualism, globalism, collectivism, and political correctness, the concept of the rugged individual is seen as not merely passé and quant, but Neanderthal. Trump, Carson, Fiorina and, yes, Cruz (although he is a senator) are not accepted members of their party. It fact, all four have not only prospered but excelled outside of the political circle. They do not follow the standard political formula for interviews, speeches, or appeals for support. They are very much standing on their own feet against the weight and cash of an elite who have managed to ignore the stated will of the electorate for almost a decade.

The successful republic is not based on the collective. It thrives on the will and drive of the individual. That has been the strength of the nation since its founding. It was the resident strength of the fertile colonial soil from which the nation grew.

The nation’s success is owed to the success of individuals and the constitutional structure that fostered them. What the public sees in these “outsiders” is their ability and the inclination to stand up for themselves. And in so doing, they stand up for those who have been ignored. Fight and scrape are a not only part of our nature, but our heritage — and we like to see it.

Individualism is characterized not just by the lone pioneer on the plains, but by the shift worker who saved and then took the chance to begin that hot dog stand in the parking lot, or that small shop on the corner. Our story involves individual risk, effort, reward, loss, and hope.

Every success story has lapses, failed efforts, and re-starts. I have often considered these “failures” to be the real heroes of our culture. They are, perhaps, the truest measure of the individual. Individualism does not exclude the bad year, the poor decision, or just plain poor luck. Neither does it exclude the help and concern of those around us. Safety from these failures and risks does not build strong people or strong nations.

The message of collectivism has always been one of false safety.

These outsiders, these individualists, break the mold of politics as a fraternal order that requires not just an apprenticeship but acceptance from the members-in-standing. They don’t appear to be asking anything from the establishment — one that has ignored the very base that provided them with their positions.

They help to remind us that we are not just one of many nations, but an exceptional experiment in liberty never before seen in the world. On second thought, they do not remind us of that. They tap into our realization of it, a realization that comfortable Beltway elites ignore and transformative leftists seek to destroy.

They have each, in some way, gained strength as the early stages of the campaign process plays out. They will all have plenty of opportunity to better define where they would take an administration if given the chance. No matter who wins the nomination, it’s a necessary, positive step to reach back to our true national nature for someone who reaffirms the potential of the individual. It’s the beginning of putting the American character back in its proper place as a model for our children and the rest of the world.

 

There are 51 comments.

  1. Mike Rapkoch Moderator

    Great insight. Thanks for your analysis. Gives me a new way of thinking about the current GOP situation.

    • #1
    • September 29, 2015, at 11:25 PM PDT
    • Like
  2. TKC1101 Inactive

    It has always been so. Makers versus takers, trailblazers and followers, people who left town for a better life and those who were afraid.

    America was built by individualists. The dream goes on but the lights dim now and then.

    • #2
    • September 30, 2015, at 12:50 AM PDT
    • Like
  3. Titus Techera Contributor

    I think you’ve got everything wrong or at least upside down. I would bet more Americans see the dark side of individualism than the sunny side–or maybe the elections of Mr. Obama to you seem like shows that the American people is an individualism electorate.

    I’ll recall to you that Mr. Romney was not a GOP party man, in fact he wanted to break away from the Reagan GOP. As for successful capitalist, yeah, he had it. I guess you could say, he could not put on a show to save his soul. True, but he probably does not think showmanship comes into it…

    Other hooray for capitalism types: Mr. Forbes & Mr. Cain. Successful businessmen & all that. The electorate could not be bothered to care. So with others. So it will be again.

    Mrs. Fiorina is not an accepted part of the party? Who threw her out of the party in her days running for office in California?

    As for Mr. Carson: Not a politician. I do not see that the party has been giving him grief. Do you?

    As for Mr. Trump–let’s not even start calling that one a conservative or Republican in any way connected to the public meaning of those terms one uses when it comes to intellectuals, politicians, &c.

    Sure, the GOP is facing a grass-roots revolt. There might be a shake-up. But the GOP electorate simply has nothing to do with your enthusiasms. See Mr. Olsen’s essay.

    • #3
    • September 30, 2015, at 4:56 AM PDT
    • Like
  4. I Walton Member

    And yet it’s more than individualism. There is the risk that wanting to defend individuals and families, (don’t forget families they’re the key) against the collective, the mob, the nanny state, the administrative regulatory state, we look for a great personality, an individual who will fix it, make it better, the man on horseback. This is our risk and I fear we’d reject Calvin Coolidge if he appeared and pick a Trump instead. Individualism under our rule of law worked, even for recent immigrants from collective non entrepreneurial societies, not because of great leaders, but as the excellent post says, because we let folks fail, make mistakes, stumble, and gradually figure it out and so we flourished.

    • #4
    • September 30, 2015, at 5:04 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. I Walton Member

    “the concept of the rugged individual is seen as not merely passé and quant, but Neanderthal. ” 

    Indeed. individualism is on the wrong side of history.

    He said it for himself. I see him there

    Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top

    In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.

    He moves in darkness as it seems to me,

    Not of woods only and the shade of trees.

    He will not go behind his father’s saying,

    And he likes having thought of it so well

    He says again, “Good fences make good neighbours.”

    • #5
    • September 30, 2015, at 5:15 AM PDT
    • Like
  6. Titus Techera Contributor

    Individualism & family are only imperfectly compatible. For example, who cannot see that SCOTUS is making the laws ever more individualistic, so that the rule of law is more & more against the family?

    & individualism in the old days did not work that well. ‘Allowing people to fail’ made for rather appalling things.

    I think conservatives need to learn that the reasons for the electorate of the Dems are non-extinguishable. It is not merely the danger of getting a Mr. Trump when it is no longer possible to elect a Coolidge. It is something worse. The individualism vs. collectivism rhetoric, the makers vs. takers style of partisanship: That thinking means that the American electoral majority in presidential elections–& the Senate in 2016–is anti-American. That’s funny, but in a grim way-

    • #6
    • September 30, 2015, at 5:21 AM PDT
    • Like
  7. Marion Evans Inactive

    Love the theory but have difficulty seeing Trump/Carson/Fiorina as flag bearers for rugged individualism. Trump lives a woolly life surrounded by superfluous luxuries and probably cries when he gets a paper cut. Not exactly the strong silent type when challenged.

    • #7
    • September 30, 2015, at 5:38 AM PDT
    • Like
  8. I Walton Member

    Titus Techera:Individualism & family are only imperfectly compatible. For example, who cannot see that SCOTUS is making the laws ever more individualistic, so that the rule of law is more & more against the family?

    Families are the vehicle for passing along culture, notions of right wrong, attitudes and without something inside, individualism as we understood the term over our history doesn’t exist, or not often. We can’t start out fresh and reinvent thousands of years of trial and error with each new generation. One learns from failure, gets stronger through struggle, and while many never get back up, most do and without that option there can be little flourishing. We’ve gotten our notions of individualism mixed up with autonomy, an empty modern notion that grows out of Nietzsche not pre modern western religious traditions.

    • #8
    • September 30, 2015, at 6:25 AM PDT
    • Like
  9. Titus Techera Contributor

    First, autonomy is the peculiar invention of Kant, not Nietzsche. He seems to have come around to this view of a radically individual rational morality when nature was abandoned as a standard for human action, apparently because of modern natural science, which includes no purpose or teleology, & therefore deprives human nature of its special status & political science of its ability to set the purpose of human action.

    Secondly, it is precisely because, as you rightly say, we depend on our associations, from government to the family, for our ability to know what world we’re living in that individualism in the way it’s talked about on the right is really weak sauce. Individualism may be responsible for innovations, but innovations are not inherently good. Individualism must be blamed for bad innovations, not merely praised for good ones. Talk about individualism that does not even reach that stage tells you something about the blinkers partisanship creates.

    The ultimate stage of the discussion, to jump ahead & stay within the word limit, is the question whether inventing the city was to the good for the most part–whether the invention before all the traditions–civilization–really is good for us. If we have some way of establishing that civilization is good, we’re human; otherwise, I’m not sure…

    • #9
    • September 30, 2015, at 6:37 AM PDT
    • Like
  10. TKC1101 Inactive

    John Penfold:And yet it’s more than individualism. There is the risk that wanting to defend individuals and families, (don’t forget families they’re the key) against the collective, the mob, the nanny state, the administrative regulatory state, we look for a great personality, an individual who will fix it, make it better, the man on horseback. This is our risk and I fear we’d reject Calvin Coolidge if he appeared and pick a Trump instead. Individualism under our rule of law worked, even for recent immigrants from collective non entrepreneurial societies, not because of great leaders, but as the excellent post says, because we let folks fail, make mistakes, stumble, and gradually figure it out and so we flourished.

    Calvin Coolidge, as effective as he was would be deep fried and eaten alive by today’s Congress, Media and Entrenched Federal Grifters. The public knows the nice guy won’t cut it. The man on horseback won’t cut it. The media eating monster with the big mouth may be the only thing that can stand up to them.

    • #10
    • September 30, 2015, at 12:11 PM PDT
    • Like
  11. Titus Techera Contributor

    I think conservatives really need to ask themselves whether they’ve come to think America is unlivable or hellish.

    • #11
    • September 30, 2015, at 12:58 PM PDT
    • Like
  12. TKC1101 Inactive

    Titus Techera:I think conservatives really need to ask themselves whether they’ve come to think America is unlivable or hellish.

    Only two choices? How little you know about Americans. Our soft drink section alone has over 100 choices. If you want to ask conservatives to ask themselves something, two choices is just not enough.

    I would suggest adding sunny. pleasant, vibrant and such things. They will increase your response over the two you started with. Put that unlivable and hellish in the middle of at least twenty choices and then see your results.

    • #12
    • September 30, 2015, at 6:02 PM PDT
    • Like
  13. Titus Techera Contributor

    I think you misunderstand what I had to say. I do not mean that unlivable is not the same as hellish-

    • #13
    • September 30, 2015, at 10:48 PM PDT
    • Like
  14. TKC1101 Inactive

    Titus Techera:I think you misunderstand what I had to say. I do not mean that unlivable is not the same as hellish-

    I was attempting to extend your comment with a mild attempt at humor to lighten the mood. No disparagement of your comment, just making a joke if one chose to read it as a choice.

    To seriously answer your question- America is a quite pleasant place to live compared to many places on the globe. We do get quite agitated about political disputes, but for many of us, we realize how lucky or blessed we are to live here.

    America has endured much political folly, but family endures, the beaches of Hawaii and California and Florida are great, the Sierras , Rockies, Cascades and Appalachians are still beautiful, grandchildren still laugh. Companies still start up, ideas still turn into enterprise and people still take pride in work.

    All this goes on despite the most deranged and misguided administration in the country’s history. The great secret of America is that people want to be able to ignore the government and live their lives without it mattering to them very much. Many confuse this with apathy. It actually is a healthy expectation.

    • #14
    • October 1, 2015, at 12:03 AM PDT
    • Like
  15. Titus Techera Contributor

    You have to excuse my humorlessness–it is inborn rather than acquired. I congratulate you on the good luck of being born to such beaches & such mountains. I deplore with you the bad luck of being born to such a bad administration.

    I am afraid no one is deluded–not even Senator Cruz–that Americans really care about politics. Famously, Tocqueville noted that Americans put their courage into fortunes & do not become fatalistic should they lose one fortune, but bravely acquire another. He suggested that Americans are so incompetent about government that bad government is not really a problem–Americans buy at that price their many elections & their many associations for the pursuit of their interests. The more pleasing way to talk about that situation & predicament is federalism. I think he thought freedom is not perfected in good government, but self government. If Americans act on this opinion, there is reason to hope…

    But it is possible that the future of America is the pink police state. Private life would be even more private; the mountains & seas would be even more brilliant. But freedom will have disappeared. Americans will have finally come to know nothing about politics, which is more than even the Puritan fathers could fantasize…

    But what if the Americans mind turned to politics? Would that future be better? If Americans began to take insult at the vulgarians who plague them, would they know more about good government? That future is nowhere near as clear or safe-

    • #15
    • October 1, 2015, at 3:08 AM PDT
    • Like
  16. BrentB67 Inactive

    Titus Techera:I think you misunderstand what I had to say. I do not mean that unlivable is not the same as hellish-

    Clearly America is livable. Apparently everybody and their girlfriend wants to live here at least long enough to have a baby get birthright citizenship.

    The soft tyranny imposed by our fellow Americans for our own good is hellish.

    • #16
    • October 1, 2015, at 8:56 AM PDT
    • Like
  17. Titus Techera Contributor

    BrentB67:

    Titus Techera:I think you misunderstand what I had to say. I do not mean that unlivable is not the same as hellish-

    Clearly America is livable. Apparently everybody and their girlfriend wants to live here at least long enough to have a baby get birthright citizenship.

    Well, most of the planet–not everybody.

    The soft tyranny imposed by our fellow Americans for our own good is hellish.

    Yeah, that’s the thing of it. Conservatives are facing a situation where they tell themselves, We’re a perpetual, ineffective minority among our fellow Americans? Well, more fool them! They just did not get it about individualism!

    • #17
    • October 1, 2015, at 10:23 AM PDT
    • Like
  18. BrentB67 Inactive

    Titus Techera:

    BrentB67:

    Titus Techera:I think you misunderstand what I had to say. I do not mean that unlivable is not the same as hellish-

    Clearly America is livable. Apparently everybody and their girlfriend wants to live here at least long enough to have a baby get birthright citizenship.

    Well, most of the planet–not everybody.

    The soft tyranny imposed by our fellow Americans for our own good is hellish.

    Yeah, that’s the thing of it. Conservatives are facing a situation where they tell themselves, We’re a perpetual, ineffective minority among our fellow Americans? Well, more fool them! They just did not get it about individualism!

    Respectfully, I think the left very much gets individualism and are desperately trying to conquer it. If we can rely on God, ourselves, family, and community then we don’t have to rely on a strong central government and that limits the left’s ability to exercise control.

    The center right fears individualism through lack of self confidence. Thus why the center right chats about limited government, but clings to the federal social safety hammock.

    Those of us on the far right embrace individualism, do not like failure, but embrace it as a lesson learned and thank God for grace, forgiveness, and second chances.

    • #18
    • October 1, 2015, at 10:30 AM PDT
    • Like
  19. Titus Techera Contributor

    So far as I understand the difference between right & left in our modern world, it comes down to this, the right thinks differences between human beings are natural or perhaps sacred. Therefore, that some fail badly & not learn anything is inevitable. There types of men exist; those who learn for themselves, those who learn from others, & those who do not learn. I believe this phrase neatly sums up what the lefties do not believe & sometimes hate to hear uttered. I believe you might see how your description of political groups approximates to the old wisdom.

    Now, to look at America, the welfare state has never been unpopular. A conservatism predicated on getting rid of it–say cutting government spending by half–has either to plan tyranny or to explain how to make it unpopular. I do not see that any GOP coalition has been predicated on dismantling the welfare state. I do not see how any could be. If you think there is any way to conjure up such a coalition, even if it’s a generational effort rather than some brilliant plan for 2016 or 2020, please explain.

    I think the GOP will face long struggles to make sure that government at about the size it is now becomes financially sound. In this contest, Christian & other conservatives have generations’ work ahead of them to rebuild the communities necessary to produce the citizens who would reject the enormous being of government. Freedom must be proven to be good for people-

    • #19
    • October 1, 2015, at 10:48 AM PDT
    • Like
  20. TKC1101 Inactive

    Titus Techera:So far as I understand the difference between right & left in our modern world, it comes down to this, the right thinks differences between human beings are natural or perhaps sacred. Therefore, that some fail badly & not learn anything is inevitable. There types of men exist; those who learn for themselves, those who learn from others, & those who do not learn. I believe this phrase neatly sums up what the lefties do not believe & sometimes hate to hear uttered. I believe you might see how your description of political groups approximates to the old wisdom.

    Now, to look at America, the welfare state has never been unpopular. A conservatism predicated on getting rid of it–say cutting government spending by half–has either to plan tyranny or to explain how to make it unpopular. I do not see that any GOP coalition has been predicated on dismantling the welfare state. I do not see how any could be. If you think there is any way to conjure up such a coalition, even if it’s a generational effort rather than some brilliant plan for 2016 or 2020, please explain.

    I think the GOP will face long struggles to make sure that government at about the size it is now becomes financially sound. In this contest, Christian & other conservatives have generations’ work ahead of them to rebuild the communities necessary to produce the citizens who would reject the enormous being of government. Freedom must be proven to be good for people-

    The factor missed in much discussion is that your average American is not ideological but pragmatic. Big Government, Small Government is a theoretical blather to them.

    Social Security is supported because for now, it works. Checks are issued and they turn into cash. Medicare is supported because it by and large works. People get healthcare.

    Obamacare is failing because it does not work. Exchanges are failing and the high deductible rising premium combination is an easy to see losing proposition. The insurers are bailing.

    High Tax states are losing taxpayers to low tax states.

    The conservative movement that keeps expecting the public to become ideologically aware and embrace small government is like Charlie Brown, Lucy keeps pulling the football away.

    Small government will be won tactically, on the merits of each proposition. The best way to get rid of big government is to allow private enterprise to provide the same service.

    • #20
    • October 1, 2015, at 12:50 PM PDT
    • Like
  21. MLH Inactive
    MLH

    Titus, I just have to ask: how much time have you spent in the States?

    • #21
    • October 1, 2015, at 1:07 PM PDT
    • Like
  22. Titus Techera Contributor

    TKC1101:The factor missed in much discussion is that your average American is not ideological but pragmatic. Big Government, Small Government is a theoretical blather to them.

    I dislike the American habit of calling that pragmatic. I liked it better when people said this is what it means to be practical. But by your lights small government failed. Coolidge was refuted by history–at least for a century or more. Americans pragmatically got rid of what did not work in favor of what work.

    Social Security is supported because for now, it works. Checks are issued and they turn into cash. Medicare is supported because it by and large works. People get healthcare.

    Long live FDR & LBJ?

    High Tax states are losing taxpayers to low tax states.

    True, but not a lot. I’m not sure it ever matters. Are you predicting that over 50 years California & New York & Illinois & whatever states have the worst tax burden lose more people than other states? Or only taxpayers?

    The conservative movement that keeps expecting the public to become ideologically aware and embrace small government is like Charlie Brown, Lucy keeps pulling the football away.

    Small government will be won tactically, on the merits of each proposition. The best way to get rid of big government is to allow private enterprise to provide the same service.

    Well, that’s a contradiction of some kind. Do Americans call that a catch-22? You could win tactically if your adversaries’ strategy allowed it…

    • #22
    • October 1, 2015, at 1:18 PM PDT
    • Like
  23. Titus Techera Contributor

    MLH:Titus, I just have to ask: how much time have you spent in the States?

    I have never visited. Zero.

    • #23
    • October 1, 2015, at 1:18 PM PDT
    • Like
  24. TKC1101 Inactive

    Titus Techera:

    TKC1101:The factor missed in much discussion is that your average American is not ideological but pragmatic. Big Government, Small Government is a theoretical blather to them.

    I dislike the American habit of calling that pragmatic. I liked it better when people said this is what it means to be practical. But by your lights small government failed. Coolidge was refuted by history–at least for a century or more. Americans pragmatically got rid of what did not work in favor of what work.

    Social Security is supported because for now, it works. Checks are issued and they turn into cash. Medicare is supported because it by and large works. People get healthcare.

    Long live FDR & LBJ?

    High Tax states are losing taxpayers to low tax states.

    True, but not a lot. I’m not sure it ever matters. Are you predicting that over 50 years California & New York & Illinois & whatever states have the worst tax burden lose more people than other states? Or only taxpayers?

    The conservative movement that keeps expecting the public to become ideologically aware and embrace small government is like Charlie Brown, Lucy keeps pulling the football away.

    Small government will be won tactically, on the merits of each proposition. The best way to get rid of big government is to allow private enterprise to provide the same service.

    Well, that’s a contradiction of some kind. Do Americans call that a catch-22? You could win tactically if your adversaries’ strategy allowed it…

    Small government as a political movement obviously has failed. What I am saying is that it is not because people are ideologically tuned to big government but that the specific programs that make it up have actually functioned day to day.

    If you want small government to win, in America you do not win it ideologically but functionally. Get something better that works better.

    The states are doing that right now. Small government states versus big government states and the small government states are winning population. When I was growing up, New York had the most electoral votes. No longer.

    Conservatives can beat big government not by frontal assault but by opening private alternatives. That battle is underway in schooling. Just like Uber can beat entrenched government monopolies, all you need to do to win Americans away from Big Government is better alternatives, not better ideology.

    Conservatives remind me of excellent strategic talkers on the theory of warfare but lousy at small unit tactics.

    • #24
    • October 1, 2015, at 1:34 PM PDT
    • Like
  25. MLH Inactive
    MLH

    Titus Techera:

    MLH:Titus, I just have to ask: how much time have you spent in the States?

    I have never visited. Zero.

    I think that you need to come here. Not just the big cities or university towns. Be a modern Tocqueville.

    • #25
    • October 1, 2015, at 1:43 PM PDT
    • Like
  26. Titus Techera Contributor

    California has the most electoral votes–if the movement is from one Dem state with some GOP state-wide victories to an almost entirely one-party Dem state, I’m worried.

    It’s been a long time of big government getting gradually bigger.

    I do not believe states can do much of anything about this. It’s sure worth trying, but that is not where I place my hopes. I do not even know how to shape up these hopes. It’s not that successful governors will become presidents & shrink government. That does not seem to work! What else? How are things going to change…

    I’m glad for Uber & what have you. But unless you’re saying, Obamacare will be repealed or fail & be abandoned institutionally, I do not see the point. Uber may turn out to be a small victory that’s worth something. Obamacare has been a big defeat. Whatever the talk on the conservative side, I think the deeds are obvious & the proportions are obvious, too.

    As I said, I don’t see any plans for cutting government significantly–I hope people who know more about how the various levels of government spend have any ideas…

    • #26
    • October 1, 2015, at 2:18 PM PDT
    • Like
  27. Titus Techera Contributor

    MLH:

    Titus Techera:

    MLH:Titus, I just have to ask: how much time have you spent in the States?

    I have never visited. Zero.

    I think that you need to come here. Not just the big cities or university towns. Be a modern Tocqueville.

    If I could become a Tocqueville at the price of landing on US soil, I’d be over thee faster than you can say, stop that illegal alien! But leaving aside the disproportion in ability, there is this to say: The aristocracy is over, I’m afraid–not to say that I would not love to see what’s what for myself. & come to think of it, the American prison system is certainly more interesting, not to say worrisome now than it was then…

    • #27
    • October 1, 2015, at 2:19 PM PDT
    • Like
  28. TKC1101 Inactive

    Titus Techera:California has the most electoral votes–if the movement is from one Dem state with some GOP state-wide victories to an almost entirely one-party Dem state, I’m worried.

    It’s been a long time of big government getting gradually bigger.

    I do not believe states can do much of anything about this. It’s sure worth trying, but that is not where I place my hopes. I do not even know how to shape up these hopes. It’s not that successful governors will become presidents & shrink government. That does not seem to work! What else? How are things going to change…

    I’m glad for Uber & what have you. But unless you’re saying, Obamacare will be repealed or fail & be abandoned institutionally, I do not see the point. Uber may turn out to be a small victory that’s worth something. Obamacare has been a big defeat. Whatever the talk on the conservative side, I think the deeds are obvious & the proportions are obvious, too.

    As I said, I don’t see any plans for cutting government significantly–I hope people who know more about how the various levels of government spend have any ideas…

    The questions is, Obamacare has been a big defeat for which side? Even Hillary is beginning to dismantle it. The public thinks it’s a bad deal and there is still a private alternative. It may have soured three generations on big government solutions.

    Cutting government overtly does not work politically. Changing government can work. If after it’s changed, it happens to be smaller, no one will care. The ideological approach does not work here, and we are short on pragmatic ideologues.

    Trump attracts voters because he comes off as a pragmatist. The GOP screaming “You are not a conservative” is music to his ears. Carson and Fiorina are also not playing ideology.

    • #28
    • October 1, 2015, at 2:55 PM PDT
    • Like
  29. MLH Inactive
    MLH

    Titus Techera:

    MLH:

    Titus Techera:

    MLH:Titus, I just have to ask: how much time have you spent in the States?

    I have never visited. Zero.

    I think that you need to come here. Not just the big cities or university towns. Be a modern Tocqueville.

    If I could become a Tocqueville at the price of landing on US soil, I’d be over thee faster than you can say, stop that illegal alien! But leaving aside the disproportion in ability, there is this to say: The aristocracy is over, I’m afraid–not to say that I would not love to see what’s what for myself. & come to think of it, the American prison system is certainly more interesting, not to say worrisome now than it was then…

    If you can get to PHX (just under $900 rtn) I’ll pick you up!

    • #29
    • October 1, 2015, at 3:32 PM PDT
    • Like
  30. Midget Faded Rattlesnake Contributor

    Titus Techera:

    MLH:

    Titus Techera:

    MLH:Titus, I just have to ask: how much time have you spent in the States?

    I have never visited. Zero.

    I think that you need to come here. Not just the big cities or university towns. Be a modern Tocqueville.

    If I could become a Tocqueville at the price of landing on US soil, I’d be over thee faster than you can say, stop that illegal alien!

    “Over thee”?

    Titus, please stop sexually harassing the membership with your typos!

    • #30
    • October 1, 2015, at 7:43 PM PDT
    • Like