The Daily Paul has been archived. Please see the continuation of the Daily Paul at Popular

Thank you for a great ride, and for 8 years of support!

Comment: Your battered-wife analogy

(See in situ)

Your battered-wife analogy

Your battered-wife analogy may not be a bad one -- despite the rabbit-trail it's sent many here down -- but it goes off the rails for me.

Between the lines, however, I think it makes a very good point, and one, I'm assuming, you didn't mean to make.

The reasons a woman stays with a man who hits her have little to do with the flowers-sorry-after-the-fact stuff; they have to do with the woman's poor relationship skills and poor judgement. She's not wooed by the tender apology and promise of reform; she's wooed by her own fears of changing her patterns in relationships.

If you had used your analogy to deal with this aspect of the liberty movement, I'm thinking you would have made a more salient point.

Rather than advocate "bug out" or "bunker down," your point would have been to be more mature and discerning, to form relationships based on evidence and trust and benefit rather than on fear, weakness.

Blaming the perpetrators -- you mention Beck, Levin, and Limbaugh -- won't do you any good. Like the battered wife, who finally leaves her husband but maintains HE was only to blame, you'll just go back to another incarnation of your Becks and Limbaughs.

You do write that you're addressing only "some" in the liberty movement (by the passionate responses generated I'm assuming this "some" is at least well represented in this discussion), but that "some" would be better advised to change THEIR ways of assessing who they will trust and form relationships with. Don't blame the BLOWHARDS you choose to listen to and engage with and depend on for YOUR twisted relationship with them. The sick relationship isn't coming from THEM; it's coming from YOU.

In short, if you would have used your battered wife analogy to blame yourself -- and by extension the "some" in the liberty movement -- I think you would have been off to a great start and some apropos observations.

As is, however, the thrust of your piece preaches a stance that leaves folks in danger of leaving one bad relationship for another. You seem caught up in the notion that because some of your trusted media personalities and/or politicians did you wrong, THEY are bad. If instead, you considered why YOU are drawn to such media personalities and politicians, you'd be on your way to be discerning and establishing exciting, provocative, beneficial relationship. You wouldn't feel your choices are boxed in by bunker or bug out. You wouldn't be restricted by a defensive reaction. You'd be free to be a nimble, engaging, demanding partner in the relationship.

Gosh, I read through that and am doubtful that it will make much sense to anyone. My thoughts anyway and I appreciate rancorous discussion that provokes me to try to write them down.