May I introduce you to Mad King Ludwig of Bavaria? 

Historically he was known as Louis II, ruling from 1864-1886.  He ascended the throne at the age of 19 with great hopes, but also with great personal limitations.  He seemed most often to choose the wrong sides with international conflict.  Government aides constantly manipulated him for personal agendas.  And he tried to connect with the common man, but ingrained aristocracy forbade him from doing so. 

So, after years of well-intended but failed governance, King Ludwig isolated himself from the day-to-day affairs of government by moving to the Bavarian mountains.  There he focused upon several massive building projects, opulant castles to be monuments to the arts and to the king himself.  He was fascinated with the great composer Richard Wagner, so one castle was a tribute to his music.   Thus he created his own alternative world of happiness and beauty, out of touch with most others.

The government and country was in disarray because of lack of leadership at the top, and nation almost bankrupt by the heavy cost of the King's pet projects.  Surrounding nations became increasing threats to national security.  Yet, the distant monarch continued to live in his fantasy world.

Finally, the King was declared insane and removed from his throne.  He died three days later.

There, you've met him, The Mad King Of Bavaria.  Nice guy, no doubt.  But, living in his own fantasy world of isolation.  Not very good with international affairs.  And, spending his nation into oblivion with personal pet projects.  Why?  Because he is crazy!

I am a political Conservative - with a capital “c”.  And I am about to the breaking point with my disillusionment with the situation on Pennsylvania Avenue.  Spending is out-of-control.  I am not an economics whiz (my personal budget will attest to it), but I know these politicians, Red and Blue, are quickly spending us into hopeless debt.  The War in Iraq?  I've supported it as a “noble cause”, but they are not trying to win it- or get out of it.  It is a political football- our children are dying, for politics.  And, there is no progress of a Conservative social agenda.  I think I am finally seeing what these guys do, as a habit.  About every two years they leave their mansions and limos in Washington to eat pizza with us, and stir us up with bald-faced rhetoric.  They have no intention to actually advance the cause, and no real respect for hard-working, family-focused, God-fearing conservative people.  It's just a game of power, and folks like myself are played for the sucker.

At least Mad King Ludwig was earnest with his intentions.  And, he was crazy. 

I know of a nice, quiet, and tranquil little home in the North Georgia Mountains.  It's a peaceful place, and they serve good meals.  And, they paint your name, in pretty cursive lettering on the doorposts.  “George Bush” - yep, it would fit.

---

posted by: toztee (reply)
post date: 04.28.06 (5:18 pm)

Your movie critiques are more meaningful and not nearly as boring.

---

posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 04.28.06 (5:35 pm)

Reply to: toztee

Well, thank you! Sounds like you are saying I should stick to movies and stay away from politics?

Actually I have been thinking about some posts on classic movies, maybe westerns like High Noon and Pale Rider.

I think the story of Mad King Ludwig would make a good movie- perhaps it has already been done.

---

posted by: toztee (reply)
post date: 04.28.06 (5:49 pm)

Was not trying to be mean Dave. It simply seems politics is all I hear lately and I look forward to reading something intriguing from your blogs. I try to keep up with politics on the outside of blogdom and was hoping to find something of interest to pass some time tonight. I have been reading some of your past blogs. Some of others too. You have some that appeal to me more than the political spiels. Sorry, no offense intended.

---

posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 04.28.06 (6:08 pm)

Reply to: toztee
My faith in Christ colors everything about me. My opinions. My politics. However, I try to be open-minded and multi-dimensional. Also, I'm thinking that talking about other matters will help me to enter into dialog with all kinds of people. This will help me to be the well-rounded person I want to be, and it may motivate some to later talk "faith" with me. I believe everyone, even if they are not Christian, needs to think deeply about spiritual and religious matters. So, a person who thinks a lot about politics but scarcely considers religion may just read what I have to say and come to think that maybe I'd be worth interacting with. This T-blog is sort of like the old neighborhood coffee shop, where people sit around and just talk. If they know the preacher is around, they may just talk to him some about his big "issue". I truly believe what I have written about politics. Really, it is a surprising position I am coming to, because I have been so devoted to the Conservative politicians for so long.

Thanks for your comments. Come around anytime, and don't worry about offending me. I can take it! And, sometimes I can be offensive- bet you can take it, too.

---

posted by: surrogate (reply)
post date: 04.29.06 (4:26 am)

I know you like to blame "both sides" for the woes of the last five years, but the fact is, that the Repubs have the majority in both the house and the senate and have a guy at the top who hasn't used the veto even once. They can pass any law and spending bill they please and are doing so without any help of the Dem side. All negotiations involve throwing the Dems bones so they shut up about it, NOT for their votes...

Forty years of Democratic control and majority NEVER produced a deficit like this -- for a very good and simple reason. The Dems were beholden to many groups and some business interests. The Repubs are interested ONLY in the business folks who can send them enough money to keep them in their seats, and they are willing to throw away MY kids' futures to do it. You go ahead and try to blame both sides... I'm looking at where we are and where we were and it just doesn't compute. Time to blame those folks who are in charge. Your theory is like blaming the paint on the bridge for the supports being weak, or blaming it equally along with the rusting steel. It's silly. The Dems have NO power. Count the votes.

---

posted by: drforbush (reply)
post date: 05.01.06 (12:07 pm)

You forgot to mention that Mad King Ludwig built Neuschwanstein which was the castle that Disney used as castle when it calls its park the Magic Kingdom. So, what would Disneyland look like without Mad King Lugwig...

---

posted by: drforbush (reply)
post date: 05.01.06 (12:12 pm)

As far as the politics of Washington is concerned, I hope that people begin to realize that a government with checks and balances is better than a one party government. Since we only have two political parties in the US we need to pray that the Democrats can take control of either the House or Senate in order to keep the Republicans honest. Without a government willing to investigate itself honestly we will continue to have these problems.

---

posted by: PastorDave (reply)
post date: 05.01.06 (4:20 pm)

My problem is that I see both parties as too much of the same thing. They talk a different game, but behave equally inept and equally selfish once in office. I'm convinced conservative politics triumph liberalism. But, these guys in office now are not true conservatives. They are opportunists.

What I long for is a viable third party. If it would take to demise of the Republican party to bring this about, I would be willing to suffer through it. I would even entertain the possibility of John McCain breaking from the party and running on a separate ticket. He would bring credibility to a 3rd party. May happen. Interestingly, I would not consider voting for him as a Republican.

---

posted by: Anarchist (reply)
post date: 05.02.06 (2:34 am)

I vote cross-wise in an effort to stifle the two parties. I may vote flat democrat for the legislative level but republican for president - or vice-versa. That way they work against eachother instead of against us :) The best time was when Clinton had a Republican controlled congress.
At the local government level I just vote against every incumbent.

---

posted by: drforbush (reply)
post date: 05.03.06 (11:15 am)

The current problem in the USA is that the system is set up to be a two party system. Unfortunately the USA has many more than two sides to every issue. Most people share conservative views of some issues and liberal views on other issues. Issue oriented parties like the Green Party considers the environment to be the most important issue and frame every issue in that way. So, the Green party could never get 50% of the vote to even get one representative in congress. In Europe they have Christian Political Parties that allow people with Christian views to support the religious social issues. But, once again a Christian Conservative Party running on religious issues alone could not win 50% of the vote. This is why the religious right, the wealthy and the militant conservatives needed to work together to take control of the Republican Party in the US. Many Republicans don't view their party as a religious party, even though the religious right pulls many of the social issue strings today.

In a parliamentary system each of several different groups are elected based on more specific issues. Then a coalition of groups work together to form a government to tackle the major issues at hand at that time. As time goes on the important issues change and different parties with better solutions offer their ideas. And, eventually a coalition breaks down because of the change in issues at hand. This better reflects the changing views of the public in general.

In the two party system that the US currently has, each party needs to be able to voice opposing views that carry some weight, or the one party with power will be able to do whatever they want to do. But, even with a two party system there is a problem with collusion. The two parties can agree that there will be certain issues that are off the table, not to be argued. This has been the topic of pork barrel politics. Both parties had agreed that they won’t question each other’s pork projects, therefore raising the amount of spending. Lately we have been going through quite a bit of cleansing, where the once taboo issues have been brought up in the public forum. The Democrats have done this largely in an effort to point to hypocrisy on the part of the Republicans in power mainly because they have run out of options. Republicans have also struck back, but their attacks have held little water because the Republicans do control congress and can do whatever they want.

In the end, the one party system that we have today will change slowly as Republicans are embarrassed. A two party system would effect quick changes on the topics that both parties agree not to ignore. And a multiparty system would other even quicker changes, which of course frightens the politicians currently in power, so I wouldn’t expect any changes soon.

You may wonder why a third or fourth party never gets any traction in the US, and that is mainly due to the way the laws have been written in the US to weaken third parties. It takes an enormous amount of money to get any political party started, because it takes an enormous amount of support before a party can get recognition. Ross Perot used his own money to start his own political party, but he didn’t follow up on it 4 years later when he had the possibility to make it grow but his supporters wanted a different candidate. So, you need to spend a lot of money that offers no personal reward. How many people think that this makes sense? Instead people eventually choose between the two major parties, because it is the path of least resistance. That’s why the religious right didn’t start their own political party like they have in Europe, but they joined the Republicans, which seems to have worked out for them…

---

posted by: drforbush (reply)
post date: 05.03.06 (11:35 am)

The current problem in the USA is that the system is set up to be a two party system. Unfortunately the USA has many more than two sides to every issue. Most people share conservative views of some issues and liberal views on other issues. Issue oriented parties like the Green Party considers the environment to be the most important issue and frame every issue in that way. So, the Green party could never get 50% of the vote to even get one representative in congress. In Europe they have Christian Political Parties that allow people with Christian views to support the religious social issues. But, once again a Christian Conservative Party running on religious issues alone could not win 50% of the vote. This is why the religious right, the wealthy and the militant conservatives needed to work together to take control of the Republican Party in the US. Many Republicans don't view their party as a religious party, even though the religious right pulls many of the social issue strings today.

In a parliamentary system each of several different groups are elected based on more specific issues. Then a coalition of groups work together to form a government to tackle the major issues at hand at that time. As time goes on the important issues change and different parties with better solutions offer their ideas. And, eventually a coalition breaks down because of the change in issues at hand. This better reflects the changing views of the public in general.

In the two party system that the US currently has, each party needs to be able to voice opposing views that carry some weight, or the one party with power will be able to do whatever they want to do. But, even with a two party system there is a problem with collusion. The two parties can agree that there will be certain issues that are off the table, not to be argued. This has been the topic of pork barrel politics. Both parties had agreed that they won’t question each other’s pork projects, therefore raising the amount of spending. Lately we have been going through quite a bit of cleansing, where the once taboo issues have been brought up in the public forum. The Democrats have done this largely in an effort to point to hypocrisy on the part of the Republicans in power mainly because they have run out of options. Republicans have also struck back, but their attacks have held little water because the Republicans do control congress and can do whatever they want.

In the end, the one party system that we have today will change slowly as Republicans are embarrassed. A two party system would effect quick changes on the topics that both parties agree not to ignore. And a multiparty system would other even quicker changes, which of course frightens the politicians currently in power, so I wouldn’t expect any changes soon.

You may wonder why a third or fourth party never gets any traction in the US, and that is mainly due to the way the laws have been written in the US to weaken third parties. It takes an enormous amount of money to get any political party started, because it takes an enormous amount of support before a party can get recognition. Ross Perot used his own money to start his own political party, but he didn’t follow up on it 4 years later when he had the possibility to make it grow but his supporters wanted a different candidate. So, you need to spend a lot of money that offers no personal reward. How many people think that this makes sense? Instead people eventually choose between the two major parties, because it is the path of least resistance. That’s why the religious right didn’t start their own political party like they have in Europe, but they joined the Republicans, which seems to have worked out for them…

Your Name:


Your Comment: