Of course, it is easy enough to come up with an ideology that espouses the supremacy of one over the other.  But so many ideologies tend to be dysfunctional in practice.  Hell, perhaps all ideologies are dysfunctional in practice.  So, in striking a balance between the individual and the community, we are often left with nothing more farsighted than trial and error.

The Midwestern town I was raised in was back then a thriving little rural community of about 2,000 people who lived in the town, and perhaps another thousand or two who lived in the surrounding country.  In many respects, the basic unit of that community is not the individual, but the family.  By American standards, the families there are ancient.  That's to say, most families have roots in the community that go back at least a hundred years.

It seems all the ancient families are to one extent or another connected.  My mother, who is an amateur genealogist, has spent years documenting their connections, and she has by no means exhausted the subject.  Perhaps more than in any other way, the community is welded together by those family connections; although to be sure, there are many ways people are connected.

People there "place" you by your family name.  Growing up, I was unaware of how much my family name protected me until a friend pointed it out one afternoon.   Terry said -- with a hint of resentment -- that had she gotten into the same troubles I'd gotten into, she'd be in jail; but with my name, I was still free.  At first, I argued with her.  But her words started me thinking, and in the end, I could see she was largely right.

Her family were newcomers to the town: They'd only been there a few years.  Her family was wealthier than mine, but family name trumped wealth.  I was protected. She wasn't.

We were friends because we were our class rebels.  And yet our rebellion was in almost all respects laughably slight.  At least any outsider would laugh at the poor extent of our youthful rebellion.   On the other hand, many in the community were threatened even by such a poor showing as ours.  For instance:  Terry and I once publicly criticized the quality of education we were getting and demanded better.  Consequently, we were called everything from ungrateful fools to dangerous radicals and idle troublemakers. I've sometimes thought: If that town were to put an honest motto on its city seal, the motto would need to be, "Don't rock the boat."

Yet, if you want to live in a stable environment with an organic social security net, get yourself born into a small community.  At least, the small community I grew up in excelled at providing stability and at looking out for each other.  The price paid for that stability and security was you could barely do anything without taking into account its repercussions on a dozen people.  Folks were so interconnected -- and not just by family alone -- that sneezing on Smith was sure to cause Jones to take cold a month later.   Hence, many innocent kinds of individual expression and accomplishment were -- to put it mildly -- frowned upon.

Most likely because of the community I was raised in, I am quite skeptical of ideologies that espouse the supremacy of community over individuals.  So far as I can see, anyone who puts such an ideology into practice is, at the very least, asking for a repressive mediocrity.

Yet, I've seen the other side too.  I've known "communities" where people do not know the name of their next door neighbor; where adults live in habitual suspicion of each other; and where kids have no support growing up from anyone outside of their immediate family and a few teachers.  Those "communities" produce their own set of problems. For one thing, they seem to encourage in us no important life goals other than to raise up the next generation and ourselves be good consumers.  Again and again, one hears from people living in those "communities" that life seems unfulfilling, aimless, even meaningless.  In the end, too little community is just as repressive of human well-being and excellence as too much community.

So, for me, it comes down to striking a functional balance between the community and the individual.  And I'm not even sure that's possible anymore.  But I sometimes ask myself how our species ever managed it before today's stifling developments.

Of course, we evolved as hunter/gatherers living for most of the year in small bands.  So, if you want to understand one likely way our ancestors struck a balance between the community and the individual, it is possible you can do no better than to read Ruth Beebe Hill's extraordinary work, Hanta Yo -- for Hanta Yo is about hunter/gatherers.

Hill was an anthropologist who lived among the Lakota -- the Native Americans more widely known as the Sioux -- and who wrote Hanta Yo in order to quite accurately depict how the people of that nation lived from shortly before the arrival of the Europeans until, as I recall, the mid-1800s.  The format is that of an historical novel, but the effort Hill put into the work is pure scholarship.

According to Hill, the Lakota of that period were radical individualists who nevertheless directed their energies predominantly towards the welfare and betterment of their nation.

As individualists, they put even John Wayne to shame.

Freedom of choice was so crucial to the Lakota, for instance, that they could not bring themselves to prevent an infant from crawling into a campfire.  They might try to distract an infant from crawling towards a fire, but if the infant did not choose to be distracted, the Lakota would not prevent it from exercising its freedom to do as it pleased -- so radical was their individualism.

Yet, as community minded folk, the Lakota rivaled Barak Obama.  That is, they had what we might today call "a highly developed sense of community service".  Often enough, the thing that mattered most to them was the well-being of the nation.  In our own day and age, we might be prone to cynically dismiss their extreme community mindedness as "idealism".  Yet, the Lakota managed to make a practice of it.   It was not idealism to them, but their way of life, and it made just as much common sense to them as their radical individualism.

The Lakota, then, achieved a functional, sustainable way of life that balanced the needs of the individual with the needs of the community.  No small accomplishment for our species of chimpanzee.  Yet, today, it seems rare to find an individual who pursues with equal passion both personal excellence and the greater well-being of his or her community.

Everyone of our ideologies claims it strikes the perfect balance between the individual and the community, while in practice, none of them actually do.  It seems our ideologies have either lost what it means to achieve personal excellence or they have lost what it means to achieve community.

It is arguable we cannot flourish without both.  If we do not appear to be a species that evolved to live alone like bears, neither do we appear to be a species that evolved to live in a collective like bees.  Our well being does not lie with the bears and the bees, but with recognizing the unique and peculiar nature of our own species.  So far as I can see, the Lakota -- although imperfect -- came closer to doing that than we have.

Why does any of this matter?  I suspect it matters because ideologies are like road maps.  They are guides that predict if we take this road or another we will wind up either here or there.  But all our current ideologies -- both of the right and the of the left -- are so inadequate it seems none of them can in practice be implemented without leading to horrendous repression.  One might even be forgiven for cynically believing our current ideologies are each of them a mere guise to mask the exploitation of the many by the few.  So, even though the Lakota way of life is not one we can adopt today, we might still learn something valuable from it.  We might even learn enough to correct our maps.

The argument which has led us to this conclusion is doubtless less strong than we could wish, but it is typical of many philosophical arguments, and it is therefore worth while to consider briefly its general character and validity. All knowledge, we find, must be built upon our instinctive beliefs, and if these are rejected, nothing is left. But among our instinctive beliefs some are much stronger than others, while many have, by habit and association, become entangled with other beliefs, not really instinctive, but falsely supposed to be part of what is believed instinctively.

Philosophy should show us the hierarchy of our instinctive beliefs, beginning with those we hold most strongly, and persisting each as much isolated and as free from irrelevant additions as possible. It should take care to show that, in the form in which they are finally set forth, our instinctive beliefs do not clash, but form a harmonious system. There can never be any reason for rejecting one instinctive belief except that it clashes with others; thus, if they are found to harmonize, the whole system becomes worthy of acceptance.

So much for Descartes and starting with doubt. So much for Kant and idealism. The last thing I would expect to hear from myself when reading Bertrand Russell is an "Amen!", but I must confess that's what happened. This defense of "instinctive beliefs" is very Chestertonian. Or perhaps, G. K. Chesterton was a bit Russellian in this respect. Of course, it goes without saying that while their thought may have coincided on this point, the conclusions drawn by these two English contemporaries were poles apart.

Maybe it's just my cynicism kicking in again (that tends to happen...), but in this modern age, I feel that this government has mutated from a democracy into an oligarchy--a government controlled by a small group.

My problem with the first form of the definition is that every person simply does not have that right. People under the age of 18 do not have this right. Now, it is obvious that the government wants people to be mature and educated before they are allowed to vote, but who set the limit at eighteen? I sure as hell know that I wouldn't consent to that! The problem with this is that the government assumes that people get smarter as they grow, which in some cases is simply untrue (stupidity is a common thing these days). Also, on the other end of the spectrum, there are many bright intellectuals more than capable of making an informed voting decision who are under the age of 18. Simply put, there is no logical way one can just randomly assign an age and decide that the moment a person becomes that age, they are suddenly able to make proper judgments. If anything, there should be a test of sorts to see if a person understands the candidates and the issues. That way, we wouldn't have ageism, nor would we have stupid voters. I remember reading an issue of Newsweek once where an African American woman said, in a detailed interview, that she was first supporting Hillary Clinton because she was a woman, but then sided with Barack Obama because she felt that she was "betraying her race." Then she went back to Clinton because she thought Obama's campaign "wasn't nice." This idiot has not mentioned a single issue besides the fact that Clinton is a woman and Obama is black. Based on those qualifications, Paris Hilton and Snoop Dogg are also qualified candidates for president. Yet this government trust some clueless fool like her, who has not thought of a single issue, to vote while depriving other younger, more informed people of this right.

The second part of the definition is flawed as well, for many of the same reasons as the first definition is flawed. But the problem here (to use the most recent presidential election as a sample) is also that only 64% of U.S. citizens 18 and over voted in the 2004 election. What happens to the people who are disgusted by both (presumably sleazy) candidates? Independent parties aren't strong enough to make a difference yet, so what are they to do--does their voice go unheard? Even with my proposed "test" to stop uneducated voters from voting, that would not be democracy. Simply put, this government hasn't even been elected by 2/3 of its citizens, let alone all of them.

The problem with the third part of the definition is that politicians are generally horrible people. Those who can vote elect them based on trust, and nothing more. Once elected, the citizens can do nothing to make sure that the politicians keep up their promises. At that point, we have handed over power to the small groups--the politicians. Thus, there is no more "majority decision-making." We have no say in their choices, and in general, their choices reflect their own interests instead of the greater good of the country.

The fourth definition (although it seems to be less related to governments than the other three) overlaps with some of the others in terms of problems. The main problems (assuming that the "organization" described is the country itself) is not controlled at all by its members. The members, as stated in the third point, don't have control in the decision-making processes.

After looking this over, it just seems that the U.S. has transformed from a democracy founded on noble principles into a corrupt oligarchy that has minimal regard for its own people. I hope that this, and my opinion on the matter, changes in the future, but at this pace, chances are slim.

Mrs. Palin also attacked Mr Obama’s “change agenda” and suggested he was more interested in idealism and “high-flown speech-making” than acting for “real Americans".

"Change Agenda:"

Anyone who would want to "stay the course" in this turbulent world, is likely to be of neocon persuasion. With the strongest man in the world touting WWIII, the keepers of the Doomsday Clock must be rather nervous - along with the rest of the world.

America's State Department now sounds like America's War Department. "Negotiation" has been given a bad name. The "tool of choice", in problem resolution is now - war.

"Idealism:"

The American economy is a long ways from ideal. And an attempt to "upright" America's "capsized" economy is not approaching "idealism". It is approaching normalcy.  Many American's would say that there is a "ton" of space between where America is now, and where America used to be. It is not Idealism that the Democrats seek. It is resuscitation - resuscitation "before it is too late."

"High-Flown Speech-Making:"

No "high-flown speech-making" could exceed those 16 words that gave the impetus for Mr. Bush's Iraq war:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Those 16 words never advanced beyond the "assertion" stage but, in the hands of the Bush team, they were able to start the Iraq war.

"Real Americans:"

Anyone born or naturalized in the United States of America. There are no political or religious requirements to being a "Real American".

Sure, today I am not in the best state, but I have hope. Hope reaches into me, to lead me towards the victory of God. I am the essence of all consciousness, being constantly resurrected from a fallen state. I am baptized into the body of the Risen Lord, and united with him by one Spirit, made one flesh with him by that same Spirit. I am not forsaken, but am embraced by this beloved who ushers me into his presence with glee, as I approach with trembling reverence.

My tears are merely prayers in a different language. In them is the hope of glory, as true suffering somehow brigs true redemption. Our ideals are not God's ideals. The Risen Lord shows us that in suffering is the cosmos replaced where the chaos once was. Idealism is ultimately backwards, and in those ideals I am further from the Resurrection of the Son of God than closer.

So it occurred to me that in order to truly experience the meaning of this great and glorious resurrection, it means that I must not shed the ideas that I have thought were ideal, I must also embrace those which are seemingly backwards to me.

Suffering is not the emptiness of dejection, though that is experienced, it shall prove to be more integral to the resurrection of my person than should I never have suffered. The world, I can't speak for, but for me, for Eli, this suffering is my invitation into God's plan of redemption.

So, as I enter into the lower depths, I know that my war with the forces of evil is not in vain, as I leave behind those things which would lead me from the narrow path, I find pleasure in the backwards ideals of God. Sipping a Lady Grey tea blend and wondering about all this gives me pleasure, and as I pursue my future, I realize that in time I will get there, regardless. Today is a day, tomorrow shall be another, and ultimately, it is completed in such a way that my purpose will be accomplished, I have faith and hope that the path set before me is not in vain and that which I feel called to complete will be completed because I have dedicated myself to it and to enjoying today.

I am enjoying beauty, the joys of mentoring, and being mentored, the beauty of togetherness, the bliss of separation, the ebb and flow of presence and absence.

Beautiful.

As you read this, I don't think you'll understand half of what was said here this day, and for that I am sorry.

I don't blame anyone or anything for these things which we pass. We are all journeying towards something, and I am whole in the redemption of my body. I am whole in my expectation that this is going to be well. 

So, brothers and sisters, my little children, remember that suffering causes the redemption of things outside ourselves, and in the end, it is not about how God is going to save me. It's about how God is going to save the universe through me.

Love one another, as I remember to do the same. Hold fast. Stand strong.

The Resurrection shall live through me today, and in this we are well pleased.