John Kennedy was, to put it bluntly, wrong. Only a tyrant claims that a country is owed the blood sweat and toil of it's citizens. A Democrat knows that it is the Country which owes it's citizens. I'll vote for the Democrats when they understand that.

More and better Democrats is nothing but a recipe for irrelevency. Going into a negotiation admitting that you will, regardless of any ground the other party gives, be ceding to your partner's demands is just plain stupid.

...of the specific post to which they are attached.

As to John Kennedy, although that particular speech, the one with which he accepted the Presidency during his inauguration, has never been a personal favorite, in fairness to Kennedy, it was clear in the context of the speech that he didn't mean what you are implying - it was a call to active citizenship. He wasn't talking about what you owe the "state," he was talking about self-governance in a democratic republic.

The "do not ask what your government can do for you," sentence was probably thrown in as a preemptive move against Republican suspicions that he intended to expand the New Deal, and I would not deny that Kennedy started out as a cold warrior.

You need to read some of his later speeches though, to realize how far he had come only months before he was assassinated.

Take a look at the speech he made in June, I think, of 1963, a commencement speech at American University; it's everywhere on the net; in the speech he not only announced an initiative to stop testing nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, but he also outlined a new way to think both about the USSR and the cold war itself.

What a government owes it citizens is spelled out in the Constitution and the Declaration, and one of those things is a right to participate, to have some say in how one is governed.

I for one enjoy and look forward to encountering Soullite’s comments where ever and when ever they appear, and the unexpected, near-random occurrence and oblique, tangential quality only contributes to their charm, like found art, or wildflowers. Not everyone is linear, nor should they be.

Leah, you are right about Kennedy’s comment, context is everything, and he did evolve his social thinking to an extraordinary extent. Johnson, for all his flaws, saw his accidental presidency as an imperative to pursue Kennedy’s agendas rather than impose his own. His interpretations led him into quagmire in Vietnam, but also to the last great advances for progressivism the nation has seen, extraordinary for a Southerner raised as a racist.

One of the most striking things about Kennedy’s inaugural address is Johnson’s reaction to the “what you can do for your country” line. Next time the video is up, pay attention to Johnson sitting front row background. He’s looking off to the side, listening but not engaged, but when Kennedy delivers the line Johnson’s head swings up, his face brightens and he smiles. Johnson was a bright, bright man, a serious student of politics and public policy, and he immediately recognized that line as one for the ages.

Robert Kennedy too underwent a great transformation, from arrogant elitist to committed equalitarian over the course of a few short months on the campaign trail, where for the first time in his life he actually engaged with and listened to the concerns of ordinary citizens. Their struggles, and their sorrow, opened his eyes, his mind and his heart. Watching that change happen was astounding, and encouraging. What would the nation, and the world, be like now if either of them had lived? Sigh.

Or is it, the bass are in the lilies.

I forget. Let me check my code book. Hi, Alberto!

We. Are. Going. To. Die. We must restore hope in the world. We must bring forth a new way of living that can sustain the world. Or else it is not just us who will die but everyone. What have we got to lose? Go forth and Fight!—Xan

Is an interesting construct, one you characterize as part of a “permathread” here at Corrente. And while you parenthetically allow that none is owed, you also more dominantly assert that such obligation is a possibility. Could you please cite an instance where anyone registered here has actually proposed any such thing?

I might be wrong but I’m pretty sure everyone writing here is clear that the government owes its existence and allegiance to the citizenry, not the other way around. As designed and agreed upon, our government’s function is to serve as the intermediary body through which we as citizens both respect and in a limited way restrain each other and ourselves. An awkward process, depends on good intent to function smoothly and by its very reliance on human nature will have ups and downs, but still it works amazingly well.

Political parties, as an agent involved in the formation of government, equally must have their allegiance focused outwards to their members and the greater citizenry or risk becoming irrelevant, as has happened many times. We are watching such an event with the current Republican Party, and the Democratic Party is no exception.

As political tools, the Republican Party is broken and dangerous while the Democratic Party is damaged, cumbersome and too often irritating. There are no other functional organized tools available by which citizens might quickly influence the direction of government, and the formation now of even a marginally effectual new one would in all probability degrade the usefulness of the Democrats in favor of continued dominance by Republicans. My argument is that we as progressives and citizens are better off in this election cycle embracing the Democrats even with their flaws as a means to drive the far more dangerous Republicans from power.

Once that is achieved the Democrats will have to continue reversing the authoritarian and imperialist mistakes made by previous administrations or risk being abandoned them selves for some new entity. If come the 2010 elections the Democratic-run government has not moved decisively towards reinstating freedom and away from authoritarianism, I will commit here and now to be the first to sign on with the new Lambertian Liberty and Freedom Party; this cycle, thus far, I’m still willing to work with the Democrats.

“A Zucchini In Every Pot And Some Pot In Every Zucchini!”

(just a suggestion :-)

Brilliantly framed; yes, I hadn't quite seen or considered the charm of the oblique and the tangential.

Soullite, if you are still around, forget my stuffy plea for formal relevance.

As to the rest of your comment, bringiton, I agree with it. It's not about "owing," it's about using.

Whenever I get terribly discouraged, I try and remember what the world must have looked like to Fannie Lou Hammer, a black woman born in Mississippi, one of 12 siblings, her parents tenant farmers. Mississippi Democrats were the worst of the worst racists, but Republicans didn't exist, and the national party hadn't really supported the grass roots of the civil rights movement.

To use the Democratic Party, she had to transform it, and damn if she didn't. Granted, she was an amazing woman, but the world couldn't have looked more encouraging to her than it does to us.