You're in luck! I wasn't going to comment because I commented over at Patrick's board, but the board once again decided I was too outre for acknowledgement (I don't know if I didn't click the right button or what), so you get the quote.

My response to the idea that things have to get worse before they get better is:

One may bring good from evil, however, one must not do evil that good may come.

(It's a paraphrase of someone else's quote, but I can't find the attribution -- sorry!)

Y'know, as soon as I clicked "Post", I realized that I'd forgotten to Preview, and in this particular format of weblog, once it's up, it's up.

Sorry about the missing /A or whatever I goofed on.

{: )

-- Rachel

By the powers vested in me as blog administrator, your goof is corrected.

It’s interesting how all these debates (whether it’s Ralph Nader or budget deficits or outsourcing torture) come down to whether the ends justify the means, isn’t it?

Please note, though, that I wasn't saying Hoover was all good. He seemed to suffer from a curious naivete about human nature --- he really believed that everyone would do the right thing if given the chance. That belief was put to the test during the depression, when it failed (private aid was *never* sufficient to feed all the hungry); and if you listen to his radio addresses from late in his administration, it's obvious that that failure baffled him.

I'm increasingly of the opinion, and I need to get ahold of some high school history books to prove this, that misunderstandings of history taught in high school are in large measure responsible for the bizarreness of modern politics. I think that's the case here; modern conservatives not only have forgotten why Hoover lost the election of 1932, but they seem to have forgotten why he won the election of 1928, as well.

It has been my observation that those people who honestly trust and have faith in the best of human nature have difficulty comprehending those who don't trust and are suspicious, and vice versa.