…on the US election results.
Janet Daley, in The Telegraph: “So Europe got the American president it wanted – the one who would present no threat to its own delusions. The United States is now officially one of us: an Old World country complete with class hatred, ethnic Balkanisation, bourgeois guilt and a paternalist ruling elite. And it is locked into the same death spiral of high public spending and self-defeating wealth redistribution as we are. Welcome to the future, and the beginning of what may turn out to be the terminal decline of the West.”
Melanie Phillips: “The greatest satisfaction today over the re-election of Obama is not being felt in the Democratic Party. It is not being felt among the media…No, the greatest satisfaction is surely being felt in Iran.”
The Dissident Frogman: “Hear this final prophecy America: only one man can kill the Republic, and it isn’t Barack Obama. The one man who will kill your Republic is the one man who will last give up and renounce it. Don’t you dare be that man.”
Read them all.
Also, here’s something interesting: Li Keqiang, China’s next premier, has been advising his associates to read Alexis de Tocqueville’s 1856 book The Old Regime and the French Revolution.
I have hit on a possible meme that we can use to fight the power.
Remember, and unfortunately, absolute simplicity is what is required to win. There are analyses out there, that I pretty much believe, that Axelrod et al essentially decided that ALL intelligent and informed voters (including the appallingly misguided ones) were set in their votes, probably even a year ago, and thus the entire election was about targeting, not “undecided” per se, but rather, “uninformed”. You know, the kind that make a four year assessment of governance based on “Wow, Obama looks good in that bomber jacket, I guess I’ll vote for him after all”. Those people. Like today’s college students, for example.
So, as the world they have created collapses around them, we need to provide them a pithy, simple, all-encompassing target, other than conservatives, to point the finger at.
So what can that be? How about….. the Socialist Establishment” (SE).
The SE is itself pretty self evident – Obama is to it what LBJ and Nixon were to the New Left. So it is essentially the Democratic Party. But the SE is, of course, far larger than just that. It also includes that relentless list of rich Hollywood celebs, union leaders, the college administrators and educational establishment (like the one that just forced college Republicans to cancel an Ann Coulter speech because….. they are the SE and that is what they do), the Islamist suck-ups, and the transnationalists and green militants who are categorically about social control, with “the environment” a convenient cudgel, to be tossed overboard the minute environmental benefits might ever threaten their political control, because, again, that is what the Socialist Establishment does.
Year 2015 —
No jobs to be found? The SE.
Gas at 7 bucks a gallon? The SE.
Islam and China on the march, Europe in collapse? The SE.
College now only a dream for many high schoolers? The SE.
Racial divisions the worst in half a century? The SE.
Quote Jim Treacher: “Remember ‘Freedom of Speech’? That was awesome!” The SE.
This is not only short, sweet, all-encompassing, and with great potential to appeal to whatever shredded remnants of revolutionary sensibilities might be left in the young and educated….. but it has the added appeal of being absolutely, 100%, full-bore, up, down, and sideways CORRECT.
If we can plant the entirely truthful meme that the Socialist Establishment is real, it exists, it is there…. and it has been LYING to you for decades, let’s use the New Left playbook of 1955-1970… well, we just might, might mind you, have a chance.
It’s probably our last one, so let’s give it a shot.
(Sorry for the bold. I tried mightily to proof, but……)
Pretty sure I’ve seen data suggesting that “socialism” isn’t considered to be a terribly negative word, in the opinion of a significant % of voters.
But “establishment” is, at least to the culturally “hip”, who now run the country apparently…..
Either “socialist” can be tarred and discredited by being “establishment”…. or “establishment” will be vindicated by being “socialist”. One or the other. Ya places your bets and ya takes your chances.
If all goes swimmingly over the next two to three years, the latter will prevail, and it is probably game over for limited government. I am betting it won’t, and thus the former has a wedge. Ya gotta work with what ya got.
(Every single word posted here now seems to be bold, at least on my machine. Is that true for everyone? Did I do that???? Never seen that happen before.
[Fixed, no worries. Jonathan]
@David – a poll that shocked me a few days was the generational difference in attitude towards socialism – almost half the 20-30s generation doesn’t think it is “bad”.
I guess blame the environment they went through in the school system.
Seems like we have to continually relearn the lessons.
I always tell my kids that “Life’s lesson will repeat until learned.”
An idle thought of mine is that there are three basic causes of most conflict:1. who owns it, 2. who gets the benefit of it or the use of it, and 3. who pays for it. “It” being the object, place, asset, idea, property etc etc etc. Many people who would be called “Takers” want their name as answers to numbers 1 & 2, and anybody else for 3. Any social program fits this category, called by the name socialism or not.
X he’s right. Socialism doesn’t scare them, it seems like a better idea.
Remember the checks.
Also look at all minority voting patterns including Asians, and try and tell me anti-white racism doesn’t play into it…
“Pretty sure I’ve seen data suggesting that “socialism” isn’t considered to be a terribly negative word, in the opinion of a significant % of voters.”
Ah, you see David – the unintended consequences of following the rightwing strategy of constantly barraging the public with nutso, hyperbolic rhetoric.
The perjoratives lose their sting. Maybe you can trace it back to Reagan, running around the country in the early sixties telling everyone that Medicare (still just an idea being kicked around) was socialism (I wouldn’t doubt he called it communism too). So, Medicare came into existence, the people loved it, and suddenly people start thinking – hey, if this is what socialism means, I guess it ain’t too bad.
Some people never learn. Every time you use a word, you are not only characterizing some subject, you are refining the definition of the word itself by asserting that the subject is an example of the word. Thats how we end up with fewer and fewer people understanding traditional definitions of words, and more and more people talking past each other.
Oh, btw – re. my Medicare example above.
Expect the same with Obamacare. When people have seen it in action and end up loving it like they do Medicare, then all the perjoratives that y’all have used against it will all lose some measure of their sting.
Maybe someday y’all will figure out that calm, rational discourse is far more effective; that Limbaugh et al really are only meant to be entertainment.
Medicare is an excellent example of a socialist program. It is run by the government, it was sold as something for nothing, its future costs were understated and benefits overstated, the perverse incentives it creates were ignored, it ended up costing many times as much as expected, it has severely distorted the market for medical services and harmed the practice of medicine, it may bankrupt the country if it isn’t reformed or eliminated yet is impossible to kill. What’s not to like?
Let’s see how much people like medicare when it drives us to bankruptcy and we can no longer get medical care.
VSSC et al –
The fact that “socialism does not scare them” is both factual and a G–D— travesty, and the reason for that is…. the SE of course. That alone has been a primary SE goal all along.
Let “them” watch as the debt dominoes start to fall, municipal, state, federal, European…. Let them stop searching for a job out of hopelessness. Let them wait in a bread line. Let them live with the fact that only people on TV get to have cars, like every single relative older than them once had. No more. For the gas alone, it’s a non-starter. Then, let them get onto a dole, then let the dole run out. Let them have loathed the right-wing NRA all their lives, and now ponder getting a gun because the feral hordes of a society in collapse.
Let them form the picture of my ultimate nightmare – of children of the year 2040 putting ancient DVD’s into a machine, getting a glimpse of an America once was, turning to their parents and crying “What in God’s name did you DO to us??”
Let them eat, breathe and live that for a while, with a relentless message out there of an SE that wants them that way, needs them that way, an SE that has done everything in it’s considerable power to bring this about…
Let them live it, and hammer the message home that it was not like this before the SE triumphed over them….. then see just how popular that “socialism” is…
The week after Obamacare passed, the doctors in my county conferred. Some went all cash, and doing pretty well, although once Obamacare is in effect they may be outlaws. Most of the rest came to a decision. The will keep their current patients. They are already losing money on Medicare patients, and since they have had them for years they don’t want to abandon them [like the government gladly will]. However, if you are over 35, it is awful hard to find a new doctor in my county. They want to be retired before any new patients reach Medicare age.
Now that there is no hope the Obamacare will not be implemented, I am waiting to see how fast it gets worse. Went with my wife for her checkup, and was talking to the receptionist. They are getting buried in new paperwork and regulations for Obamacare. They are not happy campers.
Subotai Bahadur
“of children of the year 2040 putting ancient DVD’s into a machine, getting a glimpse of an America once was, turning to their parents and crying “What in God’s name did you DO to us??”
NO.
Not while I have breathe. After that it’s not my problem.
Veterani sua sunt circuli
Also look at all minority voting patterns including Asians, and try and tell me anti-white racism doesn’t play into it…
Oh, I’ve thought about that. A lot.
Hear this final prophecy America: only one man can kill the Republic, and it isn’t Barack Obama. The one man who will kill your Republic is the one man who will last give up and renounce it. — Dissident Frogman
Too late.
In the 1960s, when I realized the major players (but not yet the majority) in the student movement (the PFLP among others) and its auxiliaries were Communists (the Fondas, for example) who openly advocated a Communist victory over AmeriKKKa, people asked me, “what should be done?” I said the consequences of Communism were obvious to all, the effectiveness of their subversives in Europe and Asia unquestioned, and the only solution, I answered, was: “These people are in the minority, kill them before it’s too late.”*
I think my questioners wanted a less drastic solution. But the less drastic solution: a purge, called now “lustration,” had already been tried. That was McCarthyism, which Hollywood and academia taught was the ultimate evil.
As the decades passed and fresh outrages against humanity, liberty, and America were announced, codified, and enforced (e.g. judges running state prison systems and unilaterally raising taxes against the clear and open vote of the people), each time was I asked, “what to do?” And my reply was always the same: “can we please rise up now and slaughter these people?” I was an extremist to be mocked and not to be heard.
Now Castroists run Hollywood, Chavists run academia, and Maoists occupy the White House, chosen and voted in by a majority of the American people.
It’s too late.
That last man surrendered America fifty years ago, too timid to call American Communism by its right and proper name, too timid to shun evil, too timid to ostracize American’s enemies because he was afraid of being called “McCarthyist,” then too afraid of being called “racist,” then too afraid of being called “sexist,” then too afraid of being called “homophobe.” As long as any opposition to the Left can be slandered by waving the bloody shirt** of “ist”and “phobe,” America will continue on its journey to pure Communism.
It is too late for civil war, too late for armed rebellion against laws and regulations which have erected a multitude of Czars, and sent swarms of officers to harass our people; too late for armed rebellion against legions of drones which slaughter without the consent of our legislatures; too late to rebel against a government which subjects us to foreign jurisdictions and grants power to the pretended legislation of the U.N. and other “international” bodies, etc. etc.
Does anyone considering rebellion hold the delusion that America’s feministed, Islamicized, and homosexualized military would uphold the Constitution of their fantasies? America’s military would side with government and its duly elected and rightful leader, Obama.
Does anyone considering rebellion hold the delusion that American people will do anything other than vote in yet another Obama should the current Obama be impeached? Occasionally candidates have promised to roll back Socialism, but no promise of importance was ever fulfilled.
Obama is, in fact, the transforming and transitional giant who has reshaped the American people. Henceforth his name will be used as “Caesar,” to mark the strong, bold, and valiant leader who lead his people to triumph over their darker angels: racism, sexism, homophobia, Judiasm, Catholicism, et. al.
For eighty years now the American people have chosen the path of Communism. FDR’s brain trust were mostly Communists, outright, or fellow travelers or sympathizers. The Republican Eisenhower conserved the New Deal, which LBJ furthered with more bureaucracies and more regulation, and which the Republican Nixon conserved and extended. Carter invented whole new bureaucracies, and the Republican Reagan won votes by promising to abolish them, but instead–as expected–conserved and extended them. And so it has always been: every Conservative and every Liberal Republican has furthered the aims and policies of his Democrat (which is to say, Communist) predecessors.
Romney, founder of [Obama] Romneycare, would have and could have done no differently than Reagan. At best.
Those suffering under the delusional spell of Libertarianism know this: Libertarianism is barely distinguishable from the Fascism of Salo Republic. Every Libertarian who favors homosexual marriage without simultaneous repeal of anti-discrimination laws favors requiring the state to punish those who refuse to recognize homosexual “marriage:” every photographer who says “I won’t photograph homosexual weddings,” will be punished; every orphanage who says “I wouldn’t let homosexual couples adopt from my orphanage,” will be punished; every church which says, “Our chapel won’t be used for homosexual services” will be punished. How is the legislation of morality and the intrusion of government officers to compel our physical obedience to its morality anything but Fascism?
The Last Man has come. He seeks only comfort in Abercrombie and Fitch and social security.
The final prophecy addressed to him has been heard, and like most prophecies it resounds because its moment has passed.
The Last Man has voted for Obama openly, nakedly, willingly. No words will dissuade him from his course.
His successors will be depraved pagans, unable and unwilling to achieve the civilization of their forebears, until….
* * *
Enough oracular text.
One small story: I worked in a library in 1981 and was attending night school at a nearby university. In the days after Hinkley shot Reagan, most of the people I knew jested and wished that Hinkley should have finished the job even while the sick hatred that propelled Hinkley to his act made them physically ill. These same people, during various social gatherings, would spew venom at Reagan, who in their imaginations might halt the rise of Socialism in America. How wrong they were. All Reagan cost these people was one of their many utopias. The path of America was unchanged. Utopia beckons to them still.
* * *
* Lest this seem extreme to you, know that I agree with Sherman: Atlanta must burn; Charleston must be sacked; the slavers must be made to suffer. And Socialism is but slavery under another name.
** Our current times remind me of the post-Civil War era, when any Republican to succeed to office need only remind the voters which party stood for slavery and war; this was called ‘waving the bloody shirt.’ Almost 100 years later the Republicans have fallen victim to its modern counterpart. “Fate, it seems, is not without a sense of irony.”
“Also look at all minority voting patterns including Asians, and try and tell me anti-white racism doesn’t play into it… ”
Right. Because these “other” types simply cannot be expected to make rational decisions about their own self-interest. If they come to different conclusions than you do, it must be because they are slaves to negative emotions.
I see you are going to be a really helpful voice in winning new recruits to the starboard side.
“Because these ‘conservative’ types simply cannot be expected to make rational decisions about what is best for American society as a whole, only for their own self-interest. If they come to different conclusions than we wonderful leftists do, it can only be because they are slaves to negative (racist, white-supremacist) emotions.”
Seems to work really, REALLY well for our portside friends. And it certainly earns not an iota of moral condemnation from pretty much any quarter whatsoever.
Racism is to be encouraged, as long as you are the right skin color. And it works, so it ain’t going away anytime soon, it would seem.
JoeC…”the unintended consequences of following the rightwing strategy of constantly barraging the public with nutso, hyperbolic rhetoric…The perjoratives lose their sting”
Good grief. There were a lot of people in , say, 1949 who though socialism was a pretty good ideal. Some bitter experience and knowledge…the Korean war, the revelations by Khrushchev about Stalin’s atrocities, the suppression of the Hungarian uprising, and finally the growing evidence that socialism was a route to economic failure…all of these things contributed to socialism’s decline on the public-opinon stock market. Unfortunately, a lot of this historical knowledge is not well known and/or glossed over.
Well you see Andrew, although there certainly are some lefties who might say those things, none of them are writing here. But there are such extremists on your side who are participating in this conversation, so my comments are relevant, and yours are not.
Furthermore, given that this site prides itself on being high-quality, made up of smart, literate people, the fact that these sentiments are aired here without any objection (except from people like me) – and that is to not even get into the real insanity we can find in comments above – is pretty sad. Once again we see – there seems to be no barriers whatsoever to the crazy, when it comes to discourse on the conservative side.
“Racism is to be encouraged, as long as you are the right skin color.”
Do you even know what racism is? To call a racial group stupid and incompetent is racist. To criticize an ideological group for considering only their self interest and ignoring a larger interest is not racist.
David,
“There were a lot of people in , say, 1949 who though socialism was a pretty good ideal. Some bitter experience …contributed to socialism’s decline on the public-opinon stock market.”
I don’t disagree with any of that.
” Unfortunately, a lot of this historical knowledge is not well known and/or glossed over.”
For the reasons I mentioned. I don’t see why you think that you are contradicting me.
The reason that this historical knowledge is being glossed over – or muddied and confused, is because propagandists are using the terms “socialism” and “communism” as handy cuss words, indiscriminately. If people associate “socialism” with Soviet tyranny, then “socialism” will be unpopular. If people associate “socialism” with Medicare, then “socialism” will be popular.
There are consequences to the particular uses of one’s rhetoric. Why do you seem to deny this?
“make rational decisions about their own self-interest.”
Self Interest yes. I’m not sure how rational it is to throw down the glove at 70% and say you wish the humiliation, degradation and destruction of them and all their works.
And that’s what’s been done. It’s DONE. They’re awake, and God Help you.
BTW – Joe – what is it you think you’re a citizen of, or what do you want it to be?
PS – you’re out of money, and almost out of funny money that won’t be a joke for the next 500 years.
Joe, to call a racial group hopelessly morally corrupt entirely because of the color of their skin IS racist. To ignore their ideological arguments, or, for that matter, their logical arguments, and accuse them of making such arguments entirely because of what happens to be the color of their skin IS racist. And to assume that you are inherently entitled to A, B and C, because of the color of your skin, and that person over there is NOT entitled to A, B, and C because of theirs, IS racist. And you know what – It is damned tiresome.
And as long as the left will not just fail to condemn racists in their own ranks, nay, will forgive and even celebrate them, there is certainly NO hope of ending, or even fighting racism, and a great many people will ask why the hell should they even bother to try. (Say, what does that group Obama once spoke to…. “La Raza”… mean in English, anyway? Maybe someone should google that and find out. I’m just curious.)
I paraphrase your words back to you simply to show the absurdity of the left’s willingness, and ability, to set their own standards entirely, and then to bitterly condemn others for doing the exact same thing. To continue in that vein, “There seems to be no barriers to the hypocrisy whatsoever, when it comes to discourse on the liberal side.”
I’ll set aside your highly inflated opinion of your own relevance for now.
“Let them wait in a bread line.” – Andrew
I’m wondering if the direct deposit of unemployment benefits have made this onetime quick developing overt indicator of economic failure less apt to happen, at least publicly, further protecting the political incumbents in our midst.
I’m not saying it can’t or won’t happen. It’s just not as immediately obvious as it once was. Perhaps after Q.E.7 makes our fiat currency completely worthless?
The Republicans are the party of “Eat your vegetables.” Democrats are the party of “Let’s have dessert first.”
It is no easy task to sell responsibility to a population that has been told responsibility is old fashioned. I don’t think Obama is intelligent enough or knows enough history to be a communist. He is the product of the debased elite education system we have had for the past 30 years. It is an education of slogans and feel good theories.
His racialist urges must have come from his experience at Occidental, a small college that was once a good school but which has been taken over by the angry left. A friend of mine was on the faculty (science, by the way) and was denied tenure because of his political views which had seeped out in spite of some reticence. He is now tenured at another university.
We know nothing of Obama’s courses or grades during that period until he entered Harvard Law School. We have seen an example of present day Harvard excellence in plagiarist princess fauxcahontas. I don’t know of a competent liberal arts college in the country. I was an English major in 1960. I still have a couple of my textbooks from that time. It bears no resemblance to present day English departments.
Obama may start to fear his legacy if he begins to doubt that the economy will recover no matter what he does to it. That is almost our only hope except hunkering down and maybe buying gold. We are seeing another gun boom (sorry for the pun) since the election. I can remember when some of my friends were buying silver coins during the Carter years as they concluded that gold coins would be too expensive to use in commerce. They bought silver dimes and quarters, which have largely disappeared through Gresham’s Law.
“The Republicans are the party of “Eat your vegetables.””
I thought that was Michelle…
See also this piece by Carolyn Glick, who writes for The Jerusalem Post:
http://www.carolineglick.com/e/2012/11/national-review-article—the.php
Another thread wasted. It’s pointless to come here anymore and expect rational argument when a small group of trolls can hijack every thread at will.
Veryretired, you can scroll past their comments as I do. They seek only attention and if it is denied them, they will go away.
“– or muddied and confused, is because propagandists are using the terms “socialism” and “communism” as handy cuss words, indiscriminately. ”
like racists, sexist, homophobes, islamophobes et al. suck the big salami joe comrade
“I don’t know of a competent liberal arts college in the country.” – M.K.
After college shopping with my daughter this past year, I am sympathetic with you on that. However, there are still some liberal arts schools that serve a purpose other than cranking out soldiers for a leftist cultural war.
A few that stand out are:
Hillsdale — http://www.hillsdale.edu/
Grove City College — http://www.gcc.edu/
Thomas Aquinas College — http://www.thomasaquinas.edu/
The King’s College http://www.tkc.edu/
The first two take no direct federal dollars and hence no federal interference.
““I don’t know of a competent liberal arts college in the country.” – M.K.”
That is, of course, much more a statement about M.K. than about the state of education in this country.
Do you really have so little confidence in your own children that you need to trap them in your bubble even when they go out in the world?
Jason, those colleges you name are exceptions to the usual leftist claptrap that passes for liberal arts in colleges.
Trolls seek attention by using outrageous statements that say more about them than about the facts.
It’s difficult to believe that Occidental is the same institute that gave us Jack Kemp. That however was back when it was affiliated with the Presbyterian Church. Since the 1970’s it’s been hijacked by an extreme strain of leftism.
Not liberal arts per se, but the timing of this just posted video on youtube is perfect for the direction this conversation has turned. Our resident toolbox no doubt considers much of what is shown here as progress. But the silent majority I’m sure would be deeply disturbed the more thought they would give this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Z3vgGqlZGGE
Re: Trolls
It’s up to David to decide how to manage the comments on his posts. As admin I rarely interfere with how the other contributors deal with comments and don’t ban commenters unless they are grossly abusive. The benefit of being more tolerant is that people who disagree with the majority aren’t discouraged from commenting, and sometimes these people have useful insights. The cost is that some of these critics are prolific jerks who discourage other commenters. There is no ideal balance but I would rather err in favor of a somewhat loose signal/noise ratio. Perhaps this is not the best way to go, and as I have previously mentioned I may get someone to write a WP plugin that would allow readers to block the display of comments from specified commenters. Until then I recommend that readers scroll past trolling comments as Mike K suggests.
To win elections, the Republican party must appeal to Hispanics, Blacks, and Asians. So say the pollsters, who have divided the American people into races, polled the races to learn their racial desires, and have persuaded the politicians to use the state to fulfill their racial desires. There are two words to describe this: racial socialism.
The appeal of racism and socialism to the darkest, vilest desires in human nature is undeniable. The power of racism and socialism to the human heart and head is apparent: the success of the Nazi, Democrat, and Communist parties is demonstrated.
And, so say the pundits, pollsters, and politicians to win elections, this must become the guiding philosophy of the Republican Party as it has become that of the Democrat Party.
This is a complete repudiation of the American people. No one questions the division of the people into races by the pollsters and politicians. The racial categories are the apex determinant of voter interest. There is no “enlightened electorate,” no “human rights,” there are only competing races with racial interests, each with its own racial rights. People do not wish to be free, work hard, and be self-reliant; they dream only of the power of their La Raza and wish to despoil and plunder other races.
There are, however, two more powerful appeals than racist socialism, which is why the Democrat/Nazi Party seeks to crush one and co-opt the other. Malcolm X himself said it: “I have never before seen sincere and true brotherhood practiced by all colors together, irrespecitve of their color.”
Yes, religion. There are only two universalist religions: Christianity and Islam. Malcolm X could never forgive Christianity for liberating him from slavery, so he chose Islam. America should not choose Islam, but if America is to survive without being transformed into the racialist, socialist state of Obamunism, it must choose.
The Republicans must be come an explicit Christian party that appeals to Christians of all races. Or it will become an echo of racialist, socialist party of the Democrat Party.
ErisGuy, I disagree about the GOP becoming the “Christian Party” as I think libertarian is a better fit with the younger generation. Matters of faith and morals are not really political although I agree that the culture is being debased and Christians need defending. There is a lot of talk about Republicans needing to become more like Democrats and that is nonsense. So also is the nonsense about Hispanics and black Christians being Republicans if they only realized it. Economics should be the focus right now. Culture is second.
Veryretired…..I totally agree.
The cultural and the economic are interwoven. Beneath the culture wars is an opposition between an ahistorical and historical vision, respect for human dignity versus dismissal of man’s (God-given? intrinsic) rights. An economic vision that is optimistic about man’s ability and respectful of individuality can use that underpinning. Only a debased sense of personal responsibity and self-respect could lead a woman to vote for Obama; the appeal to women in the last campaign was insulting. If you don’t think that appeal and a culture that was not repulsed by that appeal was both cultural and economic is simplifying both. I’m not saying that we are likely to win with senators that see rape as part of God’s plan. I am saying that reverencing our tradition is an important part of making choices from the pipeline to transparency about Benghazi. And not reverencing our tradition nor our choices is the current, ahistorical and destructive policy.
Ginny – that to me is a profound post. Gotta reread it – and absorb it.
“I am saying that reverencing our tradition is an important part of making choice…”
But that is so general a comment as to be rather meaningless. I would wager that you have no desire whatsoever to “reverence” the traditions of slavery or segregation: the latter persisting in our society until well into my own childhood. I sincerely doubt that you would actually “reverence” the tradition that I also grew up with in which women were not considered to be capable of fully participating in the economic and political life of our country. Your presence in this conversation attests to that – and no one has told you to shut up and go bake some cookies, which was the standard response that I used to hear when I was a kid when women expressed their opinions on the major issues of the day.
On the other hand, there are certain core traditions of our democracy that your opponents value every bit as much as you do, some perhaps even more so.
So we all can legitimately wear the cloak of tradition-upholders sometimes, and we all take pride in dumping the negative parts of our traditions. Its just that we have a slightly different mix of traditions that we respect and traditions that we think need changing. I think you would need to specify just what traditions you are talking about if we are to really understand what you are driving at here.
“Only a debased sense of personal responsibity and self-respect could lead a woman to vote for Obama”
I suspect that a majority of women in this country would be more likely to say the opposite than to agree with you.
“Because these ‘conservative’ types simply cannot be expected to make rational decisions about what is best for American society as a whole, only for their own self-interest.”
This is the root cause of your economic decline.
“If they come to different conclusions than we wonderful leftists do, it can only be because they are slaves to negative (racist, white-supremacist) emotions.”
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
The campaign against the ‘Four Pests’ was initiated in 1958 as a hygiene campaign by Mao Tse Tung who identified the need to exterminate mosquitoes, flies, rats, and sparrows. Sparrows were included on the list because they ate grain seeds, robbing the people of the fruits of their labour.
The masses of China were mobilized to eradicate the birds, and citizens took to banging pots and pans or beating drums to scare the birds from landing, forcing them to fly until they fell from the sky in exhaustion. Sparrow nests were torn down, eggs were broken, and nestlings were killed. Sparrows and other birds were shot down from the sky, resulting in the near-extinction of the birds in China.
With no sparrows to eat them, locust populations ballooned, swarming the country and causing widespread deforestation and misuse of poisons and pesticides by people trying to kill them locusts. The rice crops failed. The Great Chinese Famine, in which upwards of 30 million people died of starvation, began. (wiki).
Everyone who lived in China agreed that Mao was the wisest, most compasionate man who ever lived. Only he could lead a socialist state. Everyone gladly placed their lives in his hands. Children hoped they could die for Chairman Mao.
Sadly the greatest leader of the world’s greatest philosophy (socialism) made a small mistake which killed 30 million – less than 3% of all Chinese.
This is the problem inherent in socialism. The government forces everyone to follow the same path. If a mistake is made, millions die.
But how to fix the problem…that was done in the US until FDR.
Socialism is the traditional way countries have been governed for all recorded history. Some wise guy gives orders everyone is expected to follow. Whether or not the orders work is in the hands of the gods (who are now dead).
BTW, locusts are high in protein. There are several excellent recipes dating from the time of the pharaohs. Had Mao ordered his people to eat the locusts, the famine might have been avoided.
Consider the recovery from Sandy.
FEMA is filled with highly trained and dedicated people who are waiting for the right moment, when all the food, water, fuel, clothing, specialists, generators and equipment have been gathered, inspected, tested and cleared. But the victims suffer.
Police have turned away non-union repair crews and volunteers because these people might lack the comprehensive training that only FEMA or Red Cross have. Sadly, after waiting less than a month for help, the victims on Long Island and Statin Island have organized to help themselves. WalMart and Home Depot are running the police blockade and delivering free materials, water and food even though none of these delivery people have proper training or certification or licenses!!!
Hurricane Sandy shows how socialism works and why we oppose it. Governments always screw up no matter how well intentioned and trained and certified.
Joe Citizen’s response demonstrates my point.
Perhaps his childhood was in a backwater, but I suspect he accepts an ahistorical version of women’s roles in American thought. Of course, slavery was an ugly part of our history, but a broader context sees the nineteenth century abooitionist movement built on a tradition we can and should respect. Our history is not perfect, but its energy is built on a respect for rights. Our president and secretary of state, standing over the coffins of bodies that died for that tradition, dishonored these men as much in their contempt for those rights as the lie that demeaned them.
Few that bring up slavery in such contexts consider the long tradition of slavery before our abooitionists and the 300,000 soldiers that gave their lives or the president, poet, ex-generals that tried to diminish blood shed after. Even fewer, I suspect are active in ridding the twenty-first century of slavery.
To gain perspective requires a broader context than our current texts and textbooks provide. But to understand more is to understand the work of capitalism in much that has been positive in our history.
I’m glad you mention American slavery. There is no difference between American slavery and the socialism practiced in Eastern Europe, Russia, China, SE Asia and many African countries.
The American slave was given food, a place to sleep, clothing and a job. He was taught Christian morality. The socialist worker is given food, a place to sleep, clothing and a job. He was taught Socialist morality. No matter how hard the slave or the worker work, they get the same as everyone else in their class. There are few or no choices on working hours, jobs, food, clothing or quarters. Slaves who do not know their place are called uppity and are re-educated, as are workers with bourgeois tendencies.
Slaves or workers who slack off or are disobedient are re-educated. The teaching methods are the same.
We abolished slavery in this country. It is ironic that an African-American is trying to bring it back.
“Perhaps his childhood was in a backwater”
Not unless you consider all of America a backwater. Are you trying to deny that the attitudes that I mentioned were prevalent in America? Maybe you are very young – I grew up in the late fifties and early sixties. There was a women’s movement – a feminist movement, y’know, and it didn’t begin until a few years after I was aware of political things – and no matter what you may think of it, there was an economic and political condition for women at the time, it was seen as problematical, and it did change – massively. No thanks to the conservatives of course.
That is the real history of America. I don’t want to mischaracterize what you are saying, but it sounds like you are either trying to deny these facts, or you can’t quite seem to figure out how to fit them into the narrative you are trying to develop.
“the nineteenth century abolitionist movement built on a tradition we can and should respect.”
Absolutely. Did you miss the thrust of my comment – that there are aspects of our tradition that all of us do respect. And others that all of us do reject – although many conservatives – I guess including you – have some deep problem with actually acknowledging the fact that there really were horrible things in our past – even though in you have fully embraced their rejection.
“Our history is not perfect, but its energy is built on a respect for rights”
Our history is not perfect, but it is a history of constantly improving our culture – of making advancement on the road to full respect for rights. That means having the knowledge and respect for the good that is in our past, but also the courage to acknowledge and change the bad in our present. It is my experience that liberals have always sensed that balance – maybe not lived up to it always – and yes, when they err it is on the side of ignoring the good in our past. But conservatives have always focused on respect for the past almost exclusively, which is why conservatives have always fought against all of the positive changes that have occurred in America. In my own lifetime I saw conservatives who opposed civil rights (including Goldwater, Reagan and Buckley), opposed equal rights for women, for gays etc. I participated in so many of these arguments over so many decades.
“Our president and secretary of state, standing over the coffins of bodies that died for that tradition, dishonored these men…”
Stop with the vile libel and the derangement, please. Rejoin the ranks of normal people. What on earth are you getting out of this madness?
“Few that bring up slavery in such contexts consider the long tradition of slavery…”
I don’t see that you have any justification for that comment whatsoever. I, and everyone I have discussed this matter with on the left, am fully aware that slavery was a very common feature of all of human existence since the beginning of time. The anti-slavery movements of the 19th century were wonderful innovations, just like the democracy movements of the late 18th century, primarily in America, were nearly unprecedented in human history. As liberals, we take great pride in the fact that these are more examples of liberal attitudes that have triumphed over very deep historical traditions. And it was, of course, only those who were willing to fight to the death to destroy some of the deepest of human traditions, who won this struggle.
“To gain perspective requires a broader context than our current texts and textbooks provide.”
It has been decades since I read textbooks of history, so I won’t offer an opinion on that. But I am not impressed with the breadth of your perspective. You seem extremely defensive of modern conservatism – without realizing that the attitudes of conservatism run deeper, and are consistent through the ages. Conservatives of different eras may have vastly different beliefs, but they all seem to have a common attitude – we have progressed so far, but now we should stop. In fact, we have probably gone too far already. Lets just spend our time congratulating ourselves on the great distance that we have traveled (as if conservatives ever did anything more than acquiesce in those changes), and then take a few steps backward to the recently departed golden age that I find somewhere in my imagination.
“But to understand more is to understand the work of capitalism in much that has been positive in our history.”
My previous comment was basically a plea for you to give us some substance regarding the specific traditions that you want to be reverent about. Finally we have an answer here.
As a liberal, I am fully aware that capitalism is a core element of classical liberalism, and I think it a very valuable one. Like most modern liberals, I appreciate that the enterprise of free individuals is the energy source of the most successful economic system the world has ever seen. At two times in my life I had my own business – I didn’t employ others, but I certainly came to understand the challenges of being fully responsible for my own economic survival. It left me with great respect for those who do this all their lives and who take on the further responsibility of employing others.
Modern liberalism, growing out of the FDR tradition (a simplification, of course, but just to orient us), has always believed in capitalism – but a regulated capitalism, and one that is supplemented with a government that is active in those areas that are socially valuable but outside the profit window of businesses, and a government that provides those safety nets necessary for a healthy and prosperous society for all, not just for the productive. Capitalism is great, but, like anything else, it is not some perfect panacea. Police it, regulate it, supplement it, and clean up the damage it produces, and it will then function really well.
“Capitalism is great, but, like anything else, it is not some perfect panacea. Police it, regulate it, supplement it, and clean up the damage it produces, and it will then function really well.”
Describes the relationship between the Lord and his serfs in Anjou in the Dark Ages.
It also describes the collectivization of agriculture under Stalin in the 30s, East Berlin in the 1960s, and China under Mao. This is the evil past, hopefully never to be repeated.
These are not the paths to universal health or prosperity. These are paths of sorrow, hardship, misery and despair. These are the realities that very brave men and women escaped by coming to America. And you want to revisit these horrors on them. Philosophy does not create history. Philosophy is merely a lame attempt to make sense of reality.
You would do well to set aside your fairy tales and study history. It is not easy, because you will have to separate out truth from falsehoods. And you will have to bury your preconceptions.
You might also try to become an entreprenuer. Success depends on having the seven cardinal virtues and failure goes to those who practice the seven deadly sins. Quite the opposite of your fairy tales.
In fact, we have probably gone too far already. Lets just spend our time congratulating ourselves on the great distance that we have traveled (as if conservatives ever did anything more than acquiesce in those changes), and then take a few steps backward to the recently departed golden age that I find somewhere in my imagination.
So “progressivism” globally, or even nationally, in its entire history has never progressed too far. There have never been errors in its cause. Wow. Just wow. A guy keeps demanding the writers and commenters of of this blog some introspection out of them yet never should he exercise it on his own positions. I seem to recall a book mentioning something about specks and motes in eyes but that’s an old book and no one should bother reading it any more. Forward!
Over a cliff.
“So “progressivism” globally, or even nationally, in its entire history has never progressed too far.”
Interesting strategy, Mishu (not).
If you cannot mount a compelling critique of my characterization of the conservative mindset, you try to claim that what I really was saying was something very different.
Where did I say anything about “progressivism”? Where did I even mention the word? Where did I say that conservatives can be characterized one way, and other people are perfect? Where did I say that any human being or human movement has ever been error-free?
This is called “strawman argumentation”. You make up an utterly phony characterization of what I said, then you point out how ridiculous that is.
My characterization was of the conservative mind. Nothing else. I did not even say that conservatives are always and everywhere wrong. I merely pointed out what the general attitude is. I can only imagine that you basically agree with me, for you haven’t said anything here about me be mistaken about that.
Is that the point you were trying to make? That I was correct about the conservative mindset, but that mindset is a good thing, because “progressives” are sometimes, often, always wrong?
If you would have actually said that, then we might have some grounds upon which to continue a rational discussion. Of course, liberals and progressives are wrong sometimes. I might even say most of the time. Liberal policy making is like many other creative pursuits – like scientific research, or art, or business entrepreneurship. You are at the cutting edge, trying to solve problems in new and better ways. As with these other fields, most brilliant ideas turn out not to be so brilliant. Most research ends in dead ends, most art sucks, most businesses fail, rather quickly.
Conservatism, in my mind, plays a vital function in our society – akin to the peer review process in science. As I have mentioned before, unlike those on the right, I am not an eliminationist. I do not think the world would be a better place if there were no conservatives – it would probably spiral out of control rather quickly. If there were no liberals, it would stagnate and die pretty quickly as well. One needs the dynamic tension between the two.
One might imagine that, if we all had perfect wisdom, liberals would only propose brilliant ideas, and conservatives would only oppose the bad ideas. But liberals are compulsively creative and conservatives are compulsively oppositional.
It was this one-sided, quite unwise perspective that I was making my point against. When society makes progress, it happens because liberals come up with new solutions and manage to overcome conservative opposition. Then, eventually, the conservatives acquiesce in the change, and it becomes part of the canon that they defend. Today, at least in words, conservatives are completely supportive of equal rights for blacks and women, even though I witnessed the fierce opposition of decades past.
But it is very rare to ever find a conservative who is honest about this process. Who acknowledges that their intellectual ancestors (maybe even younger versions of themselves) were opposed to so many of the things that they take pride in our society having accomplished. They allow themselves to be utterly blind to that, and to wage existential war on liberalism itself.
Where is the recognition of the role that liberalism has played in our history – as the source of all the positive changes that have happened?
It seems like everyone on the right is a Limbaugh-wannabe, a ranter, on some deep level, a comedian. It has infected almost every strata of the rightwing world so that it is nearly impossible to find a sober, wise perspective on our society. Just paranoid conspiracy thinking and eliminationist rhetoric. Your instinct to reinterpret my words through a stark, black and white extremist lens is a symptom of that.
“As I have mentioned before, unlike those on the right, I am not an eliminationist. I do not think the world would be a better place if there were no conservatives – it would probably spiral out of control rather quickly. If there were no liberals, it would stagnate and die pretty quickly as well. One needs the dynamic tension between the two.”
This I rather agree with to a point. I would modify this to strike your “unlike those on the right” contention. Many on the right feel the exact same way about the left, and when you throw in the cheerleaders for the left in the media it just seems like tilting at windmills at times.
You need to flesh out ideas through discussion of pros & cons as perceived by the participants.
“One might imagine that, if we all had perfect wisdom, liberals would only propose brilliant ideas, and conservatives would only oppose the bad ideas. But liberals are compulsively creative and conservatives are compulsively oppositional.”
Here I scratch my head a little and think you might be over-generalizing a bit. I know many very brilliant, creative conservatives. Many would point to Teachers Unions as examples of oppositional liberals, unwilling to consider any changes to obviously failing policies and techniques. Many conservative business people I know could be called “cautious risk-takers”. I know liberals who are “careful planners who require certainty”. It takes all kinds to make the world work.
Why is there so much of “it’s you and your guys against me and my guys, and it’s to the death” in public discourse? It seems very much like rooting for your favorite football team and hating their rivals with unremitting passion. Mainly harmless in football, self destructive in public discourse. Everyone needs a good swift kick in the pants and to be told to grow up, play nice and get to work. Let’s just stop painting labels on people and talk about issues and answers.
Also, I am happy if the left proves it point after hearty discussion from both sides. Same thing for the right. We all win with good decisions ultimately.
Too many people seem to ONLY want to prevent a “victory” for their opponents at all costs. I lump Democrats, Republicans, Conservatives, Liberals, the Media, Academia, Unions, Business people into this one.
Phyrric victories are often the outcomes. I see the fear of zero sum games as a major contributor.
By the way, I do NOT see the election past as the left PROVING its point. Real discussions didn’t happen, only marketing of focus grouped memes, dishonest sound bites, blind loyalty by partisans, near bribery of voting blocs (takers), and voter disinterest/exhaustion.
” only marketing of focus grouped memes, dishonest sound bites, blind loyalty by partisans, near bribery of voting blocs (takers), and voter disinterest/exhaustion.”
In other words, a normal American election.
“I do NOT see the election past as the left PROVING its point”
Not sure what point you mean. Elections never prove anything, except who can better capture the imagination of the people on a particular day in November.
“…you might be over-generalizing a bit.”
sure
” I know many very brilliant, creative conservatives.”
I am always on the lookout for them. Thats kinda what I was hoping to find here, and it why I am so gobsmacked at what I have found.
“Many would point to Teachers Unions as examples of oppositional liberals…”
Perhaps. But I think they sincerely see themselves as people who have dedicated their lives to the education of children and are under attack by people who have not, by politicians, ideologues, and those who want to find ways to make money from the educational system. This attitude has a lot of truth behind it, but it may make it harder for them to see things that they should.
“Why is there so much of “it’s you and your guys against me and my guys, and it’s to the death” in public discourse?”
Because there is an industry that thrives in such a culture – the ranting industry. One does not make much money from sober, thoughtful discussion. What are the ratings of Rush Limbaugh as compared to the PBS NewsHour?
“Let’s just stop painting labels on people and talk about issues and answers.”
Sounds great. How do you not go crazy hanging out around here?