55
   

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

 
 
parados
 
  0  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 10:20 am
@JamesMorrison,
Quote:
I think one of the reasons the hardcore liberals who run NPR

Anyone that starts a piece with that is trying to prove they don't think it seems.

Hardcore liberals run NPR? Is this author trying to prevent others from even considering that isn't the case?


And then we get to this?
Quote:

A credentialed, taxpayer-supported NPR liberal cannot be allowed to question this consensus.
I would bet MOST people that listen to NPR pay more taxes than this joker does but it's best to get people like JM nodding in agreement because we wouldn't want them to think outside their biases.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 11:01 am
It appears to me that if there is any "latent bigotry" afoot it is exemplified by the two responses above to JM's post preceding - that of Parados particularly exhibits it, not to mention a good deal of sneering anger and hostility. Is it really necessary to couch disagreement over a point that is clearly arguable from both perspectives in such vitriolic personal attacks? What does such behavior suggest about one who stoops to it? There was nothing in JM's post that merited these responses, and both discredit their authors.

I thought JM’s point about Nina Totenberg was a very good one. She is an interesting and articulate correspondent, but has frequently – on NPR and in other venues – offered analysis and interpretation of political events that fairly clearly identified her with left wing views in the American political spectrum. Where was her dispassionate flight above the issues?

In addition, the sensitivity of some for the feelings of Moslems for their religion is very often detectably missing when the discussion turns to many Christians. It is hard to miss the double standard being applied here, and one hearing it, can only question the integrity of the “consensus” that so vigorously applies it.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 11:55 am
@georgeob1,
Are you arguing that JM didn't "nod in agreement" with the author he posted? Because I don't see much in my post that could be called a "vitriolic" attack on JM. I certainly attacked the author that JM quoted but that isn't an attack on JM is it george?
So.. Let's see.. you think NPR is run by "hardcore liberals"? If so, could you provide evidence of that?

You also think that the only people that listen to NPR don't pay taxes? If so then could you provide evidence of that?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 12:49 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
There was nothing in JM's post that merited these responses, and both discredit their authors.


Mine most certainly did not. There were no vitriolic attacks present at all, and what I wrote represents my true feelings about the post: it is nothing more than whining by a bunch of people who regularly clap when similar things happen to reporters that they perceive to have a different ideological slant. Have either you or JM reserved a single moment to denounce the firing of several other reporters who made anti-Jew or other similar comments?

If Williams was a white guy, and you replaced what Williams said with 'black guy on a bus, dressed in a typical black style,' there would be zero disagreement from you or anyone that his comments were over the line in our modern society. But I suspect part of the problem here is that you guys really don't consider such latent bigotry towards Muslims to be wrong at all, do you? That certainly seems to be the line that Conservative commentators are taking on it.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 02:14 pm
Muslims on airplanes carrying me do not scare me unless they are wearing burkas or other uniquely muslim clothing.
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 02:17 pm
@ican711nm,
Well, I'm similarly scared in a planne with nuns, wearing their unique Christian clothing od Buddhists or Hindus.

Actually, everyone wearing a unique clothing scares me.
ican711nm
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 04:47 pm
Quote:
OUR TEA PARTY MISSION STATEMENT

We the people of OUR Tea Party Movement adopt this mission statement:
“The impetus for OUR Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values.

OUR Three Core Values:
Constitutionally limited Government
Fiscal Responsibility
Free Markets

Constitutionally Limited Government:
We, the members of the Wilco Tea Party Movement are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founding fathers set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support state’s rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

Fiscal Responsibility:
Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fically responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of high taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.

Free Markets:
A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government’s interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.


0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -2  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 06:16 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter, please tell me how many people were mass murdered by Christians, Buddhists and Hindus in the last 10, 50, and 100 years? How do they compare with how many people were mass murdered by Muslims in the last 10, 50 and 100 years?
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 09:35 pm
@ican711nm,
The Nazis were Christians. Pol Pot was educated by both Catholics and Buddhists before he became a Communist. There are a lot of Christians and Hindus with bloody hands.
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Sat 23 Oct, 2010 09:52 pm

Fascist America: Is This Election the Next Turn?
By Sara Robinson, Blog for Our Future
Posted on October 22, 2010, Printed on October 23, 2010
http://www.alternet.org/story/148588/

In August 2009, I wrote a piece titled Fascist America: Are We There Yet? that sparked much discussion on both the left and right ends of the blogosphere. In it, I argued that -- according to the best scholarship on how fascist regimes emerge -- America was on a path that was running much too close to the fail-safe point beyond which no previous democracy has ever been able to turn back from a full-on fascist state. I also noted that the then-emerging Tea Party had a lot of proto-fascist hallmarks, and that it had the potential to become a clear and present danger to the future of our democracy if it ever got enough traction to start winning elections in a big way.

On the first anniversary of that article, Jonah Goldberg -- the right's revisionist-in-chief on the subject of fascism -- actually used an entire National Review column to taunt me about what he characterized as a failure of prediction. Where's that fascist state you promised? he hooted.

It's funny he should ask. Because this coming election may, in fact, be a critical turning point on that road.

The Fascist America series of three articles (the other two are here and here) was built out of Robert Paxton's Anatomy of Fascism -- a landmark work of scholarship that lays out that specific conditions and prognosis of fascism as a political form. Paxton defined fascism as:

...a form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion.

Paxton laid out the five basic lifecycle stages of successful fascist movements. In the first stage, a mature industrial state facing some kind of crisis breeds a new, rural movement that's based on nationalist renewal. This movement invariably rejects reason and glorifies raw emotion, promises to restore lost national pride, co-opts the nation's traditional myths for its own purposes, and insists that the country must be purged of the toxic influence of outsiders and intellectuals who are blamed for their current misery.

(Sound familiar yet?)

In the second stage, the movement takes root, turns into a real political party, and seizes a seat at the table. Success at this stage, Paxton writes, "depends on certain relatively precise conditions: the weakness of a liberal state, whose inadequacies condemn the nation to disorder, decline, or humiliation; and political deadlock because the Right, the heir to power but unable to continue to wield it alone, refuses to accept a growing Left as a legitimate governing partner."

(Paging the Party of No....)

In the face of this deadlock, the corporate elites forge an alliance with rural nationalists, creating an unholy marriage that, if it continues, will soon breed a fascist state. And, of course, this is precisely what's happening now between the Koch Brothers, the oil companies, Americans for Prosperity, and the Tea Party.

The majority of history's would-be fascist movements have died right at this stage -- almost always because of the basic authoritarian ineptitude of their leadership, which ensured that they'd never gain anything more than a small and temporary handful of seats at the political table. The successful fascisms, on the other hand, were the ones that held together and to gained enough political leverage that capturing their governments became inevitable. And once that happened, there was no turning back, because they now had the political power and street muscle to silence any opposition. (Fascist parties almost never enjoy majority support at any stage -- but being a minority faction is only a problem in a functioning democracy. It's no problem at all if you're willing to use force to get your way.)

According to Paxton, there are three quick questions that let you know you've crossed that fail-safe line beyond which an emerging fascist regime has too much power to be stopped:

1. Are [neo- or protofascisms] becoming rooted as parties that represent major interests and feelings and wield major influence on the political scene?

2. Is the economic or constitutional system in a state of blockage apparently insoluble by existing authorities?

3. Is a rapid political mobilization threatening to escape the control of traditional elites, to the point where they would be tempted to look for tough helpers in order to stay in charge?

If the answer to all three is "yes," you're probably on for the rest of the ride, which can run for at least a decade or two before it burns through.

A year ago, I noted that we were already three for three on these questions. Now, the "yes" answers are far more resounding. With over 70 Tea Party candidates running for major state and federal offices on the ballot this November, it's fair to say that the 2010 election is shaping up as a national referendum on the Tea Party's future viability. And if they succeed at winning enough of these races, it may very well be the last vote on the subject we ever get.

The Alternatives
There are only a few ways this plays out. A few scenarios:

1. The Tea Party is rejected outright by the voters on November 2. A handful of their candidates do win their races; and for the next few years, the Democrats have a grand time pointing out their sheer wingnuttitude, bolstering a compelling case against electing any more of them in the future. The party begins to lose momentum, and in a few years is defunct.

2. The Tea Party elects a credible number of these 70-odd candidates -- enough to make a solid showing and establish its political bona fides, but not enough to get anything serious done. If this happens, progressives need to work fast and hard. If this right-wing tide continues to build as we head into the 2012 election, we'll still be cruising straight into a fascist future -- just not quite yet. There's time to stop it, but the momentum is not on our side -- and stopping it only gets harder with every passing week.

3. A solid majority of the Tea Party candidates win their races, cementing the movement's lock on the GOP and turning it into a genuine political power in this country. They've already promised us that if they take either house of Congress, the next two years will be a lurid nightmare of hearings, trials, impeachments, and character assassinations against progressives. (Which could, in the end, backfire on the GOP as badly as the Clinton impeachment did. We can hope.) Similar scorched-earth harassment awaits officials at every other level of government, too. And casual violence against immigrants, gays, and progressives may escalate as the Tea Party brownshirts become bolder, confident that at least some authorities will either back them up or look the other way.

In this scenario, the fail-safe point -- the point beyond which no country has ever turned back from the full fascist nightmare -- may well be behind us when we wake up on November 3. From there, the rest will play out in agonizing slow motion; and the character of the rest of this decade will hinge almost entirely on whether the corporatists, the militarists, or the theocrats ultimately get the upper hand in the emerging regime.

Really? Are you serious?
It's fair to wonder if the Tea Party deserves to be taken this seriously. After all, there's always been this faction in US politics -- the 10-12% rightwing authoritarian hard core that fueled McCarthyism and the Bircher movement and the Moral Majority; that voted for Goldwater and then George Wallace and even put KKK leader David Duke into office for a time. The far right has always been with us. It's one of the constants in our political landscape.

But they've always been a fringe movement, and it's mostly kept to itself. What's different now is that all the crazy ideas of the radical right -- climate and evolution denialism, banning contraception, sovereign citizenship, End Times theology, white nationalism, all of it -- have been catalyzed by the magic of the Internet and widespread economic disaster into one coherent mass subculture that, according to a Wall Street Journal poll released yesterday, has attracted a full 35% of the country's likely voters. According to Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, the Tea Parties are a broad movement that brings together several preexisting formations on the political right:

-- Economic libertarians who worry about big government collectivist tyranny

-- Christian Right Conservatives who oppose liberal government social policies

-- Right-wing apocalyptic Christians who fear a Satanic New World Order

-- Nebulous conspiracy theorists who fear a secular New World Order

-- Nationalistic ultra-patriots concerned that US sovereignty is eroding

-- Xenophobic anti-immigrant white nationalists who worry about preserving the “real” America.

This unification of right-wing forces around radical far-right ideas has never happened on anything like this scale in modern American history. And it's why we need to recognize the Tea Party as something unique under the political sun -- and seriously evaluate the future that awaits us if it becomes any more powerful.

That future is a painful thing to contemplate. I've been called an alarmist for even daring to use the F-word to describe the situation we're facing. But that's one of the universal hallmarks of fascism: by the time everybody finally wakes up and realizes that they're in it, it's usually too late to do anything about it. Here's how Milton Mayer described his experience of this as the Nazi thrall descended in Germany:

In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, ‘It’s not so bad’ or ‘You’re seeing things’ or ‘You’re an alarmist.’

And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic.

And yet the day comes when it's all too clear, Mayer writes -- and on that day, it's too late to stand up.

Suddenly it all comes down, all at once. You see what you are, what you have done, or, more accurately, what you haven’t done (for that was all that was required of most of us: that we do nothing). You remember those early meetings of your department in the university when, if one had stood, others would have stood, perhaps, but no one stood. A small matter, a matter of hiring this man or that, and you hired this one rather than that. You remember everything now, and your heart breaks. Too late. You are compromised beyond repair.

There are only a few days left before the election. Whatever you do between now and then will be a small matter -- a matter of making a few phone calls, of knocking on some doors, of following up with friends. And yet any compromise now could be the one we will remember with breaking hearts five years from now, when the country we knew is gone, and our future has been seized by people who represent the worst of everything we are.

Be the one who sees where this is taking us. Be the one who stands while you still can. The future these people have in mind for us is one that dozens of countries have already lived through; and all of them will carry the scars for centuries. It's not fascism yet; but if the Tea Party manages to get its hands on the levers of power, it will be.

Sara Robinson is a Fellow at the Campaign for America's Future, and a consulting partner with the Cognitive Policy Works in Seattle. One of the few trained social futurists in North America, she has blogged on authoritarian and extremist movements at Orcinus since 2006, and is a founding member of Group News Blog.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2010 08:10 am
A news analysis of the Tea Totalitarians and their views on the Constitution:

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/10/17/how-tea-partiers-get-the-constitution-wrong.html
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2010 01:14 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
There are a lot of Christians and Hindus with bloody hands.

How many within the last 100 years, within the last 50 years, and within the last 5 years?
ican711nm
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2010 01:17 pm
The impetus for the Tea Party movement is excessive government spending and taxation. Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values:
Constitutionally limited Government
Fiscal Responsibility
Free Markets

Specifically we want:
A. Members of Congress, the President, and judges of the Courts to abide by strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution according to the original intent of our founding fathers who adopted it, and according to the original intent of those who adopted each of its amendments.

B. Impeachment and removal from office all elected and appointed persons who do not comply with their oath or affirmation to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.

C. Defunding and repealing of all Obamacare, all Tarp bills, and all Stimulus bills.

D. Continuation of the 2010 tax system until it is completely replaced by a tax system that taxes each kind of taxable item at the same rate.

E. Adoption of legislation that allows the U.S. to fully develop and utilize its sources of energy fuels.

F. Prohibition of the re-distribution of wealth by decreasing illegal entitlement programs, by decreasing earmarks, by decreasing non-essential government agencies, by decreasing non- essential government employees, and by decreasing excessive taxation of the wealthy.

G. Adoption and implemention of only balanced budgets.

H. Immigration laws that close the borders of the U.S. to illegal immigration, that heavily fine those who hire illegal immigrants, and that support law enforcement of lawful immigration of those who meet currently specified conditions for legal immigration.

I. Prohibition of legislatures passing laws that exclude legislators.

J. Legislation that decreases the size and scope of the Federal Government.

ican711nm
 
  -2  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2010 01:29 pm
LIBERALS
Leftist liberals seek to secure their right to steal wealth others earn.

Rightist liberals seek to secure their right to retain wealth they earn.

Leftist Liberals think legitimizing the stealing of wealth others earn will lead to equalization of wealth and the elimination of hateful behavior. Actually neither will be achieved. Those in the government minority performing the redistribution of wealth will be the ones growing wealthier and more powerful, while their victims, the majority, as well as their beneficiaries will gradually grow poorer and less powerful.

Rightist Liberals think that laws that violate the Constitution must be repealed in order to rescue and renew America. Laws that violate the Constitution serve only to increase the power of government over the power of the people.

"Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

America began its corruption when its Congress, its presidents, and its courts began to redistribute wealth. It increased its rate of corruption when it deemed the Constitution of the USA a "Living Constitution" (i.e., changeable by opinion instead of by its Article V amendment process). More recently it has accelerated its rate of corruption by deeming the Constiitution an "Obsolete Constitution" (i.e., no longer valid).

All humans are endowed by God with the rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But humans forfeit those rights they deny others. Individualists want government to secure their rights. Collectivists want government to equalize wealth.

"IF EVER A TIME SHOULD COME, WHEN VAIN AND ASPIRING MEN SHOULD POSSESS THE HIGHEST SEATS IN GOVERNMENT, OUR COUNTRY WILL STAND IN NEED OF ITS EXPERIENCED PATRIOTS TO PREVENT ITS RUIN." -- Samuel Adams

"THE POWERS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ARE ENUMERATED; IT CAN ONLY OPERATE IN CERTAIN CASES; IT HAS LEGISLATIVE POWERS ON DEFINED AND LIMITED OBJECTS, BEYOND WHICH IT CANNOT EXTEND ITS JURISDICTION." -- James Madison

"WHEN THE PEOPLE FIND THAT THEY CAN VOTE THEMSELVES MONEY, THAT WILL HERALD THE END OF THE REPUBLIC." -- Benjamin Franklin

"THEY THAT CAN GIVE UP ESSENTIAL LIBERTY TO PURCHASE A LITTLE TEMPORARY SAFETY DESERVE NEITHER LIBERTY OR SAFETY." -- Benjamin Franklin

"REMEMBER DEMOCRACY NEVER LASTS LONG. IT SOON WASTES, EXHAUSTS, AND MURDERS ITSELF. THERE NEVER WAS A DEMOCRACY YET THAT DID NOT COMMIT SUICIDE." -- John Adams

"TO BE PREPARED FOR WAR, IS ONE OF THE MOST EFFECTUAL MEANS OF PRESERVING PEACE." -- George Washington

Some alleged adult folks need not only to be shouted at by their founding fathers. They need to also be spanked to help them grow up. Alas, the founding fathers cannot spank them, so they must absorb a modicum of wisdom some other way.

One way for them to absorb a modicum of wisdom is to absorb it from The Tea Party!

You betcha!

"TEA PARTY MISSION STATEMENT
Our mission is to attract, educate, organize, and mobilize our fellow citizens to secure public policy consistent with our three core values:
Constitutionally Limited Government;
Fiscal Responsibility;
Free Markets."
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Oct, 2010 02:08 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:

Specifically we want:
A. Members of Congress, the President, and judges of the Courts to abide by strict interpretation of the U.S. Constitution according to the original intent of our founding fathers who adopted it, and according to the original intent of those who adopted each of its amendments.

So then you are arguing that the second amendment only applies to muzzle loaders and congress can make all the laws they want to concerning semiautomatic weapons, correct?

Or are you arguing that the founders meant for amendments to cover things they never could have imagined?
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 06:27 am
@ican711nm,
Stop being coy. If there is anything honest in you, then you know that Christians have been some of the bloodiest people in history. I have a couple of history books here. If you have none, there is the internet and the library. Being a Christian does not make one a good person.
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 06:30 am
It is highly likely that the Tea Totalitarians will up the ante and that they will become actively involved in violence. While the story below does not identify these perpetrators with the Tea Totalitarians, it is highly likely that this is a sign of things to come:

Rand Paul supporter stomps on woman's head
BY STEVE KORNACKI

A little while ago, I posted my analysis of Monday night's final debate between Rand Paul and Jack Conway, concluding that the GOP nominee had evaded tough questions and avoided making any costly gaffes.

What I didn't know at the time was what happened outside the debate just before it started. It was there that a female activist from MoveOn, who was attempting to deliver a facetious award to Paul for his corporate-friendly views, was set upon by Paul supporters and knocked to the ground -- at which point one of the Paul backers stomped her head. The whole scene was captured on video by a local Fox station, with the footage leading its late newscast. So while Paul probably avoided generating any damaging headlines during the debate, his supporters, it seems, did the job beforehand.
0 Replies
 
plainoldme
 
  0  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 06:31 am
What I don't understand is how these people who claim to love the Constitution
1.) Want to amend it until it is unrecognizable;
2.) Want to overthrow the government completely.
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 08:07 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:

What I don't understand is how these people who claim to love the Constitution
1.) Want to amend it until it is unrecognizable;
2.) Want to overthrow the government completely.


Those people that you don't understand are Obama Democrats.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Tue 26 Oct, 2010 09:35 am
@plainoldme,
So now its only those on the right that want to amend the Constitution?
Or is it both parties, that want to amend the Constitution at one time or another?

And who is talking about overthrowing the govt?
Yes, there are some fringe types out there that talk about it, but nobody that is taken seriously
Unless, you mean winning elections is the same as "overthrowing" the government.

If thats what you mean, then you must admit that the govt gets "overthrown" every 2 years.
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.19 seconds on 07/29/2025 at 01:59:55