AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Foxfyre wrote:

Gee, I was pretty sure Thomas thought he said that. It has been attributed to him as documented in the permanent record:

SEE HERE

Obviously, I'm not near as old as you, Foxy.

0 Replies

Almost nobody is.

0 Replies

From this morning's e-mail - source unknown:

Quote:

New Element Discovered

Research has led to the discovery of the heaviest element yet known to science.

The new element, Governmentium (Gv), has one neutron, 25 assistant neutrons, 88 deputy neutrons, and 198 assistant deputy neutrons, giving it an atomic mass of 312.

These 312 particles are held together by forces called morons, which are surrounded by vast quantities of lepton-like particles called peons.

Since Governmentium has no electrons, it is inert; however, it can be detected because it impedes every reaction with which it comes into contact.

A minute amount of Governmentium can cause a reaction that would normally take less than a second to take from four days to four years to complete.

Governmentium has a normal half-life of 2 to 6 years; it does not decay, but instead undergoes a reorganization in which a portion of the assistant neutrons and deputy neutrons exchange places.

In fact, Governmentium's mass will actually increase over time, since each reorganization will cause more morons to become neutrons, forming isodopes.

This characteristic of moron promotion leads some scientists to believe that Governmentium is formed whenever morons reach a critical concentration. This hypothetical quantity is referred to as critical morass.

When catalysed with money, Governmentium becomes Administratium, an element that radiates just as much energy as Governmentium since it has half as many peons but twice as many morons.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

From this morning's e-mail - source unknown

The earliest I found is from the "Autumn 1998 newsletter" from the Louisiana Tech University, reprinted by them any couple of years - together with this:

Quote:

Chemists' Last Words . . .
1. And now for the taste test.
2. That may become hot...
3. And now add a little bit of this...
4. ... and please keep that test tube separate!
5. And now shake it a bit.
6. Why is there no label on this bottle?
7. In which glass was my mineral water?
8. The Bunsen burner is out!
9. Why does that stuff burn with a green flame?!?
10. H stands for Nitrogen - and that does not burn...
11. Oh, now I have spilt something...
12. First the acid, then the water...
13. And now the detonating gas problem.
14. This is a completely safe experimental setup.
15. Where did I put my gloves?
16. Oh no, wrong beaker...
17. The fire alarm is just being tested.
18. Now you can take the protective window away...
19. And now keep it constant at 24 degrees Celsius, 25... 26... 27...
20. Peter can you please help me. Peter!?! Peeeeeteeeeer?!?!?!?
21. Am I to wait 10 seconds or twenty?
22. Something is wrong here...
23. What caused all those holes in my apparatus?
24. Trust me - I know what I am doing.
25. And now a cigarette

(Google lists 20 pages of different sources of that "this morning's e-mail".

0 Replies

I ran across this article on the RCP list this morning. It is extremely well done, balanced, and provides a lot of thought provoking insights. For those who have more historical interest than ideological motives on this thread, I think you would enjoy it:

Excerpt:

The Age of Nixon
Rick Perlstein on the left, the right, the '60s, and the illusion of consensus
Jesse Walker
July 2008 Print Edition

In May 1970 the United States saw a wave of political demonstrations?-demonstrations in favor of Richard Nixon and the Vietnam War. The most famous was the hard hat riot of May 8, when Manhattan construction workers beat up hippies and demanded that City Hall raise the American flag. In subsequent days more marches, some spontaneous and some quietly encouraged by the White House, broke out in such cities as Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and San Diego. On May 20 approximately 100,000 union men in Manhattan held what Time called "a kind of workers' Woodstock," carrying signs with slogans such as "God Bless the Establishment." A cement mixer hauled a banner mocking New York's liberal mayor: "Lindsay for Mayor of Hanoi."

The first histories of the 1960s and early '70s weren't always sure how to treat such events, when they deigned to notice them at all. But over the last decade, there has been a surge of interest in the right-wing movements that produced or cheered on such rallies. In studies ranging from Rebecca Klatch's A Generation Divided to Lisa McGirr's Suburban Warriors to John Andrew's The Other Side of the Sixties, a new wave of scholarship has pored over the defining institutions, personalities, and moments of the '60s right, deepening our understanding of the decade and illuminating the subsequent rise of Reaganism.

The most acclaimed of those books was probably the independent historian Rick Perlstein's mammoth Before the Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus (2001), an intelligent and absorbing account of the conservative insurgency that seized the Republican Party in 1964 only to be crushed in the November election. Now Perlstein has published an engrossing, almost novelistic sequel that extends the story through the Republican landslide of 1972. The protagonist of Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America (Scribner) is not Richard Nixon himself, Perlstein writes, but "the voter who, in 1964, pulled the lever for the Democrat for president because to do anything elseseemed to court civilizational chaos, and who, eight years later, pulled the level for the Republican for exactly the same reason."

Nixonland takes its name from a speech that John Kenneth Galbraith wrote for Adlai Stevenson during the 1956 presidential campaign: "Our nation stands at a fork in the political road. In one direction lies a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland." One lesson of the book is that men like Stevenson and Galbraith weren't above slander, scare, and innuendo themselves, even if they preferred to pretend these faults existed only in the opposition. Nixonland was much larger than Nixon.

Perlstein, 38, is strongly left-liberal in his own policy preferences, but his Goldwater book was widely praised by conservatives delighted that someone had taken the time to understand their history and ideas. Nixonland is similarly fair-minded in its account of the backlash against liberalism. That is not to say that it goes easy on its subjects. Many conservatives will be unhappy to be reminded of, say, the intense racial paranoia that helped to kick-start their political successes in the '60s. At the same time, Perlstein refuses to tell the left a comforting story in which the backlash was only about race. The arrogance of the era's liberals and leftists, and the ways that manifested itself in both public policy and personal style, is a theme throughout his account.

MORE HERE (REASON.COM)

0 Replies

In honor of Independence Day when at least some of us ponder patriotic thoughts related to our country, it seems appropriate to post Thomas Sowell's essay on the subject of patriotism. It is also appropriate for this thread.

Does patriotism matter?
By Thomas Sowell
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com

The Fourth of July is a patriotic holiday but patriotism has long been viewed with suspicion or disdain by many of the intelligentsia. As far back as 1793, prominent British writer William Godwin called patriotism "high-sounding nonsense."

Internationalism has long been a competitor with patriotism, especially among the intelligentsia. H.G. Wells advocated replacing the idea of duty to one's country with "the idea of cosmopolitan duty."

Perhaps nowhere was patriotism so downplayed or deplored than among intellectuals in the Western democracies in the two decades after the horrors of the First World War, fought under various nations' banners of patriotism.

In France, after the First World War, the teachers' unions launched a systematic purge of textbooks, in order to promote internationalism and pacifism.

Books that depicted the courage and self-sacrifice of soldiers who had defended France against the German invaders were called "bellicose" books to be banished from the schools.

Textbook publishers caved in to the power of the teachers' unions, rather than lose a large market for their books. History books were sharply revised to conform to internationalism and pacifism.

The once epic story of the French soldiers' heroic defense against the German invaders at Verdun, despite the massive casualties suffered by the French, was now transformed into a story of horrible suffering by all soldiers at Verdun?- French and German alike.

In short, soldiers once depicted as national heroes were now depicted as victims?- and just like victims in other nations' armies.

Children were bombarded with stories on the horrors of war. In some schools, children whose fathers had been killed during the war were asked to speak to the class and many of these children?- as well as some of their classmates and teachers?- broke down in tears.

In Britain, Winston Churchill warned that a country "cannot avoid war by dilating upon its horrors." In France, Marshal Philippe Petain, the victor at Verdun, warned in 1934 that teachers were trying to "raise our sons in ignorance of or in contempt of the fatherland."

But they were voices drowned out by the pacifist and internationalist rhetoric of the 1920s and 1930s.

Did it matter? Does patriotism matter?

France, where pacifism and internationalism were strongest, became a classic example of how much it can matter.

During the First World War, France fought on against the German invaders for four long years, despite having more of its soldiers killed than all the American soldiers killed in all the wars in the history of the United States, put together.

But during the Second World War, France collapsed after just six weeks of fighting and surrendered to Nazi Germany. At the bitter moment of defeat the head of the French teachers' union was told, "You are partially responsible for the defeat."

Charles de Gaulle, Francois Mauriac, and other Frenchmen blamed a lack of national will or general moral decay, for the sudden and humiliating collapse of France in 1940.

At the outset of the invasion, both German and French generals assessed French military forces as more likely to gain victory, and virtually no one expected France to collapse like a house of cards ?- except Adolf Hitler, who had studied French society instead of French military forces.

Did patriotism matter? It mattered more than superior French tanks and planes.

Most Americans today are unaware of how much our schools have followed in the footsteps of the French schools of the 1920s and 1930s, or how much our intellectuals have become citizens of the world instead of American patriots.

Our media are busy verbally transforming American combat troops from heroes into victims, just as the French intelligentsia did?- with the added twist of calling this "supporting the troops."

Will that matter? Time will tell.
LINK

0 Replies

Sowell gerrymanders the definition of patriotism. I just got back from the national mall's glorious fireworks display. I looked around and there were many people there of many backgrounds.

Many in Obama shirts. Many in McCain Shirts. Many not wearing any politics at all on this particularly rainy day from our fine capitol.

I'll tell you what patriotism is not. Patriotism is not an ultimatum. It is not "With us or against us." It is not waving flags. It is not a set of colors. It is not a bald eagle. It is not adoration for an icon. It is not being a republican or democrat. It is not baseball. It is not coca-cola.

Patriotism is not looked down on by intellectuals because patriotism is a bad thing. It's looked down upon because it has become a cheap thing. Loving America will never be enough to make you a patriot, but still there are people who try their hardest to make patriotism an accessory.

Those who see America as being the greatest nation in the world may possibly be the furthest from patriots. A true patriot is a citizen like Martin Luther King who saw a great flaw and knew that fighting for the rights of all people was more important than defending a broken system just because it was simply ours.

Pacifism has nothing to do with patriotism.

Our soldiers are still heroes, but don't think that doesn't mean that they can't be victimized by bad policy. Do you know how many vets from Afghanistan and Iraq are already homeless? A true patriot is going to fight for this to be fixed even if it makes us look bad.

Patriotism is not an image.

Our school children should not be taught that loving one's country supersedes their conscience.

Shame on Sowell for such a peace of trash.

Happy Independence Day.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Sowell gerrymanders the definition of patriotism.

How so? Nice turn of phrase but what do you mean? Presumably you are suggesting that he has picked and chosen aspects of the definition to suit his political agenda, but in what way?

Diest wrote:

I'll tell you what patriotism is not. Patriotism is not an ultimatum. It is not "With us or against us." It is not waving flags. It is not a set of colors. It is not a bald eagle. It is not adoration for an icon. It is not being a republican or democrat. It is not baseball. It is not coca-cola.

Now, please, tell us what it is.

I seriously doubt there are too many people, against whom you would set yourself intellectually, who believe patriotism is simply baseball or coca-cola. However these iconic representations of America are indeed part of patriotism, because patriotism is a love not for a particular geographical region on the planet earth but for a deep and abiding culture and yes, flag waving, symbolic eagles, baseball and coca-cola are a few parts of that culture. So is sending our young ones into great peril to defend the freedom of others. So is contributing large chunks of our personal and national wealth to assist the unfortunate wherever they may be. So is an economic system that encourages innovation and genius and disproportionately advances the knowledge and progress of the human race.

But let's hear from you what it might be.

Diest wrote:

Patriotism is not looked down on by intellectuals because patriotism is a bad thing. It's looked down upon because it has become a cheap thing. Loving America will never be enough to make you a patriot, but still there are people who try their hardest to make patriotism an accessory.

Well you haven't really read Sowell's piece then. Patriotism is, indeed, seen as a "bad thing" by certain intellectuals, and to argue otherwise is simply ignorant. What's more it is understandable why certain intellectuals might see patriotism as a "bad thing." For French intellectuals, the horrors of WWI might readily be associated with "patriotism," but how did their concerted effort to eradicate patriotism work? Nazi occupied France for virtually the length of WWII.

The lesson here is that the world is a far more complex and dangerous place than liberals would have us believe. The answer to foolish choices, only marginally based on a sense of patriotism, with horrendous results is not to to neuter a society, culture, country. Patriotism was needed, but in short supply, when the Germans invaded France during WWII.

France was devastated by WWI. It truly lost a generation. It is perfectly understandable why the French (intellectual or otherwise) would not want to repeat that horror, and yet their efforts to avoid a repetition were met by the cruel reality of history: Instead of losing another generation, they lost their country and their freedom.

I don't know for certain, but my bet is that France lost far fewer French lives in WWII than in WWI, but is that the ultimate national calculus?

I don't think so.

Diest wrote:

Those who see America as being the greatest nation in the world may possibly be the furthest from patriots. A true patriot is a citizen like Martin Luther King who saw a great flaw and knew that fighting for the rights of all people was more important than defending a broken system just because it was simply ours.

This is just ideologically induced nonsense. Considering America the greatest nation in the world and devoting oneself to it's improvement are not mutually exclusive. Just ask Barrack Obama.

Herein lies the rotten foundation of the American Left. It is embarrassed by the notion that America might be the greatest nation on earth, and will never utter that thought itself. No matter how America exceeds the contributions of each and every other nation on earth to the human condition; no matter how America clearly distinguishes itself from all other major powers in history, the Left feels it is somehow base to think in such terms. The Left is ashamed of their country for its vast strength and, disproportionately, its flaws, because it is a principle of the Left to bemoan any and all things and to rejoice nothing that is not beyond human capabilities. It is only people that understand and, more importantly, accept the failings of humanity that can celebrate its achievements.

Diest wrote:

Pacifism has nothing to do with patriotism.

Yes it does if it is allowed to supersede patriotism. Patriotism may require warrior or pacifists, but if allowed only one it will fail.

Diest wrote:

Our soldiers are still heroes, but don't think that doesn't mean that they can't be victimized by bad policy. Do you know how many vets from Afghanistan and Iraq are already homeless? A true patriot is going to fight for this to be fixed even if it makes us look bad.

True, but how many of the "patriots" you seem to disdain argue otherwise? It's a righteous sounding argument but what substance does it have?

Diest wrote:

Patriotism is not an image.

And who says it is?

Diest wrote:

Our school children should not be taught that loving one's country supersedes their conscience.

Certainly not, but neither should they be taught that to do so is somehow the sign of jingoist dupe.

Diest wrote:

Shame on Sowell for such a peace of trash.

Shame on you for not taking the time to read his piece and to counter it with substance rather than rant.

Diest wrote:

Happy Independence Day.

Same to you Young Jedi.

0 Replies

A provocative analysis Finn and thank you for that. I think that Sowell was saying that patriots are those people who see their nation as basically good, worth defending, worth fighting for, worth preserving, building up, improving, making better.

As you suggested, non patriots feel an overt or vague contempt for their own country and tend to see other peoples or cultures as somehow more noble or worthy or superior or better. The enemy from past aggressors to despotic rogues to terrorist organizations are not described as the enemy but are more likely to be portrayed as created by an opportunistic, intrusive, and/or corrupt United States.

I am reminded of some "Pearl Harbor" threads on A2K and other forums where the liberals strain mightily to portray the USA as the villain and the Emperial Japanese being driven to desperation and/or justification to attack and ultimately being made the victims. If we had taken down our missile silos, the Soviet Union would have followed suit. Iraq was a peaceful, stable nation and was far better off before the American bullies turned it into a chaotic mess, etc.

When that kind of mindset is allowed without challenge to permeate our culture, is incorporated into our textbooks, is driven into the minds of the young and gullible (or old and gullible for that matter), there is an erosion of helathy national pride coupled with little stomach or will or incentive to conserve the ideals, values, culture, common language, cohesiveness etc. that have made the United States the uniquely strong, prosperous, and altruistic nation that it is.

Patriots don't reject all that is good and right in order to recognize and address that there was and/or is bad in the past or present.

Sowell summarizes his thesis:

Quote:

Did patriotism matter? It mattered more than superior French tanks and planes.

Most Americans today are unaware of how much our schools have followed in the footsteps of the French schools of the 1920s and 1930s, or how much our intellectuals have become citizens of the world instead of American patriots.

Our media are busy verbally transforming American combat troops from heroes into victims, just as the French intelligentsia did- with the added twist of calling this "supporting the troops."

Will that matter? Time will tell.

I hope the pendulum swings the other way soon lest many of our young will never know the redeeming and inspiring honorable pride of country that the older generation has known and be willing to commit their heart and minds and hands on work to keep America strong.

0 Replies

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Sowell gerrymanders the definition of patriotism.

How so? Nice turn of phrase but what do you mean? Presumably you are suggesting that he has picked and chosen aspects of the definition to suit his political agenda, but in what way?

Funny to me that you ask this question but then tell me later in your post about how Sowell's article shows the "rotten underbelly of the left." Seems like you agree with me after all. The article is nothing more than a way to brand progressives as being unpatriotic via patriotism.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Diest wrote:
I'll tell you what patriotism is not. Patriotism is not an ultimatum. It is not "With us or against us." It is not waving flags. It is not a set of colors. It is not a bald eagle. It is not adoration for an icon. It is not being a republican or democrat. It is not baseball. It is not coca-cola.

Now, please, tell us what it is.

Your wheel s are spinning but you aren't moving. I think I was pretty clear about what it is to me, and even gave an example with MLK.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

I seriously doubt there are too many people, against whom you would set yourself intellectually, who believe patriotism is simply baseball or coca-cola. However these iconic representations of America are indeed part of patriotism, because patriotism is a love not for a particular geographical region on the planet earth but for a deep and abiding culture and yes, flag waving, symbolic eagles, baseball and coca-cola are a few parts of that culture. So is sending our young ones into great peril to defend the freedom of others. So is contributing large chunks of our personal and national wealth to assist the unfortunate wherever they may be. So is an economic system that encourages innovation and genius and disproportionately advances the knowledge and progress of the human race.

But let's hear from you what it might be.

Ha. All I can think about when I read your response is hacks like Sean Hanity talking about how protesting the war in Iraq and how those people were being unpatriotic.

You need to look around, and not just around you.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Diest wrote:
Patriotism is not looked down on by intellectuals because patriotism is a bad thing. It's looked down upon because it has become a cheap thing. Loving America will never be enough to make you a patriot, but still there are people who try their hardest to make patriotism an accessory.

Well you haven't really read Sowell's piece then. Patriotism is, indeed, seen as a "bad thing" by certain intellectuals, and to argue otherwise is simply ignorant. What's more it is understandable why certain intellectuals might see patriotism as a "bad thing." For French intellectuals, the horrors of WWI might readily be associated with "patriotism," but how did their concerted effort to eradicate patriotism work? Nazi occupied France for virtually the length of WWII.

Powell gives examples of the French from decades ago, and tries to credit that for their occupation. That's like blaming a woman for getting raped. He then tries to imply without supporting that the same is happening here. The article is a piece of trash.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

The lesson here is that the world is a far more complex and dangerous place than liberals would have us believe. The answer to foolish choices, only marginally based on a sense of patriotism, with horrendous results is not to to neuter a society, culture, country. Patriotism was needed, but in short supply, when the Germans invaded France during WWII.

Now you are turning phrases. The world we live in as described by Liberals is far more dynamic than the "good guys" and "bad guys" that the Republican's sell. Our culture in no way is neutered.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

France was devastated by WWI. It truly lost a generation. It is perfectly understandable why the French (intellectual or otherwise) would not want to repeat that horror, and yet their efforts to avoid a repetition were met by the cruel reality of history: Instead of losing another generation, they lost their country and their freedom.

I don't know for certain, but my bet is that France lost far fewer French lives in WWII than in WWI, but is that the ultimate national calculus?

I don't think so.

Where as the German's had lot's of patriotism... oh wait, they had nationalism. But that's what Sowell came to sell. Gerrymander, gerrymander, gerrymander.

You seem ready to jump on the train that France was defeated by the lack of patriotism, but this variable has been ingenuinely defined such to make this argument and it hasn't been isolated away form the other cultural and political elements to be labeled as the cause.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Diest wrote:
Those who see America as being the greatest nation in the world may possibly be the furthest from patriots. A true patriot is a citizen like Martin Luther King who saw a great flaw and knew that fighting for the rights of all people was more important than defending a broken system just because it was simply ours.

This is just ideologically induced nonsense. Considering America the greatest nation in the world and devoting oneself to it's improvement are not mutually exclusive. Just ask Barrack Obama.

I never said they were mutually exclusive, I'm saying that many act as if they are. Look at an issue like race, and how many on the right don't seem to think it's an issue. They'd rather like ot think that America is fine and all is fair in this arena despite what those who are far closer to the subject say.

IT seems like there are plenty of republican's with their fingers in their ear humming the national anthem.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Herein lies the rotten foundation of the American Left. It is embarrassed by the notion that America might be the greatest nation on earth, and will never utter that thought itself. No matter how America exceeds the contributions of each and every other nation on earth to the human condition; no matter how America clearly distinguishes itself from all other major powers in history, the Left feels it is somehow base to think in such terms. The Left is ashamed of their country for its vast strength and, disproportionately, its flaws, because it is a principle of the Left to bemoan any and all things and to rejoice nothing that is not beyond human capabilities. It is only people that understand and, more importantly, accept the failings of humanity that can celebrate its achievements.

I'd say the contrary. It's not that the left is afraid we are the greatest nation on earth, it's that the right is afraid we aren't.

What is embarrassing? Our murder rate, infant mortality rate, and how we treat our teachers.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Diest wrote:
Pacifism has nothing to do with patriotism.

Yes it does if it is allowed to supersede patriotism. Patriotism may require warrior or pacifists, but if allowed only one it will fail.

So be clear here. Are you trying to say that pacifism is competing with patriotism in the USA? How are they even mutually exclusive?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Diest wrote:
Our soldiers are still heroes, but don't think that doesn't mean that they can't be victimized by bad policy. Do you know how many vets from Afghanistan and Iraq are already homeless? A true patriot is going to fight for this to be fixed even if it makes us look bad.

True, but how many of the "patriots" you seem to disdain argue otherwise? It's a righteous sounding argument but what substance does it have?

I have no disdain for patriots, but you seem to think that the left does. Right now liberals not conservatives are being more supportive of our troops by our veterans.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Diest wrote:
Patriotism is not an image.

And who says it is?

Those who brand their cars with flags and yellow magnetic ribbons.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Diest wrote:
Our school children should not be taught that loving one's country supersedes their conscience.

Certainly not, but neither should they be taught that to do so is somehow the sign of jingoist dupe.

You are speaking of boogymen. I think schools are actually doing a good job of promoting civics and student led initiatives. The generation that follows me (I'm gen Y, the transition generation to millennials) is doing a great job of being active in our nation and speaking up.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Diest wrote:
Shame on Sowell for such a peace of trash.

Shame on you for not taking the time to read his piece and to counter it with substance rather than rant.

Hum louder Finn.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Diest wrote:
Happy Independence Day.

Same to you Young Jedi.

Thanks, Mr old Sith lord.
K
O

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

A provocative analysis Finn and thank you for that. I think that Sowell was saying that patriots are those people who see their nation as basically good, worth defending, worth fighting for, worth preserving, building up, improving, making better.

As you suggested, non patriots feel an overt or vague contempt for their own country and tend to see other peoples or cultures as somehow more noble or worthy or superior or better.

Or maybe they have reasonably reached the conclusion that their nation is not basically good or worth fighting for. Sowell could have easily seen this side of the argument by examining how the pros and cons of patriotism apply to the German soldiers who attacked France. By failing to consider this side, Sowell has put blinders on himself and his readers so they don't see the problematic sides of being a patriots, and the arguments for choosing not to be one. (This seems to be another aspect of what Deist TKO calls Sowell's gerrymandering of patriotism. (Good expression!))

PS: For the record: I am not a German patriot now, and don't intend to become an American patriot in the future, even if I should acquire the United States' citizenship.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
A provocative analysis Finn and thank you for that. I think that Sowell was saying that patriots are those people who see their nation as basically good, worth defending, worth fighting for, worth preserving, building up, improving, making better.

As you suggested, non patriots feel an overt or vague contempt for their own country and tend to see other peoples or cultures as somehow more noble or worthy or superior or better.

Or maybe they have reasonably reached the conclusion that their nation is not basically good or worth fighting for. Sowell could have easily seen this side of the argument by examining how the pros and cons of patriotism apply to the German soldiers who attacked France. By failing to consider this side, Sowell has put blinders on himself and his readers so they don't see the problematic sides of being a patriots, and the arguments for choosing not to be one. (This seems to be another aspect of what Deist TKO calls Sowell's gerrymandering of patriotism. (Good expression!))

PS: For the record: I am not a German patriot now, and don't intend to become an American patriot in the future, even if I should acquire the United States' citizenship.

I don't believe Sowell gerrymandered anything. It IS gerrymandering his thesis (and definition) however to equate conquest with defense of one's country or self defense.

However, IF those German soldiers were acting out of a belief that they were in any danger from France and therefore were acting in self defense, there could be an argument for invading France being a patriotic act. From the accounts I have read of the life and service of German soldiers, however, though I can't recall the issue of patriotism being specifically addressed, I got the sense that they feared their own superiors far more than they feared the French or anybody else for that matter.

Nor did Sowell address virtues of not being patriotic as that was not the point of his short essay. He referenced some causes for lack of patriotism and used the French response to WWII as one consequence of a nation that has become mostly unpatriotic.

And it is THAT which is the interesting component to this and which I am relatively convinced that TKO, a product of the very phenomenon Sowell described, is ideologically incapable of grasping and which I think you also missed.

Should you decide to become an American, I regret that you would choose not to be a patriot. I think that would be unfortunate for us and for you.

0 Replies

Frankly, dear, I don't give a damn about what you regret. Thanks for the thought, though.

0 Replies

Apparently you don't give a damn about discussing Sowell's thesis either. Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And it is THAT which is the interesting component to this and which I am relatively convinced that TKO, a product of the very phenomenon Sowell described, is ideologically incapable of grasping and which I think you also missed.

I consider myself very patriotic and if my views on patriotism have anything to do with my schooling, then it is the opposite that is true: Our schools (as they were when I attended) teach students that patriotism is a good thing. YOU just can't handle that their are expressions of patriotism beyond or contrary to your beliefs. I make no such artificial distinctions.

For the record, nobody has said it's not a good thing. The point is that people are being bought in or scared away from artificial notions of patriotism. Sowell is one of those snake oil salesmen. As Thomas said, he did not show how patriotism can be abused etc. It's a poorly written and unsupported thesis.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And it is THAT which is the interesting component to this and which I am relatively convinced that TKO, a product of the very phenomenon Sowell described, is ideologically incapable of grasping and which I think you also missed.

I consider myself very patriotic and if my views on patriotism have anything to do with my schooling, then it is the opposite that is true: Our schools (as they were when I attended) teach students that patriotism is a good thing. YOU just can't handle that their are expressions of patriotism beyond or contrary to your beliefs. I make no such artificial distinctions.

For the record, nobody has said it's not a good thing. The point is that people are being bought in or scared away from artificial notions of patriotism. Sowell is one of those snake oil salesmen. As Thomas said, he did not show how patriotism can be abused etc. It's a poorly written and unsupported thesis.

T
K
O

I didn't say you (or anybody else) was unpatriotic. I did say that the very dynamics that Sowell illustrated in his these would render you incapable of understanding his thesis or representing it fairly or accurately. So far you haven't proved me wrong about that.

0 Replies

'Incapable of understanding?'

Glass houses, Fox

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I understand what Sowell is failing to prove.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

I understand what Sowell is failing to prove.

T
K
O

Not if you describe it as gerrymandering you don't. Unless you don't know what gerrymandering is.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Sowell gerrymanders the definition of patriotism. I just got back from the national mall's glorious fireworks display. I looked around and there were many people there of many backgrounds.

Many in Obama shirts. Many in McCain Shirts. Many not wearing any politics at all on this particularly rainy day from our fine capitol.

I'll tell you what patriotism is not. Patriotism is not an ultimatum. It is not "With us or against us." It is not waving flags. It is not a set of colors. It is not a bald eagle. It is not adoration for an icon. It is not being a republican or democrat. It is not baseball. It is not coca-cola.

Patriotism is not looked down on by intellectuals because patriotism is a bad thing. It's looked down upon because it has become a cheap thing. Loving America will never be enough to make you a patriot, but still there are people who try their hardest to make patriotism an accessory.

Those who see America as being the greatest nation in the world may possibly be the furthest from patriots. A true patriot is a citizen like Martin Luther King who saw a great flaw and knew that fighting for the rights of all people was more important than defending a broken system just because it was simply ours.

Pacifism has nothing to do with patriotism.

Our soldiers are still heroes, but don't think that doesn't mean that they can't be victimized by bad policy. Do you know how many vets from Afghanistan and Iraq are already homeless? A true patriot is going to fight for this to be fixed even if it makes us look bad.

Patriotism is not an image.

Our school children should not be taught that loving one's country supersedes their conscience.

Shame on Sowell for such a peace of trash.

Happy Independence Day.

T
K
O

Well said.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know