3
   

Eisenhower... Candy Ass Liberal

 
 
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 09:42 am
"We merely want to live in peace with all the world, to trade with them, to commune with them, to learn from their culture as they may learn from ours, so that the products of our toil may be used for our schools and our roads and our churches and not for guns and planes and tanks and ships of war."
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 3 • Views: 869 • Replies: 13
No top replies

 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 10:46 am
@blueveinedthrobber,
I don't think Eisenhower was a liberal. I think was a sane, reasonable, pragmatic, intelligent individual willing to say what was on his mind.

I think that was what he was doing in the statement of his that you quoted.

I find it interesting, though, that you consider a sane, reasonable, pragmatic, intelligent, well-delivered opinion to be indicative of being a liberal.
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 11:00 am
@Frank Apisa,
missed that sarcasm there eh, Frank?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 11:06 am
@blueveinedthrobber,
blueveinedthrobber wrote:

"We merely want to live in peace with all the world, to trade with them, to commune with them, to learn from their culture as they may learn from ours, so that the products of our toil may be used for our schools and our roads and our churches and not for guns and planes and tanks and ships of war."
He did not speak for the republicans who put him in the white house... Generals are paid as they are to make certain they think much as the class that employs them; but the fact is that we had lost much of the moral imperative for conquest, and communism was still a force in the world... Until we could get that monkey out of our shorts we did not have empire as an option... What was unsaid by Eisenhour is more important than what was said: Our business class would do all it could to control the world by trade, but that ultimately it would fall upon those who know none of the benefits of empire to pay for the pleasure of it, and for the defense of it they would give their lives and loot...
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 11:10 am
@blueveinedthrobber,
Quote:
missed that sarcasm there eh, Frank?


If it is there...and if that was your point...YES, I did.

Perhaps you were being too subtle...perhaps I am not intelligent enough to get your point.

Do you have time to explain it? I'd certainly appreciate it. I'm having some trouble with subtlety here in A2K and it may help me.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 11:14 am
@blueveinedthrobber,
Amazing how an entire country seems to have slid/been shoved to the right.
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 12:17 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank the day I'm brighter than you is the day I will go ahead and retire... having achieved all I possibly can Very Happy
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 12:22 pm
@blueveinedthrobber,
Quote:
Frank the day I'm brighter than you is the day I will go ahead and retire... having achieved all I possibly can


I doubt that, but it was nice of you to say it!

In any case, the explanation you gave in your other thread pretty much explains this one also. Sorry I was slow on the up-take.

I would just love to see today's Republicans appraise someone like Eisenhower or latter day Goldwater. Even Nixon...and, dare I say it, George H. W. Bush.

How has this happened?

And what does is mean for America if somehow they accidentally gain significant control of government?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 12:24 pm
@ehBeth,
Quote:
Amazing how an entire country seems to have slid/been shoved to the right.


Beth, that is the part that bothers me the most. The die-hard, committed, Carl Rove kind of people...one can understand. But I know people (relatives) now moving further and further to the right who should be able to see that side for what it is.

Have we gone into a nationwide psychosis?
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 12:28 pm
@Frank Apisa,
The rich and powerful pour a lot of money into controlling how people think. The fact that the American media, other than Fox is routinely described as 'liberal,' shows how well the drip drip approach works.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 12:46 pm
No, Americans have been successfully cozened by a steady drum beat of partisan propaganda for more than 30 years, dating back to the days of the 1976 primary campaign. Reagan ran against Ford, and lost. Ford was the ultimate Washington insider, although not visibly so, and Reagan's handlers saw that they'd have to distinguish him within the ranks of the Republicans. The Nixon "silent majority" thing hadn't worked out the way it had been planned, just as subsequently the "moral majority" thing wouldn't work. People (at least in the United States) don't like to be told what they are, they prefer to identify themselves based on what they value.

What Reagan's handlers came up with brilliant. First, he was the "gosh, Ma'am" boy next door, and a member of the World War II generation, so that voters could identify with him on their own, without being told they should do so. But even more brilliant was the appeal to "founding principles." The "shining city on the hill" is taken from a sermon delivered by John Winthrop aboard ship in 1630 as he sailed to Massachusetts to set up their "godly republic in the wilderness." Winthrop told these new colonists that they would found a "city upon a hill" which would be watched by the world. Arriving in Massachusetts Bay, where Boston was founded, it seemed literally to be a "city upon a hill" (actually, several small hills). I don't know when it became the shining city, or who added that, but it was the first expression of American exceptionalism, and someone smart on Reagan's team dusted it off and successfully offered the nation American exceptionalism as though it were brand new. Ironically, John Kennedy had used that in 1961. Although Reagan did not use the phrase in a speech until the end of his first term, the concept of American exceptionalism was disseminated in several modest forms by his campaign--no pushy slogans, just offering a "we all think the same on these issues, don't we?" Conservative propagandists have been successfully appealing to the "values" of the founders ever since.

World War II vets and their wives liked that. They liked the notion that they were exceptional, and the propagandists played to it. They became "the greatest generation." What they valued became the values of decency and honor. No one pushed this on them--it was offered and they took it. Timing meant a lot, too. Southerners were fed up with the Democratic Party, which they felt had let them down, and had even betrayed them, leading to the phenomenon of the Reagan Democrats who voted for what the man represented to them, and not for the party. It wasn't hard to rather quickly move southern states into the Republican fold. Less than 20 years earlier, conservative had been successfully demonized by associating it with an image of Goldwater as a dangerous fanatic. Now conservative became a label to be proud of, and liberal was pretty quickly demonized. The Reagan landslide made it all seem inevitable (Reagan beat Carter by 10% in the popular vote, but beat him by 10 to 1 in the Electoral College). People now not only could call themselves conservatives with no shame, but could do so proudly.

From Goldwater to Reagan was less than 20 years. One wonders when and how soon it might turn around again. Personally, i don't think it will happen too soon, though. First because so many people who were kids when Reagan was president idolized him, and they are now in their 40s and 50s; second, because the Democrats have always been a very large body of fragmentary interests, lacking the concentrated and well-directed propagandistic vision of the Republicans. Who can say?
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 04:26 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

The rich and powerful pour a lot of money into controlling how people think. The fact that the American media, other than Fox is routinely described as 'liberal,' shows how well the drip drip approach works.
They can change how people act within a given situation; but they cannot really change who people are, and most people, even republican people are not really assholes... It is distance that allows them to judge others as unworthy of government help, for example, when it is their due, and all our due as part of the commonwealth... While they may blame others for the pain and want they must endure on their own moral choices, if they had to look at such people starve, or freeze, or live even a moment in their situation, they would realize how without hope such people have always been, and how even grasping at the pleasure of drugs or sex has only been a futile grab at meaning... Most republicans are victims themselves and it does no good for victims to blame victims and to turn their ire at them; but it feels better for a moment, and so hate is but a drug to the Christians and republicans in that it gives them meaning to be able to jduge and condemn...The fact is that so much of the vocabulary has been screwed up in the effort to control the people, and wreck the ability of people to tell the truth even when they try that to keep things straight is a full time job...It takes a great deal of faith, and hope; but I do think that we can have freedom and justice, and can only have one with the other; but I do believe these words, and most of our moral forms have been so abuse that we may have to find new words for them... So what if liberal has become a curse??? Will that stop people at some point from growing sick of abuse and exploitation from those who put conservatism above humanity??? So what if things were better yesterday??? Where are the idiots who really believe we can turn back time with a vote??? What is socialism but a democratic control of the economy; and if that becomes necessary so that people cannot live without it, will they die without it, or simply change its name to accomodate their prejudice??? People are not all that rational, but they must at times be realistic...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 04:34 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

No, Americans have been successfully cozened by a steady drum beat of partisan propaganda for more than 30 years, dating back to the days of the 1976 primary campaign. Reagan ran against Ford, and lost. Ford was the ultimate Washington insider, although not visibly so, and Reagan's handlers saw that they'd have to distinguish him within the ranks of the Republicans. The Nixon "silent majority" thing hadn't worked out the way it had been planned, just as subsequently the "moral majority" thing wouldn't work. People (at least in the United States) don't like to be told what they are, they prefer to identify themselves based on what they value.

What Reagan's handlers came up with brilliant. First, he was the "gosh, Ma'am" boy next door, and a member of the World War II generation, so that voters could identify with him on their own, without being told they should do so. But even more brilliant was the appeal to "founding principles." The "shining city on the hill" is taken from a sermon delivered by John Winthrop aboard ship in 1630 as he sailed to Massachusetts to set up their "godly republic in the wilderness." Winthrop told these new colonists that they would found a "city upon a hill" which would be watched by the world. Arriving in Massachusetts Bay, where Boston was founded, it seemed literally to be a "city upon a hill" (actually, several small hills). I don't know when it became the shining city, or who added that, but it was the first expression of American exceptionalism, and someone smart on Reagan's team dusted it off and successfully offered the nation American exceptionalism as though it were brand new. Ironically, John Kennedy had used that in 1961. Although Reagan did not use the phrase in a speech until the end of his first term, the concept of American exceptionalism was disseminated in several modest forms by his campaign--no pushy slogans, just offering a "we all think the same on these issues, don't we?" Conservative propagandists have been successfully appealing to the "values" of the founders ever since.

World War II vets and their wives liked that. They liked the notion that they were exceptional, and the propagandists played to it. They became "the greatest generation." What they valued became the values of decency and honor. No one pushed this on them--it was offered and they took it. Timing meant a lot, too. Southerners were fed up with the Democratic Party, which they felt had let them down, and had even betrayed them, leading to the phenomenon of the Reagan Democrats who voted for what the man represented to them, and not for the party. It wasn't hard to rather quickly move southern states into the Republican fold. Less than 20 years earlier, conservative had been successfully demonized by associating it with an image of Goldwater as a dangerous fanatic. Now conservative became a label to be proud of, and liberal was pretty quickly demonized. The Reagan landslide made it all seem inevitable (Reagan beat Carter by 10% in the popular vote, but beat him by 10 to 1 in the Electoral College). People now not only could call themselves conservatives with no shame, but could do so proudly.

From Goldwater to Reagan was less than 20 years. One wonders when and how soon it might turn around again. Personally, i don't think it will happen too soon, though. First because so many people who were kids when Reagan was president idolized him, and they are now in their 40s and 50s; second, because the Democrats have always been a very large body of fragmentary interests, lacking the concentrated and well-directed propagandistic vision of the Republicans. Who can say?
We would not ever have had the Constitution of the United States with out a great deal of propaganda, and you can see that it was but a short period of time before democracy was reduced for the people to the point where it never even made the effort to grow with the population; and if you ask why, it was because they could... To have injustice meant we must endure parties and then the parties took over the whole process of government though the parties are no offical part of government...They are empowered as we are weakened... Why not sow division??? Why not make any one group the enemy of all the others??? Why not debase the currency of communication if it will allow the total devaluing of the commonwealth??? Our piece of **** Constitution is our destruction, and it was the counter revolution in a single document- that would not have been possible without great men representing property and inequality throwing all their weight behind skilled propaganda...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Feb, 2012 04:53 pm
@Setanta,
The term conservative is a lie, and a white wash of the real force behind the word: Reaction... If you can control the vocabulary you are near to controlling people's minds, but it does not work indefinitely... You see, all people are conservative... Even Lincoln had to defend himself from the charge of being a liberal, if I remember correctly, and he was not... In fact, he held to the cause of revolution in the face of Southern Reactionarism... People are desparate to conserve their rights and wealth in the face of government tax, and unfair competition abroad...They find themselves against those who think government should work for all, but those who capitalize on their frustration and anxiety about the future are the very ones robbing the true conservatives of this country of their future and their hope... They are putting us all in the same boat, and while none of us may agree as to the direction we should sail; not one of us thinks we should do nothing but wait in the hot, hot sun... Change is taking root, and capturing the common mind as an idea...

All that is needed is some demogogue to give it all direction; but if that direction is not right, and if good does not result; then easy answers are sure to be examined... Conservatives are fed easy answers... The solution when it comes will not be easy, and will demand fully as much courage as any of our wars or great battles... People will fight and die for great ideas... Conservative is what people are naturally, but it is a pat answer that people should be what they are because people being what they are does not change the world when the world demands change... People remake themselves in the process of remaking their world...

Reaction has victimized conservatives, and exploited them... I do not see this situation lasting forever... You can see now how the hard core rectionaries are giving up their chance to hold the government in order to capture their party... How soon will it be before this group refuses all cooperation with society in order to own the whole country free of obligation???
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Eisenhower... Candy Ass Liberal
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/22/2021 at 02:54:12