3
   

The Religious Right and Contemporary American Politics

 
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Tue 28 Dec, 2004 12:41 pm
Thomas wrote:
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
Eloquent, but empty, thomas. and yes it is quite arrogant to imply that you, as a non-american, have a much better insight into what life in america is like. specifically if you've never been here.

Two points: Firstly, I'm curious how much time of my life you think I have spent in the USA, and what makes you believe so. Secondly, and more importantly, my intended point wasn't that Americans are as incapable of conscious thinking as birds, which of course they aren't. The intended point was that a) being closer to a phenomenon is not necessarily an advantage for making sense of it, and b) you're not that much closer to America, than, for example I am. As Lola points out, there are 300000000 unique Americans out there. A total ignorant has never met 300000000 of them, I have never met 299999900 of them, and assuming you know 1000 Americans personally, you have never met 299999000 of them. About these Americans, all the information you have comes from the media and from hearsay -- just like all the information I have about them. Even if knowing Americans helps understanding them -- are you sure your advantage is that big?

from the comments and responses i've read from you, it "appears" that your time in the u.s. centers around weeks of some number at universities. possibly more? not impossible that you are even an american living abroad. and, yes, it is arrogant of me to "assume" that i know more about you than yourself.

if i am correct about the first possibility, then i stand firmly with my assertion (which, btw, i do not mean as a personal attack), that you cannot know the full experience of daily life in america. as regards your comment about personally knowing every individual in the country; of course i don't, nobody does. (except, for some of the name dropping poseurs i meet at hollywood parties... lol ). however, i have had the privilege of traveling about most of the country and living long term in several areas. and very different places, geographical, political and religious, at that.

if you are an american living abroad, surely you understand that things change ever more rapidly in the modern world. the mood and tenor of an entire nation can change, literally overnight. 9/11 is the obvious example.even disgarding everything that's happened afterward, the events of that single day turned the american psyche on it's head. the america of 9/10 and 9/12 were and are very different countries in terms of human condition.

hopefully i've made my point clearer?


DontTreadOnMe wrote:
iraq. wmd. saddam & al qaida. yellow cake from niger. unmanned drones. "met with candies and flowers". "the gratitude of the liberated iraqi people. "america was founded on christian principles". any of this ring a bell?

Absolutely, and thanks for clarifying what you meant about the fact thing.

's okay. i've never noticed or believed that you're a person that is making the "facts" up. you seem to have a very tight grasp on history. that certainly deserves respect.

I am curious as to what, in your opinion, should be the consequence of interested parties peddling bogus facts? In my opinion it should be that we as citizens make a greater effort in seperating from real facts, and basing political arguments on the real facts. Which I think is a feasible task even if it means work.


yes. it is up to us to, "trust, but verify", as the man said. and it is a hell of a lot of work. and even then, you have to reserve the right to change your mind if new, and "verified" information is presented. that's why i don't really go for dogma or "a party line". both are tools of manipulation to achieve someone else's agenda, imho.

now as to consequences... tempting to go for rationalizations like, "white lie" or "black lie", isn't it? but, that's probably not a fair way to go. most pointedly when "the facts" impact a group of individuals, large or small.

also, if you peddle a "bogus fact"; were you a victim of bad info? were you a victim of bad info and attempted to correct it's affect? were you a victim of bad info, and knowing that, chose to use it anyway to achieve your desires? did you just make it up and so what ? those factors, when discovered would color the consequences of your actions.

thomas, i cannot honestly say to you that i have all of the answers. i would say that in the name of fairness, the consequence should fit the deed. do i, as an individual, have the power to confer the consequence of a misdeed on a city, state or national leader? no.

do i have right and responsibility to speak up and demand an accounting for a "bogus fact" ? you bet. and if enough "individuals" speak in a united way, then the consequence of a bogus fact is more likely to be come a reality. but, even that scenario is impacted by things like the political landscape.

are we cool?
0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Tue 28 Dec, 2004 12:50 pm
p.s., thomas,

i didn't think that you were calling americans "bird brains". although the country certainly has a variety of hawks, doves and a few turkeys ...

Laughing
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Wed 29 Dec, 2004 12:28 am
Thomas and george,

You two are sweeties, if a bit misguided. My point or arguments are irrelevant if we don't consider the people in the middle who are hurt by narcissistic ego maniacs like George Bush, Karl Rove, and Richard Vigorie.

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2004/11/05/viguerie/

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/viguerie.html

Quote:
. . . . In 1979, TIME magazine named him one of 50 future leaders of America. In 1981, PEOPLE magazine named him one of the 25 most intriguing people of the year. Scheduled for publication this coming summer is his new book, AMERICA'S RIGHT TURN: HOW THE CONSERVATIVES USED NEW AND ALTERNATIVE MEDIA TO TAKE POWER, written with David Franke. It is the first in-depth look at how direct mail, talk radio, cable TV, and the Internet have changed American politics.[/[/b]QUOTE]

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Richard_Viguerie

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4162182

[quote]"Probably, No. 1 is judicial appointments," Viguerie says. "Many problems that we experience as a country have come about because we've had unelected judges legislating from the bench. And that needs to be corrected... We're very excited about that possibility of turning the judiciary in a more conservative direction."

Does President Bush's victory with strong support from the right mean he owes something to the conservative movement?

"I don't look at this as the president owing us," Viguerie says. "This is a president who campaigned on conservative issues, some conservative values. This president is fond of saying that he means what he says and says what he means. And so consequently, we're excited about the opportunity to help this president implement his conservative campaign promises."


http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4156923

http://www.wfpl.org/ost_archive_october232004.htm

http://www.mosquitonet.com/~prewett/amdem207208.html

http://www.mosquitonet.com/~prewett/amdem207208.html

Quote:
Little is new about the strategic decisions PACs make or the technology at their disposal. Christian PACs have learned the tricks of the trade quickly, largely because of the mentors in the secular right.

"To a remarkable extent, the Christian activist have found skilled allies in one and only one place, among one and only one group of organizations - - the groups loosely known as the New Right" (Marshner, 1980:iii).

Two principle consultants are Paul Weyrich, National Director of the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, and Howard Phillips, founder of the Conservative Caucus (Keller, 1980: 2,629).

Weyrich prompted Robert Billings to start a group in Washington to represent conservative Christians, a suggestion which led to the National Christian Action Coalition. Phillips in turn hired Edward McAteer as his field director before McAteer left to found Roundtable.

Together these four men cemented ties to most of the key evangelical preachers now in the New Christian Right (Cleninen, 1980: B7).

Richard Viguerie, direct mail expert of the New Right, credits Weyrich and Phillips with persuading ministers Jerry Falwell, Jim Robison, and Pat Robertson to get involved in convervative politics (Viguerie, 1980: 56).


http://www.60plus.org/op-eds.asp?docID=382

Quote:
Before Rush Limbaugh, there was Richard Viguerie.

Many conservatives today listen, learn, and heed the advice articulated by the radio talk show icon. But before Rush, conservatives for nearly 40 years looked to Richard Viguerie, the funding father of the conservative movement, for the "right word" on policy and politics. Before Limbaugh, it was Viguerie whose mail was delivered over hill and dale, through rain, sleet, and snow, to conservative donors and activists, prodding them to take action.

While he no longer funds an estimated 70 percent of the conservative movement's revenues - a calculation made by his political enemies - Viguerie, who turns 70 this month, no longer has to, because Viguerie-trained acolytes are active from coast to American coast. As a "graduate" of the Viguerie school of conservative activism, I attest to the influence he had, not only on U.S. politics, but on the many young men and women fortunate enough to have learned at his side. In fact, Morton Blackwell, another well-known graduate, deserves credit for the "funding father" tag.

Vigurie pioneered political "direct mail" four decades ago as the newly hired Executive Secretary for Young Americans for Freedom (YAF). Shy about personally visiting contributors, Viguerie realized he could contact 1,000 or 10,000 potential donors by mail without spending any more time, effort, or money than it would take to personally solicit a single contribution from one potential donor. Thus was launched a storied career as the guru of direct mail political fundraising.

Legions of candidates, from the courthouse to the White House, have benefited from Viguerie's expertise, and legions of others have tasted defeat as a direct result of his ability to raise money and promote action simply by sitting down at his typewriter.

This one-man financier of the U.S. Postal Service has mailed an estimated two billion letters during his careers. Some of them have been humdingers!


http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/09-17-04/discussion.cgi.96.html

http://www.washingtonrepublicans.net/vigeuriebio.php

http://www.aclu-wa.org/Issues/religious/3.htmlhttp://prosocs.tripod.com/jazzbnd.html

Quote:
The "New Right" movement was kicked off in the early 1970s by a group of conservative activists which included Paul Weyrich, Joseph Coors and Richard Viguerie. It was Weyrich, founder of the Committee for the Survival of a Free Congress, and Richard Viguerie, direct-mail/fund-raising maven, who first saw the potential of politically organizing church members from a variety of denominations around the abortion issue. It was Weyrich who brought Jerry Falwell into the fold with the formation of the Moral Majority and convinced Pat Robertson to run for president in 1988. Weyrich and Viguerie believed that social conservatives could be organized into a group that would form a constituency larger than the politically active in either the Democratic or Republican parties. Viguerie has been quoted as saying, "I organize discontent."

In 1973, Weyrich and Joseph Coors established the Heritage Foundation, a right- wing think tank, to develop public policy. Later, Weyrich established the Free Congress Foundation (FCF) to promote right-wing public policy. The Heritage Foundation and associated organizations have a hidden agenda for America. Articles written by Heritage staff members are printed in major newspapers promoting the concept that Heritage is a benign think tank, when in fact it has ties to most major right-wing activists such as: Mel & Norma Gabler, who influence schoolbook selection nationally; Robert Simonds' Citizens for Excellence in Education; Mountain States Legal Foundation, an anti-environmental organization which is also against affirmative action, OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), and the ERA; and Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church. In addition to heading up Free Congress, Weyrich is also permanent Secretary and Treasurer of the Council for National Policy (CNP).

The CNP was started in 1982 as an ultra-conservative answer to the Council for Foreign Relations. Membership is by invitation only and dues are upwards of $2,000 a year. Sara Diamond, a well-known researcher of the radical religious right, describes the CNP as "a highly secretive coalition which represents the entire spectrum of New Right corporate executives, TV preachers, legislators, and former high-ranking government and military leaders. The Council for National Policy is considered the primary coordinating body - and funding conduit - for Christian Right projects." (Spiritual Warfare, Sara Diamond, South End Press, 1989.)

Other prominent CNP members are: Ralph Reed, Jr., Executive Director, Christian Coalition; Pat Robertson, Founder, Christian Coalition; Phyllis Schlafly, The Eagle Forum; James Dobson, Focus on The Family; GOP Congressman, Robert K. Dornan; GOP Congressman, William Dannemeyer; once and future GOP candidate, Oliver North; Jerry Falwell, Moral Majority; Louis P. Sheldon, Traditional Values Coalition; Burton Pines, Heritage Foundation; R. J. Rushdoony, Chalcedon, Inc.; T. Cullen Davis (Ft. Worth millionaire who was tried for the murder of his step-daughter); and Texas GOP party chairman, Tom Pauken. Recent additions to CNP membership include GOP Congressman Steve Stockman (Texas). Two well-known Houston CNP members are Ed Young, pastor of the Second Baptist Church and Judge Paul Pressler.

Free Congress Foundation has published a book entitled Cultural Conservatism: Theory and Practice (ISBN 0-942522-16-8) which was edited by William S. Lind and William H. Marshner whose wife, Connaught "Connie" Marshner, is a CNP member. The book contains chapters entitled Why the West? by William J. Bennett and Cultural Conservatism and The Conservative Movement by Paul Weyrich, in which he explores his theories including, for example, government vouchers to private citizens not only for schools but street repair and other municipal services.

In a joint publication of The Heritage Foundation, Empower America, and The Free Congress Foundation entitled The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, William Bennett, Education Secretary under Ronald Reagan, documents in alarming detail how "....violent crime has sky-rocketed; illegitimate births and divorce rates have quadrupled; teen suicide rates doubled; and scholastic aptitude test scores plummeted." Bennett warns that "....these modern day pathologies have risen from the wreckage of the Great Society - a time of booming prosperity." We must, he says, "return to the fundamental purpose of education - to engage in the architecture of souls." This book has been featured on "The Rush Limbaugh Show." Heritage Publications 1993/1994 states, "This book is required reading for anyone concerned about the future of America." Congressman Newt Gingrich is quoted in Heritage Foundation literature praising their publications.

Bennett has been chairman of FCF's National Empowerment Television (NET). According to the Anti-Defamation League's book, The Religious Right, "NET addresses the religious right's meat-and-potatoes issues - including coverage of abortion, gay rights (NET has broadcast the homophobic video, "The Gay Agenda"), school vouchers, and public school curricula developments." NET was a decisive factor in obtaining confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas by encouraging viewers to pressure their congressmen. Burton Pines, Vice-Chairman of NET, calls the project "C-Span with an attitude."

Behind this blizzard of cultural and religious extremism is the desire of the economically greedy for a no-holds-barred laissez faire commercial climate. This group of fiscal conservatives is interested primarily in the passage of legislation which fattens their pocketbooks. They feel insulated from extremism by their individual wealth and power. They care little about the freedoms and opportunities of this or future generations.

Power hungry politicians whose primary concern is winning elections are willing to concede to extremism in their political rhetoric in order to capture the bloc votes of single-issue fanatics. By pandering to right-wing extremism, they make it possible for unrestricted commercial interests to have their day. For example, bills are being introduced to dismantle the Pure Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) which stand in the way of obscene and immoral profiteering. Those with robber baron mentalities are more than willing to trade our freedoms to religious fanatics for bloc votes. Recent efforts by the newly elected conservative Congress (1995) to reduce the national deficit and balance the budget at the expense of the poor and elderly are an example. Punishing welfare mothers who have children out of wedlock by refusing aid is a precursor of what is to come. Medicare and Medicaid reductions without implementing some kind of national health care program, while insisting upon a revival of the Strategic Defense Initiative, is pure political pandering to "fat cats" in the defense industry at the expense of the weakest in our society.

Using the Council For National Policy (CNP) as its board of directors; the Free Congress Foundation (FCF) as general manager; the Christian Coalition to control the GOP and to provide congressional representation; and Pat Robertson as chaplain, the Heritage Foundation has the instruments and orchestration to implement Paul Weyrich's compositions of "Cultural Conservatism."

With FCF's National Empowerment Television (NET); right-wing talk-show radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh; columnists like Cal Thomas; organizations such as the Christian Coalition; James Dobson's Focus On The Family; the Coalition On Revival (COR); Promise Keepers; Citizens for Excellence in Education (CEE); homophobes such as Jerry Falwell and Lou Sheldon; Christian Reconstructionists; and even anti-government militias and racist organizations, Heritage can propagandize and rally both collaborating and unsuspecting "ditto heads."

Voters with negative and/or selfish motives such as: racists (anti-Semites, skin-heads, survivalists, militias, white supremacists); anti-feminists; pro-lifers; pro-gun fanatics; home schoolers and voucher advocates fall prey to demagoguery and are being blatantly used to reduce this nation to an anti-democratic, two-class social and economic system. Diehard party supporters who ignore the demagogic positions taken and vote for the political party rather than the candidate are witless enablers in this scenario.

Ultra-conservative politicians and Christian Coalition leaders often use the expression "a city on a hill" when describing what they have in store for America. This "city on a hill" would very closely resemble medieval Europe. In medieval times, the church was the largest landholder. The church collected taxes, maintained law courts, and punished criminals and non-believers. There were two classes: the nobility, which included church leaders, and the peasants, who were bound to the land and supported the elite with their labor. This two-class system is the direction in which ultra-conservatives would take us. The radical right would first discriminate against, then exclude by law, atheists and secular humanists. Before too long, religions unwilling to bend to their brand of fanatic fundamentalism would also be excluded.

Western culture's last experience with church-dominated government lasted over 1000 years. Three factors which brought an end to this oppression were the bubonic plague, the Reformation and the rise of humanism. The plague reduced the population so severely that simple supply and demand gave opportunity to the peasant classes to participate more freely as tradesmen, artisans and soldiers. The Reformation broke the hold of one religious group (the Vatican) over all Western monarchies and subsequently weakened absolutism in governments. Humanism gave philosophic value and hope to the common man. If we allow ultra-conservatives and the Christian Coalition to continue to win ever increasing control of our government, how many years will be required to throw off the yoke? What will be the cost in lives, hope and dollars to repair the damage these greedy fanatics will do to the country? Will the United States be able to maintain its presence as a first-world country with a third-world theocratic government?

If Cultural Conservatism and the regressive economic agenda it disguises is implemented by manipulating single-issue voter groups, will your beliefs and lifestyle pass the litmus tests of these organizations? Will you lose some of your freedoms? Will your neighbor lose all of his? Will you find yourself marching in a band which has the unmistakable beat of a fascist theme underscored by the sound of jack boots?


Try this homework. This should keep you busy until I finish traveling tomorrow. See you all soon.

Lola
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Wed 29 Dec, 2004 07:57 am
Lola-

Not me babe.That's not my style of homework.I find it hard to imagine its anybody else's too.If you spent your downtime reading Veblen,say,you would get a handle on just exactly what it is that causes so much confusion.

spendius.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Thu 30 Dec, 2004 02:09 pm
I have long contemplated what causes so much confusion.......however I also consider it a worthy use of my time to help others know when they are speaking out of ignorance.

Those who are not alarmed about the Religious Right are simply ignorant about the facts. It's a foolish man who doesn't recognize his own ignorance and seek to inform himself before speaking.

I know more about the subject of this thread than most of those posting. Lack of information can lead to false conclusions.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 31 Dec, 2004 11:17 am
DontTreadOnMe wrote:
from the comments and responses i've read from you, it "appears" that your time in the u.s. centers around weeks of some number at universities. possibly more? not impossible that you are even an american living abroad. and, yes, it is arrogant of me to "assume" that i know more about you than yourself.

No problem, and you're pretty close. I spent 15 months of my childhood in a university town in California, after which I returned semi-frequently for visits of between one and four weeks. Three of these visits happened after 9/11.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
hopefully i've made my point clearer?

I think you did. I'm not sure I fully agree with your point, but you did make it clear.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:
are we cool?


We absolutely are.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Fri 31 Dec, 2004 11:30 am
Lola wrote:
I have long contemplated what causes so much confusion.......

To be honest, I don't see much confusion in this thread -- on either side of the debate. I think me and George do understand what you, Bernie and the others on your side are saying -- we just happen to disagree with you. Likewise, I have every reason to expect that you guys understand what we are saying. Again, you just happen to disagree with us. It is only human to jump to the conclusion that confusion is the only reason the other side might disagree with us. But this conclusion is not generally true.

Lola wrote:
I know more about the subject of this thread than most of those posting. Lack of information can lead to false conclusions.

You are possibly correct, but two points on this one: 1) This is the internet, where nobody knows you're a dog. On the flip side, nobody knows you're the foremost expert in redneckology either. So, unfair as this seems, you have to convince us on the merits of your sources and your arguments -- just like anybody else does. 2) Perhaps unfairly, in the context of this thread, you don't get to decide which conclusions are false -- only which conclusions you disagree with. And when somebody reaches conclusions you disagree with, this may well be the consequence of causes other than lack of information.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Fri 31 Dec, 2004 04:33 pm
Interesting signature you have there, Thomas. I actually like to decline German adjectives. Nouns, pronouns too. But my favorite is the conjugation of a verb. Lots of memorizing involved, which I do not like.....it's so illogical. Still German is an easier language than French or English, I think. I lived in Germany for a year in my youth as well.

It' true this is the internet. We don't know if you really lived in California in your childhood, but since I find a lot to respect about the way you conduct yourself and I can think of no reason why you would claim something that wasn't true, I take your word for it. Surely you know me well enough by now to give some little credence to my word. I know a lot more about this subject than anyone else on this board that I know. I have years of intimate experience.

But I agree. My word only goes so far. Still, when I give you something to study, I appreciate not getting an immediate response saying that regardless, you don't think it's a problem at all.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Sat 1 Jan, 2005 05:45 am
Lola wrote:
Surely you know me well enough by now to give some little credence to my word. I know a lot more about this subject than anyone else on this board that I know. I have years of intimate experience.

I do believe that you have years of intimate experience with the Religious Right. But notice the differences each of us is drawing about themselves. You conclude that having years of intimate experience makes you an expert on the Religious Right, while I deny that living in America necessarily makes one an expert on America. Suppose someone finds out the truth about me: I've never set foot into your country, I'm actually cleaning personell in our local library, and I'm only surfing the internet because my colleagues find me too incompetent to wipe the library's floor as I'm supposed to, so have decided to let me surf and do my share of the work themselves. Does this change a single point I made in this forum? No. They continue to stand on their own merits, or to fall on their face for their lack thereof. And that's exactly what I want them to do.

Lola wrote:
But I agree. My word only goes so far. Still, when I give you something to study, I appreciate not getting an immediate response saying that regardless, you don't think it's a problem at all.

Honestly, my problem is that I don't like to repeat myself, and I'm running out of new arguments to make. In your latest set of 'homework', for example, you provide yet a few other piece of evidence that conservative use mass media and standard marketing techniques to advertize their agenda -- just like liberals do (they use different mass media and different standard marketing techniques, but still ...) You provide yet another set of evidence that the Heritage Foundation and friends have a hidden agenda to roll back the Great Society and the New Deal. An agenda so secret its out on the Web for everyone to see, and which is published in an array of well-selling books, some of which are named by your source. Finally, you treat yet another opinion piece as if it were a reliable source of primary information, perhaps not noticing that this only has an effect when you're preaching to the converted.

I have raised my objections to each of these points earlier in this thread and elsewhere. I really don't know what to answer anymore. Okay, maybe one thing you might find helpful is a pointer to a liberal poster who routinely succeeds in persuading me of his political points here, and to a lesser degree georgeob1 too. It's nimh. Maybe you can improve your effectiveness by observing the way he backs up his claims with evidence, and adjust your debating strategy as needed.

Have a happy new year everyone!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 1 Jan, 2005 07:47 am
Thomas wrote:
blatham wrote:
Hume not only wrote many political essays, but applied for chairs at two universities. Add in the projects he undertook in philosophy and one would have some trouble arguing convincingly that Hume would need a shotgun to his head to involve himself in contemporary issues or contemporary groups, particularly regarding the issues of religious dogma gaining greater foothold in the community or in the machinations of rule.

I'm sorry, but you're bashing a strawman. None of this refutes the claim you are attacking, which was:

Thomas wrote:
If forced at gunpoint to choose between the ACLU and the Religious Right, I'm sure he would rather join the ACLU. But his obvious preference of reasoning over bullying seems so intense to me that he wouldn't have joined either organization unless forced at gunpoint. I guess he'd rather have an Op-Ed column in the New York times. I can see him blog, too. I am fairly certain he would have preferred turning people around by persuading them rather than through political pressure.

Or in other words: Contrary to your assertion, I am not denying that Hume, if he lived today, would "involve himself in contemporary issues". I just don't think that joining a political pressure group would have been his preferred way of involving himself politically. While I found it interesting to learn that Hume applied for chairs at two universities, I don't see how this supplies evidence against my point, since universities weren't thought of as political pressure groups at the time -- as well they shouldn't.

thomas
How could I...why would I...construct a strawman to stand in when you don't make an argument, you simply voice an opinion regarding how you think Hume would behave in this context? That's not an opinion I share and you haven't presented anything like a compelling case. Your certainty doesn't do the trick.
What I was pointing to however was your use of the metaphor 'with gun to head', as if it were the case or even likely that Hume would pay our imagined choice more than a few seconds' perusal. This may well be a description of how thomas might behave but not, in my view, how Hume would be expected to act. This isn't resolveable.


blatham wrote:
How many anti-nuke individuals or environmentalists sought to gain power, though organization and activism, in thousands of school and hospital boards?

I am judging from my experience in two highschools, one near Chicago, one in a small university town in Oregon, each of which I visited for about two weeks. I admit this is an unimpressive statistical sample. But for what it's worth, the biology curriculum in both schools taught a version of ecology that came pretty close to Gaia worship. In the geography lessons, the textbook of both schools, and in the classroom teaching of one of them, Cuba under Batista was portrayed as a Third World country, and Cuba under Castro was portrayed as a successful effort in bringing a Third World country up to speed with the industrial nations. It was also said in the textbooks that the world was facing an overpopulation crisis and that measures in the spirit of China's one-child policy were the right way to counter it. Sure, the price of forced abortions and sterilizations seemed high to the Westerner, but hey -- who are we to impose our values on other cultures? Overall, China was made to look a lot better in the Geography textbook than the Pope, who was portrayed as an old fool for disagreeing with policies to tie development aid to implementation of population-control policies.

Don't ask me how they did it, but it seems the environmentalists and socialists did a pretty good job at pushing their agenda into school curriculuae, contrary to the facts of the matter.

In addition to that, I don't think the EPA would have been incorporated without political pressure from environmentalist pressure groups like Ralph Naders. Nor do I believe it would have grown to its current size without that influence. Do you? While I agree that the left-wing pressure groups didn't coopt the political institutions the way the right-wingers did. But they were successful at coopting different institutions, and I stand by my judgment that their political success was comparable to that of the Religious Right: substantial, but limited.

Your reluctance or refusal to acknowledge differences here as being anything more than superficial in their consequences is where your dogmatism shows, thomas. It's not the first time. On an earlier discussion, I relayed the text of a Britannica entry on the United Fruit Growing Company and your response to that bit of ugly, anti-democratic American history of collusion between state and a corporate interest was dismissed as being probably written by a leftist. If I were to gather up the figures for the exact number of school boards in the US and Canada which have been targeted by the Christian Right to the end - successful end - of gaining voting control, and even if that number was in the many hundreds (it is), you'd argue 'so what?'. If I added in the number of hospital boards and riding associations and court appointments and state positions and federal positions, it wouldn't much matter what those figures might be...nor how utterly different in comparison (in organization and in result) from what the environmental or womens' movements, for example, achieved, I'm quite confident you'd find nothing noteworthy about those differences. Left vs right, activism equals activism...ho hum. Like foxfyre in her defence of pragmatic torture, it becomes hard to imagine what set of circumstances might encourage thomas to acknowledge that what is maybe ain't what ought to be - and WHY it ought not to be.

blatham wrote:
Who can tell us more that is 'true' about love, the bio-chemist or the poet? Who can better discern the 'truth' of political movements and consequences, Milton Friedman or George Orwell?

I'd say that depends on what you want to know about the phenomenon in question. For example, if you want to know what it was like to live through the Great Depression, Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath and Orwell's Road to Wigan Pier are hard to beat. But both are unreliable sources if you want to know what caused the Great Depression, and how we as a society can prevent a new one. To this end, Keynes' "General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" will get you much farther. Milton Friedman's Monetary History of the United States is better still, but it's not a fair comparison. Friedman wrote in the fifties, not the thiries, so had access to information that the other three didn't.

Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised if Tom Wolfe writes the definitive novel about the Religious Right some day, and if it will tell us exactly what it feels like to be part of it, and what it feels like to be missionized by it. But if I want to reach an informed judgment on what its likely impact will be and what, if anything, I ought to do about it, I'll trust peer-reviewed sociologists, economists and ethnologists over novelists hands-down. The former sell their texts on their strength in figuring out facts, the latter merely sell their text on their strength in writing entertaining fiction.

1984 or Animal Farm have as their singular strength the quality of 'entertainment'? Do you think it so?
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Sat 1 Jan, 2005 10:19 am
Quote:
An agenda so secret its out on the Web for everyone to see, and which is published in an array of well-selling books, some of which are named by your source. Finally, you treat yet another opinion piece as if it were a reliable source of primary information, perhaps not noticing that this only has an effect when you're preaching to the converted.


Thomas,

I've never said it was secret. It's georgeob who keeps saying I've said that. Of course it's on the web, where else would I be able to find information I could use for demonstrating the influence the Far Right has had on American politics? It's interesting.......in your argument you say you can't be convinced unless I provide unbiased proof. And yet if the reports are there to be read, you say they have no merit because they're not secret. I'm not claiming they're secret.......although they have been strategically manulipulated as the New Right learns new techniques......I'm saying they've been influencial and they're dangerous.

Consider for a moment if I know and have known many of the people involved in the organizing efforts of the Far Right. You of course don't know for sure if I do or not. I don't know if you're a janitor in some library either. But if you are, you're a damned intelligent janitor.....so who cares what you do to make a living? I can tell from your posts that you know a lot about many things. You don't strike me as a liar and I know people who have met you in person. So I have an idea about how dependable your word probably is. You're probably not a janitor.

Quote:
so have decided to let me surf and do my share of the work themselves. Does this change a single point I made in this forum? No. They continue to stand on their own merits, or to fall on their face for their lack thereof. And that's exactly what I want them to do.


Does this change a single point you've made in this forum? Yes it does. To the extent you're evaluating how dangerous a situation is, to that extent you need experience with the situation to make such a judgement accurately.

Those people, unfamiliar with a Tsunami, who ran toward the wave or just stood there in wonder were less capable of evaluating what they should be doing to protect themselves than were those who knew what was coming next. That's where you are on this subject, Thomas. Surely you're not arguing that a person without knowledge is just as capable of evaluating danger as one who is.

I won't try to tell you about your areas of experience of which I am ignorant, and you shouldn't expect me to value your conclusions about mine.

It's as if you and george are in a museum, let's say, the MOMA. You're observing the paintings on exhibit. And you both agree that a monkey could have painted this or that work of art. As far as you know, it looks as if the painting is random. You see no evidence of technique.

Whenever I hear a person announce their conviction that they could have painted it themselves, I always wonder how they can be so sure, having never studied visual arts or more specifically modern art in their lives. I always think I would consider their opinion if they had first been curious about what makes others consider the painting to be art.

If you haven't met these guys (New Right leaders) yourself, if you've never been to their churches or been out to dinner with them, lived in their homes, you might try to find those who have and ask about their experience with them before presuming to announce how organized the New Right is or how much we should try to do to stop them.

So I'll consider your opinion that there's nothing to worry about as worthy of my attention when you've done your homework, however you choose to do it. And I recognize, as you seem not to, that your ability to be as informed as a person who has close knowledge is limited for now. So therefore, I know that while your arguments are logical as far as they go, they are still uninformed in significant enough ways as to qualify your conclusions to be false.

I am hopeful as you are that our democracy is strong enough to manage the influence of the New Right over time. But the short term (the next 50 years) will be devastating for those caught in the middle. Unless the Dems can find a way to block it, the Far Right will now have a strong influence in the courts. Whether they can overturn Roe V. Wade, I don't know. But I never thought I'd have to worry about it actually happening. And I'm worried. I hope it can be avoided. But you'll excuse me if I don't share wholeheartedly your optimism.
0 Replies
 
JustWonders
 
  1  
Sat 1 Jan, 2005 12:51 pm
I know this will most likely strike fear in the heart of the originator of this thread (along with others here), but I just loved this heartwarming little story Smile God bless the GOP Smile

All they want is a ticket to the Inauguration

BIRD-IN-HAND, Pa.

Early on a pale blue morning, a horse-drawn buggy clop-clopped along a farmland stretch of Route 340. A lone little Chevy compact came toward it at a Sunday pace.

From an intersection, a black SUV the size of an Indian elephant barreled up to the buggy's back, passing with a quick jerk that nearly clipped the oncoming car -- and the horse's nose.

That's Pennsylvania's Amish country, where the 19th and 21st centuries coexist, commingle and collide on a regular basis. The Amish may hold fast to their plain ways, rejecting cars, indoor electricity, home phones and televisions. But contact with the outside world is unavoidable. Malls stand on land where corn used to grow, tourists run around the village streets, and even the old unspoken rule -- leave the Amish alone -- is gone, left in the dust of the presidential campaign, when the Republicans came calling for votes.

Yes, the Republicans, true to their vow to leave no vote unwooed, came to Lancaster County hoping to win over the famously reclusive Old Order Amish -- who shun most modern ways -- along with their slightly less-strict brethren, the Mennonites. Democrats laughed at the very idea. The Amish had no use for politics. Were the Republicans that desperate? But the GOP effort, underscored by President Bush's meeting with some Amish families in early July, did the trick.

"Yup, we voted this time," said an elder Old Order Amish man approached at his home-based quilt shop on Route 340. He had a beard that straggled down to his chest and bright blue eyes. His first name, he said, is Amos, but in keeping with the Amish edict against calling attention to oneself, he would not give his last name.

"I didn't vote for the last 30 years," he said, puffing on a pipe. "But Bush seemed to have our Christian principles."

Outside looking in, it makes sense that the Amish would pay little attention to national politics. They have their own schools (formal education for eight years), their own churches (or religious gatherings, at one another's homes) and their own rules. This has worked for them. The population of Amish and Mennonites, at more than 20,000 in Lancaster County, keeps growing.

But it seems the outside world, the "English" world, as the Amish call it, has been creeping in too closely for the plain people not to worry. In recent months, reports of child abuse in Amish country have made local papers and national news. The reality show "Amish in the City" has brought a slew of curiosity seekers asking all kinds of questions. (Do you take showers? Read newspapers? Ride buses? Yes, yes and yes.) And the plain people have daily worries as well. "We've been worrying about liquor and beer being sold in the grocery stores," said Sam, a gazebo maker and writer who said he would "get into trouble" if his last name was printed.

"We were down," Sam said, "and when the president visited, it cheered us right up. We got a firsthand look at him, and it really warmed our hearts."

In short, as Sam and half a dozen other Amish men explained (women were hard to find, and harder to talk to), Bush won votes with a time-honored campaign convention: He showed up. On July 9 his campaign bus rolled down Route 340, hoping to fire up the base in Republican Lancaster County. The Amish, watching the spectacle from the road, became part of it.

"We came out," Amos said. "We were about 70 people. One of his security said he wanted to meet us and invited us to meet with him across the road at Lapp's Electric."

"They knew we didn't like publicity," said Amos, smiling at the recollection. "So the president met with us all in an office at Lapp's. He shook everyone's hand -- even the littlest ones in their mother's arms -- and he told us all he hoped we would exercise our right and vote."

Did Bush ask them to vote for him?

"Nope," Amos said. "That's another thing we liked about him."

Not to mention, the 4,000 Republican volunteers who blanketed Lancaster County for months and visited the fairs and farm auctions in Amish country talking up the president's Christian values. That helped them think abortion might be outlawed, Sam said. Thinking of Bush's Christian values even helped with their questions about the carnage in Iraq.

And so, while Bush lost Pennsylvania by more than 120,000 votes, he nearly halved his losing margin from 2000. In large part, that was because of the GOP's push among rural voters. Here in Lancaster County, where the party set a goal of besting the Democrat by 70,000 votes (or about 10,000 more than in 2000), Bush ended up winning by 70,896. Several hundred of those votes came from men in suspenders and black suits and women in bonnets and wide-skirt black dresses. Republicans registered more than 300 new voters in each of three mostly Amish districts. In Leacock Township, the GOP nearly doubled its voter rolls, from 1,000 to 1,800, with all but a handful of the new voters being Amish or Mennonite.

Just as everyone predicted the plain folks would not vote, the postmortems all suggested the Amish vote was a fluke. Amos -- another Amos, who sells wooden toys and other Amish crafts at a roadside stand -- said that bothers him. He could see more plain people voting next time, he said, "for another candidate with good morals."

Sam, the carpenter-journalist, had read reports suggesting that the GOP manipulated the Amish. That did not sit well at all. "They didn't come here just recruiting the Amish," he said. "They were trying to get anybody to vote."

The Amish, in turn, voted with pure hearts, he said, asking for nothing in return.

Or almost nothing.

"We're trying to get tickets for the inauguration," he said. "Do you know how to go about getting those?"
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Sat 1 Jan, 2005 01:02 pm
Interesting article, JW! I read about the campaiging done among the Amish before the elections, good to hear an update. Fascinating.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Sat 1 Jan, 2005 01:14 pm
I know some Amish - and some Mennonites - and I gotta say anybody who thinks either might easily be manipulated knows about as much about those folks as snakes know about aeronautics.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Sat 1 Jan, 2005 05:24 pm
Did the article say anything about manipulating the Amish? I didn't see it if it did. I'm getting old and my memory fails me from time to time, but I don't remember reading it in the article.

What the New Right has done is neither totally secret nor is it illegal. But for those of us who value reason over superstition, what they have done is dangerous and alarming. Yes, it bothers me JW, as it should anyone without blinders or with a commitment to reason.

It's a culture war and those of us who value civil rights are losing. Those who believe coercion is a valid method are in control.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Sat 1 Jan, 2005 05:28 pm
" ... Sam, the carpenter-journalist, had read reports suggesting that the GOP manipulated the Amish. That did not sit well at all ... "

Oh, yeah - and what some perceive as an assault on civil rights others perceive as defending against short-sighted, self-serving, socially irresponsible, morally, ethically, logically, and functionally bankrupt feel-good permissiveness. I am not at all distressed at the growing legislative representation bein' gained through the electoral efforts of the proponents of the latter point of view.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Sat 1 Jan, 2005 05:48 pm
short-sighted my ass, how many times do I have to tell you I'm just dyslexic!!!!! you myopic fargin' bastich!
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Sat 1 Jan, 2005 05:51 pm
Laughing
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Sun 2 Jan, 2005 04:09 am
blatham wrote:
How could I...why would I...construct a strawman to stand in when you don't make an argument, you simply voice an opinion regarding how you think Hume would behave in this context? That's not an opinion I share and you haven't presented anything like a compelling case. Your certainty doesn't do the trick.

Fair enough. This is my unsubstantiated opinion against your unsubstantiated opinion, and neither of us has a compelling case.

Blatham wrote:
Your reluctance or refusal to acknowledge differences here as being anything more than superficial in their consequences is where your dogmatism shows, thomas. It's not the first time. On an earlier discussion, I relayed the text of a Britannica entry on the United Fruit Growing Company and your response to that bit of ugly, anti-democratic American history of collusion between state and a corporate interest was dismissed as being probably written by a leftist.

You could be right. I vaguely remembered that we had a dispute about this, but didn't remember the details. So I went to Britannica.com and looked up their entry on the United Fruit Company. I was redirected to the entry on the United Brands Company, which the United Fruit Company merged into in 1970. I wouldn't describe the article as "probably written by a leftist". I also wouldn't describe it as documenting a "bit of ugly anti-democratic American History". Either Encyclopedia Britannica can't agree with itself what to make of the United Fruit Company, or they have changed their entry in a direction favorable to my politics, and unfavorable to yours. Here is the Encyclopedia Britannica article in full length:

The Encyclopedia Britannica wrote:
United Brands Company:

American corporation formed in 1970 in the merger of United Fruit Company and AMK Corporation (the holding company for John Morrell and Co., meat-packers). It engages in the production and distribution of bananas and other fruits and produce, the processing and distribution of meats, the manufacture and distribution of other foods, fats, oils, and beverages, and the administration of diversified activities in plastics, animal feeds, telecommunications, and other areas. Headquarters for United Brands are in New York City.

United Fruit Company, the main company, was founded in 1899 in the merger of the Boston Fruit Company and other companies producing and marketing bananas grown in the Caribbean islands, Central America, and Colombia. The principal founder was Minor C. Keith, who had begun to acquire banana plantations and to build a railroad in Costa Rica as early as 1872. In 1884 he contracted with the Costa Rican government to fund the national debt and to lay about 50 more miles of track. In return he received, for 99 years, full rights to these rail lines and 800,000 acres (325,000 hectares) of virgin land, tax exempt for 20 years.

United Fruit Company was capitalized at $11,230,000 at its founding. The company then expanded its capitalization to $215,000,000 by 1930 by absorbing more than 20 rival firms, and it became the largest employer in Central America. From the time the company began, Caribbean and Latin-American governments made available vast undeveloped tracts of jungle lands, which United Fruit cleared, planted, and supplied with extensive railroad and port facilities. Marketing operations included a shipping arm, the Great White Fleet, one of the largest of private merchant navies. All these efforts were matched by an advertising campaign that was extremely successful in marketing bananas in North America and Europe.

As a foreign corporation of conspicuous size, United Fruit sometimes became the target of popular attacks. The Latin-American press often referred to it as el pulpo ("the octopus"), accusing it of exploiting labourers, bribing officials, and influencing governments during the period of Yankee "dollar diplomacy" in the first decades of the 20th century. The company's defenders, however, have pointed out that United Fruit's early excesses were somewhat mitigated later. Through the Associated Producers Program, the company gradually transferred title of portions of its landholdings to individual growers, provided them with reasonable credit terms and technological assistance, and acted as marketing agent for their produce; its workers were comparatively well paid and were provided with medical care.

United Brands still owns or leases extensive banana plantations in Honduras, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Panama, and Colombia. It also has continued to produce, for the U.S. government, Jamaican sugar; Costa Rican, Panamanian, and Ecuadorian cocoa; and abaca in Guatemala. Throughout Central America and northern South America, it has maintained holdings that produced tropical woods, quinine, essential oils, and rubber.


See? It doesn't say that there was an ugly bit of anti-democratic politics. Only that popular opinion in Latin America often disliked the United Fruit Company. The article takes no position on whether public opinion was correct.

blatham wrote:
Like foxfyre in her defence of pragmatic torture, it becomes hard to imagine what set of circumstances might encourage thomas to acknowledge that what is maybe ain't what ought to be - and WHY it ought not to be.

Purely as a matter of logic, I don't see why it is my fault if your arguments fail to persuade me. Sorry. I fail to see why the Religious Right oughtn't buy into radio stations and have a wide audience tune in. I fail to see why Rupert Murdoch oughtn't start up a rabidly conservative TV network and bring it to success. And I fail to see how the alternative you propose -- the FCC decides who gets to run TV stations, and your political convictions guide the the FCC's decisions -- can be expected to yield a more attractive outcome. I believe that reflects the weakness of your arguments. If you prefer to believe it merely reflects my pig-headedness, be my guest.

blatham wrote:
1984 or Animal Farm have as their singular strength the quality of 'entertainment'? Do you think it so?

That's not what I think, and that's not what I said. I said that books of authors like Orwell sell copies on their strength in supplying entertaining fiction. I stand by that statement.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Sun 2 Jan, 2005 04:59 am
Lola wrote:
I've never said it was secret.

Maybe you didn't, but the article you quoted as reference did, so I assumed it to reflect your opinion.

Quote:
The Heritage Foundation and associated organizations have a hidden agenda for America. Articles written by Heritage staff members are printed in major newspapers promoting the concept that Heritage is a benign think tank, when in fact it has ties to most major right-wing activists such as: Mel & Norma Gabler, who influence schoolbook selection nationally; Robert Simonds' Citizens for Excellence in Education; Mountain States Legal Foundation, an anti-environmental organization which is also against affirmative action, OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), and the ERA; and Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church.

This is bull manure because the Heritage Foundation is openly opposed to environmental protection laws, opposed to affirmative action, supportive of voucherizing the school system, and of laissez-faire economic policies in general. And that's just the position they take in the "articles in major newspapers" mentioned above. The only reason I can think of why its opponents talk of a "hidden agenda" is because conspiracy theories without are boring and unpersuasive without a secret plot. But the plot is not secret. And if you don't think it's secret either, you shouldn't refer to articles which say it is. May I suggest that you read your own sources before accusing your opponents of not doing their homework?

Lola wrote:
Consider for a moment if I know and have known many of the people involved in the organizing efforts of the Far Right. You of course don't know for sure if I do or not.


I take your word for knowing these people. That is not the point. What I don't take your word on is the conclusions you draw.

Lola wrote:
You don't strike me as a liar and I know people who have met you in person. So I have an idea about how dependable your word probably is. You're probably not a janitor.


Damn! My cover has blown!

Lola wrote:
I won't try to tell you about your areas of experience of which I am ignorant, and you shouldn't expect me to value your conclusions about mine.

I don't claim any experience in dealing with adherents to the Religious Right. Just lots of experience in encountering and debunking bogus theories, especially bogus conspiracy theories -- and the sources you cite look awfully similar to bogus conspiracy theory. Other than that, you're making a fair point.

Lola wrote:
Whenever I hear a person announce their conviction that they could have painted it themselves, I always wonder how they can be so sure, having never studied visual arts or more specifically modern art in their lives.

One way they could be sure is by having a chimpanzee draw some "modern art", have the placebo painting participate in an exhibition, and see how viewers react to it. As best I know there have been cases where the placebo painting has won several thousand dollars in price money.

Lola wrote:
I know that while your arguments are logical as far as they go, they are still uninformed in significant enough ways as to qualify your conclusions to be false.

That's your opinion, and you are as much entitled to it as I am to mine.
0 Replies
 
 

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 0.05 seconds on 02/06/2025 at 12:22:56