No Leftist Haters May Read This!

[midcan5]

Hate? Yikes, I know so many people who call themselves conservatives, I had no idea until Dennis Prager informed me that I 'hate' them. Golly gee willikers Dennis! liberals are on the loose! LOL

If conservatives didn't have liberals to talk about, and defend themselves against this imaginary hatred, what the heck would they do? I sometimes feel I could post the same thing day after day after......

What is a Conservative

What is a Conservative in America? I offer this quick definition, a conservative is a person or group of people who blame everything they disagree with, or consider wrong with the world, on Liberals. Too simple you say. Given our current right wing media spin I challenge a counter definition. We live today in a sort of straw man world in which we have the good guys here and the bad guys there?

Even as I formulate the question, it occurs to me how difficult it is as the only definitions I can think of are in opposition to something else. Government is a big example. Government is not good to conservatives because it comes with a cost: taxes, and taxes are bad, or regulation and regulation is bad. There are a great many items that could be added here, I would like any conservative offering a solid answer grounded in real ideas, values, and people on what it means to be a conservative to stop reading my words and reply first.

The idea that one defines themselves only in opposition to another makes for an interesting dilemma in that self criticism becomes impossible because then one has turned the light on themselves and it isn't clear what the self is without the opponent. You see an odd twist on this in this administration when medals are give to policy makers who have failed completely.

And when you point out the foundations of liberty in our own society are products of liberalism you are told that it has changed and today it is only about a welfare state (more on that in a latter post). Consider for a moment that the chief criticism aimed at liberals is that they try to help others. Isn't that a Christian thing to do? Of course you have successes and some failure but at least you tried. Even if the criticism were accurate would that be so bad?

It is often said that liberals today do not have a solid political, moral, or philosophic grounding, we are all over the place and flip flop, a term made wonderfully pejorative during the last presidential election, but are conservatives consistent? We are considered relativistic so does any such thing as a consistent conservative ethos exist? From my experience, observation, and reading it does not.

So maybe it is conservatives who have changed? Does anyone really want to go back to the ideas of Edmund Burke, particularly in regard to religion? Some on the far right may. Who then is representative of a conservative today? the current administration, William Buckley, Robert Novak, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Michael Medved, William J. Bennett, George Will, Drudge, Fox News, Weekly Standard, National Review, or the many Conservative think tanks that seems more concerned with corporate power and partisan propaganda.

In Russell Kirk's six definitions of a conservative the only one that differs from most people, liberal or otherwise is the idea of class and yet I never hear a conservative mention that one out loud. I see lots of examples of it as far as attitude or behavior, but to say that in America is contrary to our beliefs. Does that mean conservatives do not believe in the fundamental beliefs of America? Witness for instance Barbara Bush's attitude towards the victims of Katrina.

So what do they believe in? Few conservatives I know are alike, they are all over the place, they all flip flop. For abortion they are on both sides, for gay marriage they are on both sides, government regulation they are on both sides, and so really when examined closely conservatives have no consistent foundation. The only real difference here is the presentation by the right of a difference and that is why they need liberals. Maybe we are really all moderates when it comes down to it.

Someone will say that but "this is a genuine conservative," and I say show me.

So again, if all you do is criticize another what are you?

 

[PoliticalChic]

I agree with the tone of the OP. I think it has to do with the general core attitudes between conservatives and liberals.

At least when it comes to economic issues, conservatives' principle basically that of personal responsibility. They accept the responsibility of taking care of themselves and their family. This leads to wanting lower taxes and less government programs, meaning more money in their own pockets to spend and save as they see fit, and more money for others to spend and save as they see fit. In other words, they believe in the freedom to be as prosperous as they can be with the understanding that it's a double edged sword and stupid decisions could lead them to be very un-prosperous.

Liberals obviously disagree on this. They want everyone to be the same, to have everyone spend and save their money as they see fit, either as the person or persons making the decisions or as a like minded supporter of the person or persons making the decisions. They support wealth re-distribution because one person should not make more money than the other person. Ideally, everyone would work for nothing and a central authority would make sure everyone has a comfortable living for themselves.

The problem with this general idea of freedom and personal responsibility for liberals is that most people want that freedom to succeed and make their own decisions, so it's hard to sell them on the idea that they should give up that freedom and money to accept someone else's beliefs and sometimes lower standard of living. It'd be akin to the government trying to convince the American public that Switzerland is causing problems by staying out of everyone else's business, and thus we need to go to war with them. It just doesn't make any sense.

So, the only way you can get people behind you is if you try to get them mad at the opposition. Can't attack them on their beliefs cause they just want to be left alone, so attack their character. "Rush is an evil, bad, horrible person. Conservatives are mean spirited, cold, heartless people because they don't want to give you their money, they're just sitting over their hoarding it for themselves as they eat grapes while sitting on a mountain of gold pieces in their mansions while you suffer in the streets. It's not your fault that they have more money than you, it's their fault, cause they're evil, bad people who probably stepped on others like you to get where they are today. If you give me more control over you, i'll make sure they get what's coming to them for being mean to you and take care of you."

I'd like to pick up on a point that you made, re: the Liberal 'equality' that they champion, and the differences, i.e. individualism, that conservatives support.

There are many estimable points that liberals champion, but you are correct that most people also want what is a conservative point- the right to make their own decisions based on the possible choices that exist.

The distinctions go back to Jefferson and to Hamilton, but the pivotal moment- or event, came with the publication of "The Promise of American Life," by the most important intellectual mind of the last hundred years: Herbert Croly.

Croly abhorred Jefferson’s legacy of limited government and uncontrolled individualism. Rather, he championed Hamilton’s legacy of strong government and elite leadership. Croly wrote that Jefferson “understood his fellow-countrymen better and trusted them more than his rival,” but was suspicious of any 'efficient' political authority. The problem of the Hamiltonians (or Federalists) was that they came “to identify both anti-Federalism and democracy with political disorder and social instability.” But they did believe in “a fruitful liberty” so long as there was an efficient central government to promote the national welfare.

a. Croly favored Hamiltonianism that saw government “interference with the natural course of American economic and political business and its regulation and guidance in the national direction.” The drawback was in linking the battle against instability and disorder, i.e. against anarchy and disintegration, to the support of “well-to-do-people,” rather than a broader constituency. The result was that a rising democracy came to distrust the national government. [see “The Promise of American Life.”]

b. Jefferson correctly viewed any tendency to impair the integrity of democracy as a prescription for disaster: the support must be of the whole people. And for Jefferson, democracy meant extreme individualism: as little government as possible. Further, he believed in extending the good things in life to as many as possible: as Governor of Virginia he was responsible for the end to entail (inheritance of land through a particular line of descent) and primogeniture (inheritance only by the eldest son).

c. For Croly, the nation needed Hamiltonian means to achieve Jeffersonian ends. Individual desires had to be subordinated to national purpose. Liberals have found a very successful method of broadening support of a Hamiltonian view: it is called 'identity politics.'
This is covered in great detail in "1912," by James Chace.

Herbert Croly was the father of modern liberalism; it should be no surprise that folk who follow his direction believe in bigger government and less individual choices and decisions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know one thing, I hate pseudo-intellectuals FAR more than I hate conservatives.

Then again, that would make a pseudo-intellectual conservative a definite double bagger.

 

[Jarhead]

I know one thing, I hate pseudo-intellectuals FAR more than I hate conservatives.

Then again, that would make a pseudo-intellectual conservative a definite double bagger.

I find her to be quite intellectual. You may not agree with her, but that should not sway your thinking as to the level of her intelligence.

Interestingly, however, it does.

Speaks volumes of your tolerance (or lack thereof) of those that do not think like you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Here's a very representative Dennis Prager gem, in the all-you-need-to-know-about-this-guy category:

Equality, which is the primary value of the left, is a European value, not an American value. Let me tell you that right now. I know this sounds offensive to half of my fellow Americans, because they have been Europeanized in their values. The French Revolution is not the American Revolution. The French Revolution said Liberty, Fraternity, Equality. The American Revolution said Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

In other words...

...we hold these Europeanized truths to be self-evident, that all Men are Created Equal...

Dennis Prager: a full on fucking imbecile.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why not use that brain to bring the two sides together instead of stirring the pot of animosity?

Sky D...it is so difficult to be upset with you.

You have a good heart, but sometimes it prevents you from seeing the real world...

Did you read the part of Mr. Prager's article that referred to the Left's view as a religion, in the sense of being utopian?
Have you ever tried to convince someone of a different religion that yours is better?
That is the problem.

Therefore, the best one can do is lay out the truth...as Mr. Prager has done.

And CON$ervatism is a hate religion. So what's your point?

Hey, is that you CrackedEggsInTheAttic?

Did Rush let you off the leash?

Missed you, ol' boy...I love reading your posts, 'caue I just can’t get enough senseless prattle!

I think I should remind you of the difference between a worthwhile post, and ...you know, yours.

Rather than throw the Scrabble tiles and use them as the basis for a post, see if you can come up with something...Oh, I don't know...based in reality?

Like this: "...And CON$ervatism is a hate religion..."

Did you notice on your way here, via the thread, folks tend to give examples or links or some such....

Still with me?
See the hate from the left has been clearly delineated and specified...could you possibly- consistent with your disabilities, of course, give the argument for your premise?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know one thing, I hate pseudo-intellectuals FAR more than I hate conservatives.

Then again, that would make a pseudo-intellectual conservative a definite double bagger.

I find her to be quite intellectual. You may not agree with her, but that should not sway your thinking as to the level of her intelligence.

Interestingly, however, it does.

Speaks volumes of your tolerance (or lack thereof) of those that do not think like you.

Verbosity and the acquisition of an above average vocabulary does not translate into intellect.

It's like the difference between being a great novelist and a great typist.

Afterall if she were that smart, how would I be proving her wrong on an almost daily basis?

 

[NYcarbineer]

I know one thing, I hate pseudo-intellectuals FAR more than I hate conservatives.

Then again, that would make a pseudo-intellectual conservative a definite double bagger.

I find her to be quite intellectual. You may not agree with her, but that should not sway your thinking as to the level of her intelligence.

Interestingly, however, it does.

Speaks volumes of your tolerance (or lack thereof) of those that do not think like you.

That you automatically assumed I was talking about the OP, when in fact no specific reference was made, speaks volumes too. lolol

 

[midcan5]

Herbert Croly was the father of modern liberalism; it should be no surprise that folk who follow his direction believe in bigger government and less individual choices and decisions.

Huh! You have to be kidding. I have no idea who he is and just for the heck of it I looked in four survey books (see below) I have near at hand and could not even find his name. This is why your posts make no sense to those who take these matters seriously, and know a bit about them. John Rawls could be considered the father of modern liberalism but you mention someone so out there no one even knows him!

The early liberals were John Locke, Montesquieu, John Stewart Mill, and James Madison.
A few contemporary liberals are, John Rawls, Isaiah Berlin, Bernard Williams, Ronald Dworkin, Jeremy Waldron - my favorites today.


Politics and Vision - Sheldon Wolin
The Modern Mind - Peter Watson
The Glory and the Dream - William Manchester
Philosophy Politics Democracy - Joshua Cohen


"Ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity, they would think is most reasonable to enact." John Rawls


PS I see where Croly came from: this bizarre fixation on the progressivism of the thirties. Funny how the conservatives are still fighting change that happened 80 years ago. FDR sure has you guys stumped. LOL

 

[Jarhead]

I know one thing, I hate pseudo-intellectuals FAR more than I hate conservatives.

Then again, that would make a pseudo-intellectual conservative a definite double bagger.

I find her to be quite intellectual. You may not agree with her, but that should not sway your thinking as to the level of her intelligence.

Interestingly, however, it does.

Speaks volumes of your tolerance (or lack thereof) of those that do not think like you.

Verbosity and the acquisition of an above average vocabulary does not translate into intellect.

It's like the difference between being a great novelist and a great typist.

Afterall if she were that smart, how would I be proving her wrong on an almost daily basis?

Having access to a thesaurus does not offer you the talent to present sentiments in an articulate and direct way. That requires a skill that is usually associated with intelligence.

Your proving her wrong on a daily basis is simply your opinion.

She has offered me no reason to think she is not intelligent.

The only thing I can see she has offered you to think she is not intelligent is the fact that you do not see eye to eye with her.

Yet I see Midcan5 as intelligent and yet I do not see eye to eye with her(him?).

I guess I am more tolerant of different thinking people than you.

Hey, no big deal. I bet you are better at darts than I am. We all have our different talents and personlaities.

 

[Some Guy]

If conservatives didn't have liberals to talk about, and defend themselves against this imaginary hatred, what the heck would they do? I sometimes feel I could post the same thing day after day after......

They would be happy working 40+ hours a week for a for-profit company that didn't have to cut jobs in order to stay afloat in the face of huge tax increases.

What is a Conservative in America? I offer this quick definition, a conservative is a person or group of people who blame everything they disagree with, or consider wrong with the world, on Liberals. Too simple you say. Given our current right wing media spin I challenge a counter definition. We live today in a sort of straw man world in which we have the good guys here and the bad guys there?

The tea party movement just blows this theory to hell. When the economy was doing fine, you didn't see conservatives congregating to oppose unchecked liberalism; you saw them working and enjoying a life of relative comfort. Now that the government has stuck it's nose in far too many places it doesn't belong, they're forced to defend themselves as much as they can.

But, being a liberal, i can understand why you resent someone for trying to protect their personal liberty and freedom. Can't have that happening in a perfect socialist utopia.

Government is not good to conservatives because it comes with a cost: taxes, and taxes are bad, or regulation and regulation is bad. There are a great many items that could be added here, I would like any conservative offering a solid answer grounded in real ideas, values, and people on what it means to be a conservative to stop reading my words and reply first.

See my sig. It breaks it down to a very basic concept of what role conservatives want government to play in their lives.

And when you point out the foundations of liberty in our own society are products of liberalism you are told that it has changed and today it is only about a welfare state (more on that in a latter post). Consider for a moment that the chief criticism aimed at liberals is that they try to help others. Isn't that a Christian thing to do? Of course you have successes and some failure but at least you tried. Even if the criticism were accurate would that be so bad?

The word "help" is very open to interpretation. If you define "help" as damaging one to give to another, then yes, liberals definitely "help."

So what do they believe in? Few conservatives I know are alike, they are all over the place, they all flip flop. For abortion they are on both sides, for gay marriage they are on both sides, government regulation they are on both sides, and so really when examined closely conservatives have no consistent foundation.

That's funny. And here, you'd have a lot of liberals tell you that the republicans are able to get things done because they're all like minded old white guys.

So again, if all you do is criticize another what are you?

I wouldn't know. I just want to live my life and spend my money the way i see fit, and be responsible for myself and my family, which includes my own health and my own retirement. Guess i'm an asshole for that, according to many.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here's a very representative Dennis Prager gem, in the all-you-need-to-know-about-this-guy category:

Equality, which is the primary value of the left, is a European value, not an American value. Let me tell you that right now. I know this sounds offensive to half of my fellow Americans, because they have been Europeanized in their values. The French Revolution is not the American Revolution. The French Revolution said Liberty, Fraternity, Equality. The American Revolution said Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

In other words...

...we hold these Europeanized truths to be self-evident, that all Men are Created Equal...

Dennis Prager: a full on fucking imbecile.

Carby, this post may be embarrassing to you, so my suggestion is that you stop reading HERE.

OK, you asked for it. See the flaw in you post is your lack of erudition.
You have not been educated, nor educated yourself as to the meaning of 'equality' as it has been use by American intellectuals in two different ways: a) the Founders, and b) the Progressives.

1.The Declaration of Independence memorializes the proposition that all men are created equal. At the time, the ambiguity of the phrase allowed even slave holders to find it informing.

2. But, clearly, the document was understood at the time not to promise equality of condition- even to white male Americans! Equality, as an abstract, was modified by the American idea of reward according to achievement, and a reverence for private property.

3. But the concept has been modified with the growth of modern liberalism, and the ‘egalitarian’ impulse that fuels it. Here we witness the constant expansion into areas in which equality of sorts is seen as desirable and/or mandatory. The intuitive de Tocqueville actually remarked that Americans loved equality more than freedom!

a. The principle of equality prepared men for a government that “covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, guided…Such a power stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd….The evils that extreme equality may produce are slowly disclosed; they creep gradually into the social frame; they are seen only at intervals; and at the moment at which they become most violent, habit already causes them to be no longer felt.” Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” volume 2.

4. Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of ‘social justice.’

5. By the 20th century, the new ‘equality’ became a threat to freedom. FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal claimed the rectification of inequalities as within the purview of government. LBJ’s Great Society championed the redistribution of wealth and status in the name of equality. Realize that the concomitant movement toward collectivism meant a decline in the freedoms of business, private associations, families, and individuals.
(Robert Bork covers this more fully in "Slouching Toward Gomorrah)
So you see, Carby, 'equality' has, historically, had different meanings, and today the meaning is one of outcome, not merely opportunity.

That is what Mr. Prager, correctly, was getting at.

If you need sources I can recommend a number of books that cover it more fully.

 

[Bfgrn]

'But while there is plenty of conservative anger over this fact, there is little or nothing on the right to match the left's hatred of conservative individuals.'
-----------------------------

REALLY PC? How about murder and domestic terrorism from the right?

How about the Pentagon shooter, the Holocaust Museum gunman, the kamikaze pilot who flew his plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, and the Pittsburgh cop-killer who set up an ambush because he was convinced Obama was going to take away his guns?

And what about Byron Williams? He was just picked up by the California Highway Patrol. The right-wing Williams; a government-hating, gun-toting nut who strapped on his body armor, stocked a pickup truck with guns and ammo, and set off up the California coast to San Francisco in order to start killing employees at the previously obscure Tides Foundation in hopes of sparking a political revolution.

Ever hear of the Tides Foundation? Glenn Beck highlighted claims that before he started targeting a little-known, left-leaning organization called the Tides Foundation on his Fox News TV show, "nobody knew" what the non-profit was.

Indeed, for more than a year Beck has been portraying the progressive organization as a central player in a larger, nefarious cabal of Marxist/socialist/Nazi Obama-loving outlets determined to destroy democracy in America. Beck has routinely smeared the low-profile entity for being staffed by "thugs" and "bullies" and involved in "the nasty of the nastiest," like indoctrinating schoolchildren and creating a "mass organization to seize power."

Or how about Andrew Breitbart's website recently tagged Obama as the "suicide-bomber-in-chief"?

Or, the Washington Times just last week published an op-ed -- by a former congressman, no less -- asserting the president poses more of a threat to America than al Qaeda?
-----------------------------

And you drag out neocon Dennis Prager, who even a Jew calls a Super-Jew Neocon and a fascist?

Saw what I put it bold and it confirmed to me that you are a left wing blog reader with little knowledge of what is really happening in the world today.

I pity how you live your life as a follower and a pawn of the LW media.

They count on people like you never wanting to find out the truth about anything.

Really Jughead? Interesting...


Joe Stack Hailed as Hero in American 'Patriot' Resurgence
Expert: Online Cheers for Joe Stack Reflect Growing Anti-Government Movement

Most were shocked by the charred scene of Joe Stack's kamikaze attack on a Texas IRS office, but for an alarmingly growing number of Americans Stack is a hero.

The Web was studded with praise for Stack almost immediately after his plane slammed into the Austin office complex Thursday morning. The admiring salutes appearing on sites ranging from Facebook to the pages of extremist groups reflect what experts say is an "explosive growth" in the anti-government patriot movement.

"Extremist groups are already aligning behind [Joe Stack], beginning to talk about him as a hero," said Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center which studies American militia and hate groups. "The growth of those groups has been astounding."

Stack's suicide note, an angry rant against the IRS and the government which was posted online the morning of his death, got around 20 million hits before it was taken down at the request of the FBI, according to Alex Melen, president and founder of T35, the network service provider for the Web site where the note was posted.

Melen, 25, said within minutes of taking the note down, the company was "bombarded" with around 3,000 e-mails demanding Stack's words be reposted. Some of the e-mails contained personal threats against Melen.

"What's funny is most people were pretty much praising him," Melen told ABC News.

Patriot Movement Calling Joe Stack a Hero - ABC News


Suicide pilot Joe Stack had history of shutting doors on people

He was always near the top of his class; he was in glee club, played the clarinet and was in the band and orchestra. As the counterculture movement swept through Hershey and the rest of the country, Stack toed the line.

"He was probably one of the more conservative people in class," said Allison, who sang with him in glee club.


Suicide pilot Joe Stack had history of shutting doors on people

 

[Jarhead]

Here's a very representative Dennis Prager gem, in the all-you-need-to-know-about-this-guy category:

Equality, which is the primary value of the left, is a European value, not an American value. Let me tell you that right now. I know this sounds offensive to half of my fellow Americans, because they have been Europeanized in their values. The French Revolution is not the American Revolution. The French Revolution said Liberty, Fraternity, Equality. The American Revolution said Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

In other words...

...we hold these Europeanized truths to be self-evident, that all Men are Created Equal...

Dennis Prager: a full on fucking imbecile.

Carby, this post may be embarrassing to you, so my suggestion is that you stop reading HERE.

OK, you asked for it. See the flaw in you post is your lack of erudition.
You have not been educated, nor educated yourself as to the meaning of 'equality' as it has been use by American intellectuals in two different ways: a) the Founders, and b) the Progressives.

1.The Declaration of Independence memorializes the proposition that all men are created equal. At the time, the ambiguity of the phrase allowed even slave holders to find it informing.

2. But, clearly, the document was understood at the time not to promise equality of condition- even to white male Americans! Equality, as an abstract, was modified by the American idea of reward according to achievement, and a reverence for private property.

3. But the concept has been modified with the growth of modern liberalism, and the ‘egalitarian’ impulse that fuels it. Here we witness the constant expansion into areas in which equality of sorts is seen as desirable and/or mandatory. The intuitive de Tocqueville actually remarked that Americans loved equality more than freedom!

a. The principle of equality prepared men for a government that “covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, guided…Such a power stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd….The evils that extreme equality may produce are slowly disclosed; they creep gradually into the social frame; they are seen only at intervals; and at the moment at which they become most violent, habit already causes them to be no longer felt.” Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” volume 2.

4. Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of ‘social justice.’

5. By the 20th century, the new ‘equality’ became a threat to freedom. FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal claimed the rectification of inequalities as within the purview of government. LBJ’s Great Society championed the redistribution of wealth and status in the name of equality. Realize that the concomitant movement toward collectivism meant a decline in the freedoms of business, private associations, families, and individuals.

So you see, Carby, 'equality' has, historically, had different meanings, and today the meaning is one of outcome, not merely opportunity.

That is what Mr. Prager, correctly, was getting at.

If you need sources I can recommend a number of books that cover it more fully.

He lost you after "erudition".

So did I.

 

[DiveCon]

If it gives you comfort to demonize the other side of the aisle, so be it.

Political CHic is a poster on a website that has no more than 100 people at a time reading it.

Our Presdsident is followed by every news agancy and every word he speaks is broadcast nationally.

And you certainly can not deny that he is continually demonizing the other side of the aisle.

Can you recall any other President that has done this so frequently in the past 40 years?

Yes.

The entire last decade.

BULLSHIT
Bush bent over backwards to work with the dems

 

[edthecynic]

political chic is a poster on a website that has no more than 100 people at a time reading it.

Our presdsident is followed by every news agancy and every word he speaks is broadcast nationally.

And you certainly can not deny that he is continually demonizing the other side of the aisle.

can you recall any other president that has done this so frequently in the past 40 years?

yes.

The entire last decade.

bullshit
bush bent over backwards to work with the dems

bushshit.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Herbert Croly was the father of modern liberalism; it should be no surprise that folk who follow his direction believe in bigger government and less individual choices and decisions.

Huh! You have to be kidding. I have no idea who he is and just for the heck of it I looked in four survey books (see below) I have near at hand and could not even find his name. This is why your posts make no sense to those who take these matters seriously, and know a bit about them. John Rawls could be considered the father of modern liberalism but you mention someone so out there no one even knows him!

The early liberals were John Locke, Montesquieu, John Stewart Mill, and James Madison.
A few contemporary liberals are, John Rawls, Isaiah Berlin, Bernard Williams, Ronald Dworkin, Jeremy Waldron - my favorites today.


Politics and Vision - Sheldon Wolin
The Modern Mind - Peter Watson
The Glory and the Dream - William Manchester
Philosophy Politics Democracy - Joshua Cohen


"Ideally citizens are to think of themselves as if they were legislators and ask themselves what statutes, supported by what reasons satisfying the criterion of reciprocity, they would think is most reasonable to enact." John Rawls

You know Middy, this may turn out to be an interesting day. You prove my point on this board: an intelligent and well read guy like yourself has no idea who Croly is, yet he determined most of your political outlook!

"...I have no idea who he is ..."

Here, let me help.

1. Perhaps the most influential thinker in terms of his effect on both Wilson and TR, was Herbert Croly. He was the intellectual bridge between the two Presidents. All three were devotees of Bismarck, whose top-down socialism made the middle class dependent on the state.

2. Croly wrote “The Promise of American Life,” about which TR wrote “I do not know when I have read a book that profited me so much. All I wish is hat I were better able to get my advice to my fellow-countrymen in practical shape according to the principles you set forth.” Charles Forcey, “The Crossroads of Liberalism: Croly, Wehl, Lippmann, and the Progressive Era, 1900-1925,” p. 124-125 This book guided TR’s thinking as seen in his ‘New Nationalism” speech. Croly was also the founding editor of The New Republic.

a. Herbert Croly was one of the most important voices in American intellectual history. Felix Frankfurter called the book “the most powerful single contribution to progressive thinking.” Wilfred M. McClay, “Croly’s Progressive America,” Public Interest, no. 137, Fall 1999

3. “…almost every single item on a checklist of fascist characteristics can be found in ‘The Promise of American Life.’ The need to mobilize society like an army…spiritual rebirth…the need for ‘great’ revolutionary leaders…Reliance on manufactured, unifying, national ‘myths’…contempt for parliamentary democracy…non-Marxist socialism…Nationalism…A spiritual calling for military expansion…the need to make politics into a religion…hostility to individualism…” Goldberg, “Liberal Fascism,” p. 98.

a. Croly argued that ‘national life’ should be like a ‘school,’ and good schooling frequently demands ‘severe coercive measures.’ James Bovard, “Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen,” p. 8

b. Before the comparison between fascism and Progressivism seems too fine a fit, let us remember that there are many differences between the European version and the American, but for the most part, these are attributable to cultural differences between the continents.

c. On the other hand, American Progressives defended both fascism and communism throughout the 1920’s: “the more liberal attitude is to regard Fascism in Italy, like Communism in Russia, as a political and social experiment which has a function in Italian political development and which cannot be understood and appraised from the formulas either of its friends or enemies.” The New Republic, March 2, 1927

4. Eugenics was integral in the view of liberals, and it is easy to find it in Croly’s tome, in which Croly propounded the idea that “a really regenerated state government” would take steps to prevent “crime and insanity” by regulating who could marry and procreate. Such an empowered state “ might conceivably reach the conclusion that the enforced celibacy of hereditary criminals and incipient lunatics would make for individual and social improvement even more than would a maximum passenger fare on the railroads of two cents a mile.” The state must “interfere on behalf of the really fittest.” Croly, “The Promise of American Life,” p. 345, 191.

5. It should also be noted that much of the new radicalism of TR was due to the influence of Herbert Croly, and his book “The Promise of American Life,” which attacked the populist strain of progressivism with its Jeffersonian emphasis on free competition and preference for a weak central government.

a. From Croly: The remedy for ‘chaotic individualism of our political and economic organization’ was a ‘regeneration’ led by a heroic-saint who could overthrow the tired doctrines of liberal democracy in favor of a restored and heroic nation. Herbert Croly, “The Promise of American Life,”p.14
So, where is the line between fascism and Progressivism?

b. Croly laid the cornerstone for modern liberalism: the land of democracy had to become the land of equality; freedom without equality leads to injustice. He claimed that freedom and equality need not be in opposition, as long as “no individuals are allowed special privileges.” But, let’s be clear: his ‘equality’ did not mean ‘before the law,’ but rather equal amounts of everything!

c. After the Civil War, so said Croly, traditional American confidence in “individual freedom has resulted in a morally and socially undesirable distribution of wealth. Wealth had to be ‘equal’ in order for democracy to work.


Be happy to write more!

 

[Jarhead]

'But while there is plenty of conservative anger over this fact, there is little or nothing on the right to match the left's hatred of conservative individuals.'
-----------------------------

REALLY PC? How about murder and domestic terrorism from the right?

How about the Pentagon shooter, the Holocaust Museum gunman, the kamikaze pilot who flew his plane into an IRS building in Austin, Texas, and the Pittsburgh cop-killer who set up an ambush because he was convinced Obama was going to take away his guns?

And what about Byron Williams? He was just picked up by the California Highway Patrol. The right-wing Williams; a government-hating, gun-toting nut who strapped on his body armor, stocked a pickup truck with guns and ammo, and set off up the California coast to San Francisco in order to start killing employees at the previously obscure Tides Foundation in hopes of sparking a political revolution.

Ever hear of the Tides Foundation? Glenn Beck highlighted claims that before he started targeting a little-known, left-leaning organization called the Tides Foundation on his Fox News TV show, "nobody knew" what the non-profit was.

Indeed, for more than a year Beck has been portraying the progressive organization as a central player in a larger, nefarious cabal of Marxist/socialist/Nazi Obama-loving outlets determined to destroy democracy in America. Beck has routinely smeared the low-profile entity for being staffed by "thugs" and "bullies" and involved in "the nasty of the nastiest," like indoctrinating schoolchildren and creating a "mass organization to seize power."

Or how about Andrew Breitbart's website recently tagged Obama as the "suicide-bomber-in-chief"?

Or, the Washington Times just last week published an op-ed -- by a former congressman, no less -- asserting the president poses more of a threat to America than al Qaeda?
-----------------------------

And you drag out neocon Dennis Prager, who even a Jew calls a Super-Jew Neocon and a fascist?

Saw what I put it bold and it confirmed to me that you are a left wing blog reader with little knowledge of what is really happening in the world today.

I pity how you live your life as a follower and a pawn of the LW media.

They count on people like you never wanting to find out the truth about anything.

Really Jughead? Interesting...


Joe Stack Hailed as Hero in American 'Patriot' Resurgence
Expert: Online Cheers for Joe Stack Reflect Growing Anti-Government Movement

Most were shocked by the charred scene of Joe Stack's kamikaze attack on a Texas IRS office, but for an alarmingly growing number of Americans Stack is a hero.

The Web was studded with praise for Stack almost immediately after his plane slammed into the Austin office complex Thursday morning. The admiring salutes appearing on sites ranging from Facebook to the pages of extremist groups reflect what experts say is an "explosive growth" in the anti-government patriot movement.

"Extremist groups are already aligning behind [Joe Stack], beginning to talk about him as a hero," said Mark Potok, director of the Southern Poverty Law Center which studies American militia and hate groups. "The growth of those groups has been astounding."

Stack's suicide note, an angry rant against the IRS and the government which was posted online the morning of his death, got around 20 million hits before it was taken down at the request of the FBI, according to Alex Melen, president and founder of T35, the network service provider for the Web site where the note was posted.

Melen, 25, said within minutes of taking the note down, the company was "bombarded" with around 3,000 e-mails demanding Stack's words be reposted. Some of the e-mails contained personal threats against Melen.

"What's funny is most people were pretty much praising him," Melen told ABC News.

Patriot Movement Calling Joe Stack a Hero - ABC News


Suicide pilot Joe Stack had history of shutting doors on people

He was always near the top of his class; he was in glee club, played the clarinet and was in the band and orchestra. As the counterculture movement swept through Hershey and the rest of the country, Stack toed the line.

"He was probably one of the more conservative people in class," said Allison, who sang with him in glee club.


Suicide pilot Joe Stack had history of shutting doors on people

Yep. You confirmed what I thought.

Took the left wing blog crasp and then coupled it with "opinions of former class mates" and "the aligning of others with him that never even knew him" and made your judgement call.

He had no affiliation with any right wing organization nor did anyone ever see him in his adult life as a conservative. He was a guy that was pissed off at the IRS and his suicide note made that quite clear.

But whatever floats your boat. Who you are and where you get your infoirmation was made quite clear by your post.

Discussion over.

 

[Yurt]

There is no difference. The left criticises the right and vice versa.

Criticizing an ideology based on the credibility of ideas is BY NO MEANS the same as criticizing an ideology based on the character of the people WITH that ideology.

To call a conservative a racist becuase we do not believe in tax payer dollars going to healthcare is not the same as saying that conserrvative thinking is wrong as we all need to help one another.

ahh yes

the hate and switch routine....


cons regularly say things like;

"blacks are lazy and shiftless
blakcs are violent and thieves
blacks are less intelligent
blacks refuse to work and want everything just given to them"

then
when someone says...golly...that sounds awfully racist to me...

you immediately SWITCH to;

"racist?
just because I said I don't want tax payer dollars going to healthcare ?"

THAT makes me racist?"

you cons are insane
and liars

you're the type of left hater the OP is talking about....

you think you're making some point, but all you're doing is proving the OP right, that the left is nothing but hate

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here's a very representative Dennis Prager gem, in the all-you-need-to-know-about-this-guy category:

Equality, which is the primary value of the left, is a European value, not an American value. Let me tell you that right now. I know this sounds offensive to half of my fellow Americans, because they have been Europeanized in their values. The French Revolution is not the American Revolution. The French Revolution said Liberty, Fraternity, Equality. The American Revolution said Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

In other words...

...we hold these Europeanized truths to be self-evident, that all Men are Created Equal...

Dennis Prager: a full on fucking imbecile.

Carby, this post may be embarrassing to you, so my suggestion is that you stop reading HERE.

OK, you asked for it. See the flaw in you post is your lack of erudition.
You have not been educated, nor educated yourself as to the meaning of 'equality' as it has been use by American intellectuals in two different ways: a) the Founders, and b) the Progressives.

1.The Declaration of Independence memorializes the proposition that all men are created equal. At the time, the ambiguity of the phrase allowed even slave holders to find it informing.

2. But, clearly, the document was understood at the time not to promise equality of condition- even to white male Americans! Equality, as an abstract, was modified by the American idea of reward according to achievement, and a reverence for private property.

3. But the concept has been modified with the growth of modern liberalism, and the ‘egalitarian’ impulse that fuels it. Here we witness the constant expansion into areas in which equality of sorts is seen as desirable and/or mandatory. The intuitive de Tocqueville actually remarked that Americans loved equality more than freedom!

a. The principle of equality prepared men for a government that “covers the surface of society with a network of small complicated rules, minute and uniform, through which the most original minds and energetic characters cannot penetrate, to rise above the crowd. The will of man is not shattered, but softened, bent, guided…Such a power stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd….The evils that extreme equality may produce are slowly disclosed; they creep gradually into the social frame; they are seen only at intervals; and at the moment at which they become most violent, habit already causes them to be no longer felt.” Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America,” volume 2.

4. Under the new definition, an exact similarity of material wealth or income should be the goal of ‘social justice.’
5. By the 20th century, the new ‘equality’ became a threat to freedom. FDR’s New Deal and Truman’s Fair Deal claimed the rectification of inequalities as within the purview of government. LBJ’s Great Society championed the redistribution of wealth and status in the name of equality. Realize that the concomitant movement toward collectivism meant a decline in the freedoms of business, private associations, families, and individuals.

So you see, Carby, 'equality' has, historically, had different meanings, and today the meaning is one of outcome, not merely opportunity.

That is what Mr. Prager, correctly, was getting at.

If you need sources I can recommend a number of books that cover it more fully.

He lost you after "erudition".

So did I.

Sorry, guy...does the bolding make it easier?