I am genuinely proud of what our country did last night. We reminded ourselves, and the world, why "we are", and not "this is", the greatest country in history. We proved that we are more than a collection of local governments encompassed by geographic borders. We showed that the United States of America is an idea. It’s an idea that anything is possible. And it’s an idea that billions around the world can only dream of knowing.

And, while not unique to the USA, we also proved that we can learn from our past. That we can become a better version of that idea the Founding Fathers had more than 230 years ago. That is not to say that I do not have grave concerns about the election of Barack Obama. I do. But his election was the clearing of a long-overdue hurdle. And a proof that the American dream is still strong.

Just look at how far we’ve come in such a short time. The last Civil War veteran died just a few years before Barack Obama was born.

This was running through my mind as I tried to fall asleep. My mind was filled with an ongoing prayer for our country, our new president, myself, and my fellow conservatives.

I thanked God that our country, once again, will transfer power peacefully. I often bemoan the dearth of historical knowledge possessed by the average American. I wonder how many of us realize, and appreciate, the fact that our country basically invented the peaceful transfer of power. This was something entirely new under the sun when with George Washington first stepped aside so long ago.

I prayed that God would grant his wisdom on President Obama. That he, Obama, would make decisions in the best interest of America, and the world. That his decisions would defend and promote the best of America, and make better that which needs bettering.

I prayed that I, and my fellow dejected conservatives, will prove that we are the kind of people I think we are. There are radicals on both sides, sure. I detest Michael Savage as much as I do Al Franken. But, unfortunately, from my personal experience, this is more common on the Left. Be it the "Catholics for McCain" bumper sticker torn off of a friend’s car at the Board of Elections, the McCain sign near my house covered in paint, or the verbal insults lobbed at McCain supporters on my train. I don’t want us to be like the people on DailyKos who were gleeful at the death of Tony Snow. The kind of people who bought the "I Hate George W. Bush Reader." This kind of behavior has been too acceptable the past eight years. I don’t want that to continue while we’re out in the political wilderness for these next four.

There are plenty of reasons I believe Obama should have lost. Anyone who is even halfway objective will acknowledge that Obama has certain associations that are deplorable. America-haters like Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers are not people I would ever associate with. But that debate is over. America decided that these scoundrels weren’t enough to change its collective mind. Obama won. It’s time now that we consider only the issues. Sadly, this is something we did not do nearly enough of during the campaign.

And I have no doubt that some of these issues will have grave outcomes in an Obama presidency. Obviously, there are many different avenues we can take toward effective tax policy, healthcare, education, et cetera. The conservative-liberal arguments about possible solutions to these issues will, of course, continue. A 39% top marginal tax rate versus 35% may not make economic sense, but 4% more for the wealthy isn’t going to put anyone out on the street either.

It is with the moral questions that I am most concerned. It is here that I do not see how a compromise is possible. There is no question that Obama will be the most abortion-tolerant president ever. His record proves this. And when it comes to abortion it’s either a person or it’s not. There’s no middle ground. As one who believes in the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church, I do sincerely believe that life begins at the moment of conception. Abortions will now certainly be easier to obtain due to the stated goals of the now strengthened Democratic Congress and the judges Obama is sure to appoint. Thirty years of pro-life advancements may be rolled back. But I have done what I can do this year. My conscience is clear.

For now, it’s time to get back to normal. The door-to-door, phone banks, and endless news watching is over. I’m going to take my dog for long walks before the snow comes. I’m going to tend to my pregnant and lately neglected wife. I’m going to get read y to host my second Thanksgiving, and figure out what gifts I’ll buy my family for Christmas.

Because, despite my deepest fears of complete Democratic control, this is still the United States. The sun still shone down on my flag this morning. I’ve got a nice house with a well-stocked fridge. I enjoy the freedom to attend my chosen church. I don’t have to worry about random power outages. Or roadside bombs. Or preventable diseases. If my worst fears of an Obama presidency were realized, there would still be no other country in the world I would ever consider calling home besides the United States.

I’ve often said that you don’t know what you really believe until your beliefs have been challenged. Well, we’ve been challenged. Now let’s find out what we really believe, and keep fighting.

Thanks for the reminder, Sergerca . I’ll try to live up to your expectations because they are the proper expectations to have – that we wish our country and president well, and congratulate him on a historic win.

I always tell my children that in sports you learn more from losing – it makes you train harder and focus more on your performance. That’s an easy lesson to apply in real life, with good results for everyone.

There is a role to play in oppositional politics – and it doesn’t have to be negative, emotional, or corrosive – it is expected that conservatives will still provide a counter-balance to the excesses of single party rule, and will remain active in the sphere of governance, if not for political gain or power, but because it is the right thing to do. I actually think this oppositional role plays to our strengths, and any success in this role will be dependent on them.

That is not to say that I do not have grave concerns about the election of Barack Obama. I do. But his election was the clearing of a long-overdue hurdle. And a proof that the American dream is still strong.

Perfect.

Even better than that - Sergerca is soon to be a father. That's the best and most hopeful piece of news we've read all day. Congratulations.

Excellent words and a good reminder. This is why I have put my life on the line for the last twentyfour years. Regardless of our differences of opinion, the idea that is our system of government and the peaceful transference of that government is worth defending.

Thank you my friend.

Sergeca--a lot of people can be very fickle. The bumper sticker, the paint, the verbal insults. In March 2003 when asked my opinion (at work) on invading Iraq I got a ton of hostility for suggesting that maybe we ought not to be so quick about it--take some more time to evaluate the evidence and consider our needs and goals. Back then things were the other way around though--and the truth is on economic issues I think of myself as a conservative person--kind of along the lines of if you have $5 and something costs $6 then you can't afford it--that when you do borrow for a house or a car you try to pay it off as soon as possible. People throwing 'liberal' or 'right winger' around like a slur need to get a life and need to get some perspective. People have different opinions on a variety of issues. Because they may not think exactly the same as us on all of them does not make them bad or even necessarily wrong. In fact we can have opposite opinions and both be right and/or wrong. Not everything is black and white.

Iriley, you're right. I'm 27 and have only been paying attention since Bush has been in office. Also, my personal experience has always seen this kind of behavior on the Left. I'm sure during the Clinton years there was asurdity from the Right. My point is that now that the Right is completely out of power I want us to be classy in our opposition. And be willing to support Obama where he is correct. A luxury that Bush hasn't had from the Left for the last several years.

I really don't want to ever see the "I Hate Barack Obama Reader" for sale at Borders. I hope we can be bigger than that.

Message edited by its author, Nov 6, 2008, 8:58am.

Sergerca speaks for all sane conservatives here.

Why isn't this man teaching college?

The bumper stickers. The paint. The verbal insults. This behavior is nothing new. Goldwater supporters in 1964 experienced the exact same thing. This behavior is inbred in liberals and handed down from generation to generation. Liberals are the most intolerant people I know.

Thanks for the encouragement, Doug. I started classes this summer and will continue them after the holidays. Little by little... I'll get there. :)

"I really don't want to ever see the 'I Hate Barack Obama Reader' for sale at Borders."

At Borders? I think you can pretty much lay that worry to rest.

Barnes & Noble either. They have better prices anyway.

>7

If you have "only been paying attention since Bush has been in office", you have no idea of what the Clintons had to put up with. They were accused of everything from theft, to murder, to various sex scandals. No matter what the did (or didn't do), the conspiracy theories flew fast and furious. Special prosecutors spent nearly $80 million on a series of investigations that culminated in the impeachment.

I am not a fan of Bill Clinton, and never voted for him, so I am not defending his failures. But listening to months of news, reporting on testimony of Clinton's sex life in excruciating detail (while many of the Republicans who brought the impeachment case were themselves having affairs) was pretty disgusting. For me, the worst of it was when I went to run a 10 mile race that is usually a low-key, family oriented event, on a beautiful island in Puget Sound. Standing in the middle of the community building, which was full of kids of all ages, some red-faced guy was screaming about the "distinguishing characteristics" of Clinton's penis. Some of the runners finally forced him out and locked the door.

Stealing or vandalizing yard signs and bumper stickers is stupid and petty, but these things occur on both sides in every election. I haven't seen (and don't want to see) the "I Hate George Bush Reader", but I also didn't want to see the Hillary Clinton nutcracker that some members of this group found so hilarious a few months ago.

We have a lot of problems to solve, and neither side has a monopoly on good (or bad) ideas. We are going to need the best ideas from the brightest people, whatever their political affiliation, to get out of the current mess.

We always see our opponents' faults easily, and our own side's with difficulty.

We should keep in mind that the normal way that humans deal with other humans who disagree with them about the direction of the state, is to kill them, usually after some amusing torture.

In the last few centuries, we have improved. Now it's often just lengthy imprisonment instead of death, although death for dissenters is still very common in many parts of the world.

And there is now a certain level of hypocrisy necessary: the Russian government is not slow to murder its critics, but it doesn't openly brag about doing so.

The American/European/Japanese way of dealing with prominent dissenters -- put their books on the best-seller list -- is actually abnormal, and weird. One wonders whether it will last, when our technological (i.e. military) superiority fades.

Those bumper-sticker-tearers are much more in the mainstream of humanity, although even they look quite wimpy compared to the human norm.

#13: We have a lot of problems to solve, and neither side has a monopoly on good (or bad) ideas. We are going to need the best ideas from the brightest people, whatever their political affiliation, to get out of the current mess.

Good luck with that:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12259325...

>15

My point exactly. Rahm Emanuel will be some help, but if Obama is to have any hope of reeling in the fantasies of well-entrenched committee members who think their gravy train has arrived, he will need cooperation from moderate Republicans. If the Rs all retrench to fight the god-gays-guns wars, the results won't be pretty.

In the spirit of Sergerca's post-partisan bonhomie, I am pleased to link to this article in the Washington Times - apparently, there's someone else who still likes George W. Bush (and it's not his mother):

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008...

To follow up to enevada, someone sent this to me: some reflections on Bush's character.

This is why I'm in that 25% who still approve of W. Major errors of judegment, sure. Problems that will long outlast his tenure in office, of course. But, the man has moral clarity, and most, especially most politicians, don't. People laugh at his famous, "I don't do nuance." I realize most things are in shades of gray. But, regardless of the root causes, Jihadism, as expressed in recent history, is evil. I wish more were able to be as clear and steadfast about this as W (and Benedict XVI).

It's one of my main hesitations about Obama. I'm open to new/different tactics to combat it. But why can't Obama (and the Left) admit that Iraq and Afghanistan are linked in the broader ideological worldwide conflict? Al Qaeda regularly admits that they are.

Until Obama can see the forest for the trees and commit to "victory" and not "ending the war" I'll continue to be skeptical.

Message edited by its author, Nov 7, 2008, 4:18pm.

This is why I'm in that 25% who still approve of W.

Me too. I don't see what the problem is. After 9/11 we went on the offensive and not one single attack occurred on American soil afterward. This is a brilliant record; much, much better than could have been reasonably expected. Yet the standard line on Bush seems to be Gephardt's "he is a miserable failure." It's really outrageous and insanely unfair.

9
Liberals are the most intolerant people I know.

Interesting, in that the Republican strategy seems to be one of systematically alienating African-Americans, Hispanics, Women, Homosexuals, The Poor (apologies if I left anyone out).

19
After 9/11 we went on the offensive and not one single attack occurred on American soil afterward.

The 9/11 attack did what it was supposed to do, get us embroiled in an endless war overseas.

Our safety at home is largely due to the brilliant "flypaper" strategy: start an unnecessary war so that trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives can go down the pipes in a faraway land, while the rest of us carry on like nothing's happening. Out of sight, out of mind.

Anyway, if your sole reason for supporting Bush is that he kept you, personally, safe, you're a funny kind of libertarian. ;)

18>

Enough of this gilding by association!

Why do you see such a need to elevate George Bush's stature as a man of moral clarity that you equate him with Pope Benedict XVI?

True, our current Pontiff has spoken out against Islamic Jihadism , but, in all fairness, he has likewise adamantly opposed George Bush's personal brand of Jihadism. Neither John Paul II nor Benedict XVI have given any moral sanction to the Invasion of Iraq and neither pope felt that Bush's preemptive aggression met the criteria of a Just War.

Either you are engaging in pettifoggery or you are receiving The Church's oracle on these matters through George Weigel's Neo-Con filter.

Oh, makifat, there you go again.

Interesting, in that the Republican strategy seems to be one of systematically alienating African-Americans, Hispanics, Women, Homosexuals, The Poor.

This is not true, it is simply leftist agitprop. Leftists need it to be true because a significant part of their electoral and propaganda strategy consists of shouting variations on “Republicans are bigots!”
By the way, I love how you capitalized “women,” “the poor,” etc. Hmm, I don’t do that; I hope I’m not systematically alienating The Poor.

If the war kept us safe, how is it “unnecessary”?

Anyway, our defensive strategy didn’t only involve leaping into the fray abroad. It also does involve certain domestic measures, of course.

Anyway, if your sole reason for supporting Bush is that he kept you, personally, safe, you're a funny kind of libertarian.

Odd remark. Minimal-state libertarians (as distinct from anarcho-capitalists like Lunar) think one of the few legitimate functions of government is to protect us from domestic and foreign predators.
Also, I’m glad because the nation has been safe, not just me personally.

I have a follow-up: Has Bush’s record on domestic safety been good or bad? Seven years of no domestic attacks...wow. If it’s just a mediocre record, then Obama presumably will match it at least, right? If not, then he doesn’t even rise to the level of mediocre.

...the Republican strategy seems to be one of systematically alienating African-Americans,...(etc.)

It's a good thing there isn't any of that on the Left!

#22: Both Popes have been consistent in their voiced opposition to the war in Iraq, and upon becoming Pope, Benedict XVI was clear in his assessment of the role being assumed, from his very first audience:

"I chose to call myself Benedict XVI ideally as a link to the venerated pontiff Benedict XV, who guided the Church through the turbulent times of the First World War. He was a true and courageous prophet of peace who struggled strenuously and bravely, first to avoid the drama of war and then to limit its terrible consequences. In his footsteps I place my ministry, in the service of reconciliation and harmony between peoples, profoundly convinced that the great good of peace is above all a gift from God, a fragile and precious gift to be invoked, safeguarded and constructed, day after day and with everyone’s contribution."

But neither Pope has condemned the man, who is primarily responsible for “The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good." Catholic Cathechism 2309

It is interesting to note that (then) Cardinal Ratzinger expressed his opinion that the decision should be that of the United Nations, or the community of nations - and yet, if they had decided on the same course of action - would that (being point of origination) be enough to qualify the war as just? It seems inconsistent to me, and to many others - not just Weigel, but many other Catholics, who have maintained a respectful dialogue with the Vatican on this issue.

Message edited by its author, Nov 9, 2008, 1:33pm.

After 9/11 we went on the offensive and not one single attack occurred on American soil afterward

You're forgetting Virginia Tech, Carnophile.

...many other Catholics, who have maintained a respectful dialogue with the Vatican on this issue.

Sounds like something from Catholics for Choice.

Message edited by its author, Nov 9, 2008, 2:11pm.

>26
Sorry, not a single attack perpretrated by organized Islamist ideologues.

#27: Yes, I think that is the great appeal of Catholicism (for me at least): the autonomy of the individual actor who acts in a condition of free will with the attendant responsibilities. What is even greater, in my mind, is that Church doctrine isn't designed to accommodate these actors, nor to sanction or condone their actions, but to preserve the sanctity of the ecclesiastical bond itself.

It is beginning to feel like a eulogy, but at least it is being said - at the demise of his presidency and at the return of civilian life:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12258438...

I was going to respond to #20 by pointing out that it was African American Obama voters who passed prop. 8. but then I clicked on the link above.

Personally, I think they did the right thing. I anxiously await the day when the lingering elements of racism (on both sides) are extinguished to the point that blacks folks and white folks can work together against the so-called elites.

>19, 28 Your argument isn't logical; it's a non sequitur: "we haven't been attacked here at home since 2001; ergo, this administration has been a success."

Correlation does not imply causation.

Message edited by its author, Nov 9, 2008, 3:46pm.

Insofar as the President leads the US's intelligence strategy, military strategy, border security strategy, etc., the argument is not a non-sequitor. Plainly the President doesn't do 100% of this stuff. But the President does some of it.

Bill Clinton had only one domestic attack by "organized Islamists ideologues" early in his presidency, so by your logic, he must have been a damn good President as well. ;)

I do not fault Clinton for being a miserable failure on the domestic security front. I really do try to apply the same standards to everyone. Otherwise, what are standards for?

Peter Hitchens, the sober brother of Christopher Hitchens, wants nothing to do with the post-election honeymoon.

Anyone would think we had just elected a hip, skinny and youthful replacement for God, with a plan to modernise Heaven and Hell – or that at the very least John Lennon had come back from the dead.

The swooning frenzy over the choice of Barack Obama as President of the United States must be one of the most absurd waves of self-deception and swirling fantasy ever to sweep through an advanced civilisation. At least Mandela-worship – its nearest equivalent – is focused on a man who actually did something.

I really don’t see how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies, the Scientologists or people who claim to have been abducted in flying saucers. This is a cult like the one which grew up around Princess Diana, bereft of reason and hostile to facts.

The bolded part made me chuckle. The lefties have done their best to make Obama out to be some sort of secular Jesus. But come January, Obama will have to actually do things, things which will likely alienate some folks who have helped get him elected. Since the left set the bar exceptionally high for Obama by hyping him up, I wonder how Obama will even attempt to hurdle it (and no, that wasn't a reference to Black athleticism. Racists.).

>37 "...how the Obama devotees can ever in future mock the Moonies..." -codyed

This, uttered in the Church of Reagan...

The most salient different between the two phenomena is that The Church of Reagan was founded after 1988. The Secular Jesus hasn't even been sworn into office, yet there exists a large contingent of the population which seems all the more willing to perform blood sacrifices for the man. He can heal the sick and walk on water and make that mortgage payment go away, all this without having to put his hand on the Bible.

#22

While I agree with enevada's replies, as I always do, I'll add this...

I's true that W and Benedict seem to have shared views on the evil of Jihadism and the importanct of defending Western Civilization. This is no way means that the Church approves of W's tactics. I was merely pointing out there aren't many international figures who have the gumption to say it like it is (I'll add Tony Blair to the list). Certainly Obama hasn't yet convinced me that he's of the same mind.

How leaders go about addressing this struggle is obviously a different matter.

"The 9/11 attack did what it was supposed to do, get us embroiled in an endless war overseas."

Really? Not quite. The whole point of the attack was to make us cower in fear and run away. Every time we have been attacked by Jihadists/Islamists/Thugs and taken casualties we have usually packed up and gone home. Starting with Beruit in 1983. That is what Bin Laden and his gang expected us to do this time too.

Suprise, suprise...

Didn't figure us to have the stones to go after them and fight it out on the ground.

And if you think that what we're dealing with here in Iraq has nothing to do with stopping terrorists you should come over here and see what we see every day. No it wasn't the original reason we came in here, but it's a by-product that shows results.

>39 "The most salient different between the two phenomena is that The Church of Reagan was founded after 1988." -codyed

Read up on the first 100 days of the Reagan administration. Even the Blue Dog Democrats were worshiping at the altar in those days. I know times are tough for you guys, but, for the rest of us, the reaction to Obama's election has been nothing short of hysterical!

His supporters are cultists! Never mind the fact that his "cultists" shout "Yes We Can!" at rallies, while ours have been shouting "Terrorist!" and "Kill Him!" His follows are clearly more dangerous. They're optimistic.

Message edited by its author, Nov 10, 2008, 11:53am.

"Mrs. Robinson" came up in my Pandora stream today, and suddenly, I was re-writing lyrics:

        MR. OBAMA (to the tune of "Mrs. Robinson")

        And here’s to you, Mr. Obama,
        Lenin loves you more than “Unlce Joe”.
        (Wo, wo, wo)
        Do what you please, Mr. Obama,
        The State will crush those who don’t obey!
        (Hey, hey, hey...hey, hey, hey)

        You’d like to know every detail about us for your files …
        You’d like to track all things about ourselves.
        Mobs adore you, all you hear are sycophantic lies.
        Abrogate our rights until you feel at home …

        And here's to you, Mr. Obama,
        Lenin loves you more than “Uncle Joe”.
        (Wo, wo, wo)
        Do what you please, Mr. Obama,
        The State will crush those who don’t obey!
        (Hey, hey, hey...hey, hey, hey)

        Hide your evil behind lies so no one ever knows,
        Spew out vague platitudes and double-speak,
        It's an ugly secret, but the brainwashed throng won’t care
        Most of all, you've got to bury deep the truth!

        Coo, coo, ca-choo, Mr. Obama,
        Lenin loves you more than “Uncle Joe”.
        (Wo, wo, wo)
        Do what you please, Mr. Obama,
        The State will crush those who don’t obey!
        (Hey, hey, hey...hey, hey, hey)

        Lounging in a kaftan with a terrorist or two,
        Torturing some Enemies of State,
        Laugh about it, gloat about it,
        When you've got to choose,
        You make sure the USA will lose!

        Where have you gone, Barry Goldwater,
        A nation turns its anguished eyes to you!
        (Woo, woo, woo)
        What's that you say, Mr. Obama?
        Our freedoms have left and gone away?
        (Hey, hey, hey...hey, hey, hey)

I'm sure Paul Simon would be offended ... but I don't much care.

 

41
The whole point of the attack was to make us cower in fear and run away.

I think that's a fair line of reasoning for Beirut, the U.S.S. Cole, Riyadh, etc., but I think there is a more far reaching explanation for 9/11.

Sometimes the "intimidation" bombings worked, sometimes they didn't. But 9/11 was a signal event in that it was coordinated to be a spectacular event, on par with the Pearl Harbor attack. This was not simply to intimidate and/or demoralize: it was designed as an event that simply could not be ignored, one that screamed for response. It was, in short (according to al Qaida officials themselves) designed to draw the U.S. into a Middle Eastern jihad. OBL didn't spend years building the Tora Bora complex and designating countless "safe havens" because he simply thought the U.S. would pack up and leave Saudi Arabia. He knew, as well as just about any other megalomaniac in history, that he was lighting a fuse.

OBL had the delusion that his attack and the consequent counter-attack would raise up the Islamic World, effectively forcing them into a global jihad, with OBL as the most recent incarnation of Saladin. Fortunately, things didn't quite turn out that way.

The U.S. response in hitting Afghanistan and the Taliban was, I hope it goes without saying, necessary and just. I hope we get more resources there soon, but at this point we are holding a tiger by the ears in two theatres - a troublesome prospect.

Now, I doubt any of us want to go back over the genesis of the Iraq War. I think the reasons for that war are varied and complex, and while I have no doubt that you are doing a superb job there, the terrorists you are fighting now are not, in your words "the reason we came in". This is what I meant in #20 when I facetiously spoke of the "flypaper" strategy. The U.S. presence in Iraq certainly brought out a good number of Jihadist wannabees from all over the Middle East, but no, most of them weren't there before, and most certainly didn't support the brutal secular regime of Saddam Hussein.

You put me in the uncomfortable position of debating with a soldier, but I know you're a fair minded guy, and I respectfully offer this perspective. Good luck and stay safe.

Message edited by its author, Nov 10, 2008, 1:51pm.

Sarge wrote: " Didn't figure us to have the stones to go after them and fight it out on the ground. "

And he was correct.

October of 2001, only 325 US troops in Afghanistan.

January 2002, only 2250 US troops in Afghanistan being directed from Florida and Masirah. But do they count? Rumsfeld didn't allow them to take but 8 Apaches and very little of their artillery.

You continued: " And if you think that what we're dealing with here in Iraq has nothing to do with stopping terrorists you should come over here and see what we see every day. "

OBL was apparently very pleased that Bush invaded Iraq. It turned out to be a much more viable training and recruiting ground for his boys than the Kashmir all the while draining the US economy.

Yep ..... reactionaries are far more tolerant.

S/O

I'd like to step back and note that I appreciate the sentiments stated in post #1. (Well, most of them anyway. ;))

Despite his excesses, Bush wasn't Hitler. By the same token, Obama isn't Stalin. Let's not let our dark fantasies get the better of us.

Those lyrics in #43 are far better suited for....Bush #43. How appropriate!

It wasn't Obama who approved warrantless wiretapping, "sneak and peek" warrants, suspension of habeas corpus, waterboarding, and all of those other offenses. I just hope all of you righties find those "tools" in Obama's hands as frightening as lefties have found them in Cheney's hands. Then maybe we can get our Consitution back.

It will be interesteing to see if the Supreme Court still supports the "unitary executive" when it isn't their guy.

I just hope all of you righties find those "tools" in Obama's hands as frightening as lefties have found them in Cheney's hands.

What an odd thing to hope. But I think you will hope in vain. "Righties" aren't afraid that Obama will, say, support listening in on conversations involving at least one foreign based terrorist suspect (to pick just one example). Rather, they are afraid that he won't do same. I would have thought that was an obvious point.

Message edited by its author, Nov 10, 2008, 4:28pm.

Man ... and I thought L.J. was a tough crowd ... that was comic gold and nobody even snickered!

 

I think that our liberal readers didn't think that there was enough truth in it to be funny and that our homeboys thought that there was too much truth in it to be funny.

I thought that it was very well done.

Thank you, sir.

Once the tune hit my head, that pretty much floated out ... while maintaining a "syllable count" link to the original, there are certainly parts of it that could "scan" better to the tune ... but not bad for a half-hour's musing!

 

>50 - 52
I get the sense that there's a joke here that I missed.

#53 - BTRIPP's re-rendering of Mrs. Robinson in #43, which was well-done, but fell on an unenthusiastic crowd. We've been brow-beaten into believing that we are either racist or reactionary, heck, both when we engage in criticism, even satirical criticism of the president elect.

Lord Knack's assessment is quite right, I think. Lately, every bit of fun is stomped to death by the That's Not Funny! crowd. But, we'll bounce back, I think.

Actually, BTRIPP, I play Mrs. Robinson on the guitar and think I'm going to substitute your lyrics the next time I play! With the credit going to you, of course.

Oh, I thought 50 was referring to Oakes's post 49.

As to criticising Obama, we'll just ignore the "That's Not Funny" crowd. Also, we'll save the Question Authority bumber stickers they're currently scraping off their cars (props to whoever originally came up with that one).

This conservative reader has spent the last 6 months listening to a non-stop stream of right wing hatred towards anything not reactionary.

Perhaps, if there hadn't been so much hate mongering over the last 30 years and I was still in junior high school, I might have laughed ..... or ... maybe not.

Ah, a true conservative who is against the curent crop of reactionary, right-wing, Republican hatemongers. How original. I haven't seen that before on LT.

Message edited by its author, Nov 11, 2008, 2:47pm.

Not.

#58-59

But there was that true conservative who is against the current crop of reactionary, right-wing, Republican hatemongers who also practiced Wicca and loved her cat. Remember that one?

Oh, and the true conservative who is against the current crop of reactionary, right-wing, Republican hatemongers who supported Hillary because she was also a true feminist unlike the rest of us prolife female impersonators.

And, I'll never forget the true conservative who is against the current crop of reactionary, right-wing, Republican hatemongers who told that funny joke one time.

OK, I made that last one up.

OldWoman is obviously not a true conservative because of, among other things, her excessive use of "monger" (as in "hate-", "war-" etc.) which is one of the rhetorical flourishes of the Left.

I am the true conservative. Every one else is a fake.

#61: A confession. I have on occasion used the word 'fishmonger'. But only when I needed to buy some halibut.

Can I please stay?

1. Yes.

2. In future, use "fishwife," or if male, "man who deals in fish."

I like the word "fishmonger" ... it's part of a(n increasingly) large category of charming old-fashioned words like "gilt," "galoshes" and "velocipede."

But there was that true conservative who is against the current crop of reactionary, right-wing, Republican hatemongers who also practiced Wicca and loved her cat.

For what it's worth, although most of the Wiccan pagans I know tend to the liberal or Left end of things, many of the other pagans I know definitely are not. My oldest and closest friend, for example, is Asatru, and is strongly for personal responsibility, free markets, etc. etc. as well as strongly against free welfare handouts, "political correctness," and so on. (He himself is multiracial, self-employed and comes from a decidely non-Beaver-Cleaver background, and has bootstrapped his own self to where he is now.) Another good friend is a non-practicing Celtic-type pagan, works in his own family business and would probably best be categorized as a Right-wing libertarian (though not registered with the Libertarian party as far as I know).

I don't know what a "true conservative" is (or a "true liberal" for that matter). But based on my own observations and experiences, I do think that the conservative tent (like the liberal one) houses a lot of types of people and viewpoints ... and ought to.

>63
Enevada, you're one of the true old skoool homies of the conservative and libertarian crowd. Therefore, any rules don't apply to you anyway. You're sort of like a union boss with lots of seniority; you've got too much clout to be concerned with rules.

Vikings are automatically admitted to tent. But can your friend agree not to hold forth on the Ontological Argument for the Existence of Thor? I find that whole topic just so old at this point.

Message edited by its author, Nov 11, 2008, 6:13pm.

#67: feign ennui, but I find it helpful to ask each day, what would Þórr do?

#66: 8 weeks of vay-k sounds good. Make it happen. :)

I actually did, at one point, get for the friend a small pewter pin engraved with "What Would Odin Do?" He laughed, and liked it. (Alas, it didn't have the ð.)

In a roundabout way, I was trying to ask, Is there even such a thing as "true conservative"? Does such a term have any meaning? Can't one be a Wiccan, or gay, or Muslim, or a small furry creature from Alpha Centauri, and also be a conservative? My own experiences, and even observing the diversity of opinions in threads such as these, show that they can be, and are. Not every poster here marches in lockstep with each other in regards to religious, political and social matters, and there's often a wide divergence of approaches to issues.

Of course, ultimately, enevada's comment about the Wiccan cat-lover was just having a bit of fun, but it brought these types of questions to mind.

As I think of it, conservative isn't an identity, and not quite a philosophy, but a point of orientation or inclination. Anyone can consider themselves conservative: respectful of liberty, reverent towards tradition, and resistant to unnecessary change.

To declare oneself a political conservative here in the U.S. is like playing defense on soccer - we are the last defenders of political tradition and social culture - but we are, nonetheless, players of a larger team.

Stern men, of sorts.

...conservative isn't an identity, and not quite a philosophy, but a point of orientation or inclination. Anyone can consider themselves conservative: respectful of liberty, reverent towards tradition, and resistant to unnecessary change.

Makes me think of a nice quote by one Ralph Phelan here:

If I’m a conservative it’s in an engineering sense:
“If it aint broke, don’t fix it.”
“Be very sure before you do anything you can’t undo.”
“Don’t randomly futz with things you don’t fully understand.”
“Make one change at a time.”
etc.

The reason this quote is so beautiful is that it makes it clear that conservatism is not "right-wing political philosophy" but rather simple common sense.

The entirety of liberalism consists of violating all four of those common-sense dicta.

Message edited by its author, Nov 11, 2008, 7:46pm.

The idea of Enevada as a true old skool homie got me thinking: How do we assess someone’s true old-skool homieness? We need a true old-skool homieness (TOSH) metric.

I was going to propose (time elapsed since first post to PoliCon) x (average number of posts per day to PoliCon), but of course that simply reduces to total posts to PoliCon. However, I’d rather have something that rewards stamina. I think it should count more if you do 3 posts per day over 11 days than if you do 11 posts per day over 3 days.

So I propose (total number of posts to PoliCon) x (time elapsed since first post to PoliCon). With this metric, a person who posted 33 times by doing 11 per day over the last 3 days would have TOSH metric of 33 x 3 = 99, while a person who posted 33 times by doing 3 per day over the last 11 days would have TOSH metric of 33 x 11 = 343.

If we find this rewards stamina too much we can always exponentiate the “time elapsed” term to the 3/4 or some other fraction to reduce that effect. Similarly, if we find this rewards stamina too little we can always exponentiate the “time elapsed” term to the 2 or some other number larger than one to strengthen that effect.

Of course, to implement this we need the data on first post to the group and total number of posts to the group. Oakes, could you use your connections to have LT set this up?

#72: but I was really looking forward to the post election internecine GOP bloodbath.

But, ok, if everyone else wants to play with numbers rather than engage in some back-stabbing bitterness, then I'll go along with the gang.

I have wondered for a long time what makes a "true conservative", by which I personally mean someone I feel in deep basic agreement with when we sit down and discuss the world and where it is going.

Here's my contribution:it's someone who appreciates civilization, and who sees the particular political and economic arrangements which first emerged in Europen civilization a few hundred years ago --individual liberty, in a word -- as the best thing human beings have come up with, so far, for arranging their affairs, and ... who doesn't take it for granted, and sees that it could be undermined from within by its own internal logic -- freedom become license -- and/or by external enemies. Someone who, in other words, has a deep sense of the tragic in human history.

There are plenty of people who don't really have this vision in any substantial sense, although they are often allies on particular questions. This includes, for example, people whose main motivation is to avoid paying higher taxes, or whose main political emotion is that sort of patriotism which shades into chauvinism or nationalism, or who don't like homosexuals, or who want their particular religion to be semi-supported by the state.

On the other hand it could include someone who favors a substantial amount of state interference in economic life, to promote social solidarity.

It could include people who want to see the essence of our civilization spread over the whole earth, and also those who think that it will necessarily be confined to the places that have it now.

Whether or not they call themselves a conservative, or a liberal, or whatever ... if I come across someone who clearly believes that civilization is both precious, and fragile, I feel that we are on common ground. And people who lack this sense, or whose beliefs incorporate some form of relativism towards cultures, and/or disdain for our own, are in another political camp.

>73
Or we could both play around with numbers AND have a bloodbath, like the mathematician Evariste Galois, who was killed in a duel over mathematics.

You gotta love the thread title "Post-election internecine GOP bloodbath?" for its expression of pious hope about what will happen. Snort.

Hey, I was just reading about Evariste in Ian Stewart's Why Beauty is Truth - revisiting my grand evil-conservative scheme to teach maths as they evolved in history. No digits until you need them, certainly no zero before any permanent teeth grow in - that sort of thing.

Beats politics, these days.

But a good, old fashioned bloodbath may be just the thing. Confusion to Robespierre!

a duel over mathematics

or republican politics or a woman.

those damn radicals, Jacobians.

A woman, this time. Either that or he couldn't show his work.

Message edited by its author, Nov 11, 2008, 9:32pm.

It actually was a woman. He tried using his best line on her, "Come with me to a significant place I know and I'll take you to the limit."

But she responded, "Try anything non-Normal and I'll put you in L'Hopital."

Distraught, he deliberately provoked a duel he knew he couldn't win.

After reading every word in this thread, parsing through every argument, and considering all points of view, I've determined that Guns N' Roses' new single, Chinese Democracy, flat out sucks. Blech.

To be sort of serious for a moment:

Words have meanings. Sometimes, obviously, they do not have precise meanings. Or the meaning might come down to whether or not the referent satisfied a certain portion of a particular cluster of possibilities, etc. Occasionally a meaning might vary according to the context. And so on. I have no interest, at this time, in weighing in on what the real or best meaning of political conservative is. Quite honestly, I find the topic tedious. (Sorry, enevada and other Political Conservatives.) But the point is that the term does have some meaning. Simply saying that one is a conservative doesn't make it so. Ditto for supplying some silly explanation such as "I believe in conserving what is worth conserving," or some such. (And there is, of course, something particularly irritating about someone who calls himself or herself a "conservative" solely for the rhetorical purpose of . . . trashing conservatives.) There is nothing intolerant or anti-big-tentish about refusing to recognize as a conservative someone who clearly isn't one, just as there is nothing wrong with withholding the label of "fishmonger" from someone who doesn't, say, deal in fish. This does not of course mean that (to cite the examples of another poster) Wiccans, homosexuals, Muslims or alien creatures (!) cannot be conservatives. Among other things, I know of no conservative thinker who has ever defined "conservatism" solely in terms of religion, sexual preference or, for that matter, planet of origin. I'm tempted to add a "like duh!" here, but I think that would be redundant.

Message edited by its author, Nov 12, 2008, 3:09pm.

No need to apologize, Oakes. It does get tedious.

I'm just here because I enjoy the company. And for Codyed's invaluable music reviews.

oakesspalding wrote: " a true conservative who is .... "

With everyone and his grandma calling themselves a conservative these days, it is important to seperate the wheat from the chaff .... and to understand why those who aren't call themselves so.

Orwell defined a world controlled by the right and showed a number of mechanisms by which power can be wrestled away from the mainstream, controlled, and perpetually defended in "1984". Perhaps you might read it someday.

One of the mechanisms for this control was control of the language.

Example: where the political scientist would identify along the continuum: liberal, moderate, conservative, ultra-conservative, and reactionary, the right (and Big Brother) has eliminated all but liberal and conservative. The better to create the "us vice them" mentality. Or, from another Orwell novel "2 legs bad, 4 legs good. 2 legs bad, 4 legs good. 2 legs bad, 4 legs good. 2 legs bad, 4 legs good. "

Another mechanism for thought control is the creation of a straw man enemy, which the right has managed, with a billion dollar cottage industry, to do.

I really want to thank you for proving my points for me.

enevada:

If you knew how much your hate motivated those who you hate, you would be a little more concerned about hiding it.

Actually, your hate is the most humorous thing about the right. So please don't stop.

OK, I like some of the company.

One of the mechanisms for this control was control of the language.

I know exactly what you mean. Like referring to racial discrimination as "affirmative action," chemical abortificants as "emergency contraception" (if it happens after conception then it is, as a matter of objective fact, not a contraceptive), illegal aliens as "undocumented workers," and staring at a co-worker's chest as "rape," etc.

I really want to thank you for proving my points for me.

The hate is clearly what draws me to you, enevada. That, and an appreciation of Proust.

But (and I tread lightly here, not meaning to pick a fight) Doug's post was pretty interesting. I could agree with most of what he said, especially about preserving the best of our culture, and assuring liberty. I would much rather read Dostoyevsky or Eliot than Chuck Palahniuk or Michael Ondaatje.

Of course I tend to disagree a bit on what liberty means and how to attain it, and I am sure that some would say my perception of liberty is not of an individual sort. But then, I am still highly influenced by a Church and its history.

Referring to enevada, of all people, as "hateful":

You've got to stop eating the paste in art class.

countrylife, you're exactly right.

Oldwoman is clearly trolling here, trying to pick a fight, and it's up to each of to decide whether to respond or just ignore him/her. It's actually best to just ignore trolls, but I find I can't always muster the self-control.

Yes. I am sorry for the "tedium" but my questions were genuine, and I appreciate some of the thoughtful responses, which were very interesting. Like Arctic, I could agree with a lot of Doug1943's post, for instance, although I tend to be more familiar with, say, Tanizaki or Hafiz than in Dostoyevsky or Eliot. :)

#88: stick around Countrylife (and I hope you do, though many choose not to) and one day you'll earn your very own LT nemesis.

>92 - I have several. Collect them like stamps, in fact.

Doug1943 queried: "I have wondered for a long time what makes a "true conservative", by which I personally mean someone I feel in deep basic agreement with when we sit down and discuss the world and where it is going"

The problem with that is you assume you are a true conservative. You have set yourself up as a true conservative, and the only metric you have established to gauge another's position on the spectrum is "do they agree with me". No good. Not objective. That is the mistake that most of those on this thread who are trying to drive me away are making. If someone doesn't agree with them, they are to be driven away. "2 legs good, 4 legs bad"

Doug1943 continued: "it's someone who appreciates civilization, and who sees the particular political and economic arrangements which first emerged in Europen civilization a few hundred years ago --individual liberty, in a word -- as the best thing human beings have come up with, so far, for arranging their affairs, and ... who doesn't take it for granted, and sees that it could be undermined from within by its own internal logic -- freedom become license -- and/or by external enemies."

Here is a better one, courtesy of political scientists. It is the nature of how one obtains the knowledge necessary to bond in social contracts. What is the basis for the social contract?

For example: the left has, since the Enlightenment, relied on induction from observations to drive understanding of the universe and its social constructs. The right has always used deduction from presumed authority.

The left turned to the writings of the Enlightenment to fashion its concept for the foundations for this experiment. The Enlightenment authors to whom they turned wrote extensive commentary on the nature of government, the social contract between a government and its people, and the nature of liberty using existing systems as evidence.

The right clung to and reacted against anything that did not preserve the state of presumed authority which at that time was the monarchy and divine right afforded by the Bible.

In the modern day, the left seeks to gather data and inductively divine how to maximize the social contract to maximize liberty. Today, the right is still seeking to return to a time in the past in which presumed authority drives all social contracts.

Just as the left has different gradations of speed (ultra-conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal) at which this perfection of the social contract can be maximized for liberty, the right does as well. For example, the neo-con (Kristol coined it because he wanted to make sure his movement was not confused with conservtives) seeks to move to a time where authority was not dependent on Rosseau's/Locke's consent of the governed. Another example is the evangelicals whose move to base the social contract on the authoritarianism of the Bible takes presumed authority further back. These are examples of the foundation of the social contract as viewed by the right. The Hobbesian view.

The difference between the gradations on the left is similar. With the conservatives seeking, to quote the Republican Oath: " retaining those principles worth retaining, yet always be receptive to new ideas with an outlook broad enough to acommodate thoughtful change and varying points of view ", they want to approach INEVITABLE change cautiously. The conservative understand that change will occur and that change will be beneficial. But they want to go slowly to make sure what has been gained to date is not lost. The moderates seeking that change a little more freely and the liberals more freely yet.

But this approach does incorporate induction from the observed, and the conservative never seeks to rely on deduction from presumed authority. That is why a true conservative would not consider himself right wing. It is the difference of induction from evidence or deduction from presumed authority.

Doug1943 continued: " It could include people who want to see the essence of our civilization spread over the whole earth, and also those who think that it will necessarily be confined to the places that have it now. "

Imperialism is never part of the conservative ideology. The conservative understands that, given a choice, a free thinking individual will always choose to be part of a system that embraces the consent of the governed.

Observation has shown what happens when you try to evangelize at the point of a bayonet. People stop paying attention to your message and only see the sharp pointy thing in their face.

Observation has also shown that by opening our country's educational systems to guest students, our symposia to visiting scholars, our industry to the corporate money from other countries, we can spread capitalism, representative democracy, and the ideals of liberty ... and no one need be bayonetted.

Ambassadorship works, imperialism fails. And evangelization of our way of life was working until recently. Not by paying the Taliban forerunners 100s of million of dollars and giving them Stingers which they sold to the guys who blew up our Marines in Lebanon. But by buying their goods as in the case of China.

The consent of the governed social contract is spread by principles akin to capitalism. If the cost benefit is apparently good, it will be internalized.

People who spew hatred belong no where on the political spectrum. They are spending more time hating than thinking and therefore aren't coherent enough for observers to place them anywhere.

carnophile .... which thread did you accidently make a point. I want to look at it immediately.

PS: I'm going to have to impose 5 demerits on post 84 for failing to work in some variant of "monger."

Keep trying, oldwoman. I just know you can do better!

That is the mistake that most of those on this thread who are trying to drive me away are making.

Oh, I'm of two minds on the drive you away thing. On the one hand, your posts tend to be so stupid that they threaten to blot out the sun (for example, arguing the benefits of an inductive approach instead of appeals to authority, and supporting your case by saying "This is how political scientists do it!"). On the other hand, there is a certain element of spice that keeps us on our toes (if you'll pardon the mixed metaphor).

Have you considered trying to be an intelligent liberal, like e.g., Jesse_wiedinmyer?

Message edited by its author, Nov 13, 2008, 3:18pm.

In today’s world economy we need to look beyond the conservatism that has attempted to maintain the status quo. We need to look back at a time in our nation’s development when new ideas and innovations that helped us to grow and prosper were encouraged. Whether it was the light bulb, an airplane, landing a man on the moon, or the development of the computer and the internet; each event lead to prosperity.

We need to stabilize our financial institutions and help companies like General Motors. But, at the same time we need to help new technologies and businesses emerge and be less concerned with maintaining the status quo. We have too many institutions that have been too concerned with keeping those in power and meeting their needs rather than writing regulations that encourage competition, new ideas, and change.

>92, 93
Nemeses accessorize well with a tastefully chosen belt and shoes. To attract more nemeses from the left, it helps if the belt and shoes are made out of the hide of some furry little rainforest creature with big brown eyes.

I have wondered for a long time what makes a "true conservative", by which I personally mean someone I feel in deep basic agreement with when we sit down and discuss the world and where it is going.

Isn't that pretty much purely the definition of a "true x" in any case where we identify ourselves as x...? Someone who believes as I do.

crnophile: " I'm going to have to impose 5 demerits on post 84 for failing to work in some variant of "monger." "

Oooooh ... sorry ....... I failed to realize that if you are planning on posting on a reactionary thread, you have to hold up their straw men ideals inorder for the hate to flow properly.

I'll take the 5 demerits and add them to the:

100 I got for thinking

100 I got for evidence

100 I got for correct warrants

100 I got for experience

100 I got for my education

100 I got for failing to be a reactionary

100 for each time I posted without attacking the evil liberals

did I miss any?

carnophile:

That is why I like looking in on the posts of reactionaries. You get so twisted up trying to attack the person. God knows what would happen if you actually tried to attack the substance.

Cool ... I need to come back more often.

I am highly offended by the false accusations in post >83. My factories haven't turned out cottages since at least the early 1990's. Bungalow's? Yes. A Cabana here and there? Well, yes, I have a family to feed. But cottages? No. Those industrial facilities were disbanded pursuant to U.N. Resolution 2,294A and the seals on the raw material storage--cute little window shingles, bales of thatch for roof construction, etc.--have not been breached.

Which brings up the other false accusation. My thatch man (not straw man--water reed, sedge, rushes and heather were used alongside the straw for the torso and parts of the head) did not become an "enemy". We simply had a disagreement, that's all. I wanted him to found a new and superior race of creatures that would rule the world--with me, naturally, as their king--and he preferred to just sit around the barn doing nothing much. But our parting was amicable, and he is now employed by enevada to scare away all non-reactionaries from her vast network of environmentally unfriendly cornfields.

So, on the contrary, oldwomanintheshoe, you are in fact liable for ten more demerits. I shall officially put in a request to the Federal Government to give you same, simultaneous with filing an application to obtain my industrial operation's rightful share of the currently available financial bailout monies.

if you actually tried to attack the substance...

Attack the...?

ATTACK~!

I on the other hand surrender, without honor, because I want, nay, need America to lose to affirm my worldview.

Yes, let's get to some substance.

OldWoman is a troll, but an interesting one, and thus I hope he/she does not go away. What makes him/her interesting is the mixture of literal ignorance and sophisticated, although familiar, ideas. (By the way, there is nothing wrong with being a troll, but it should be done well: OldWoman has obviously read none of the "conservative classics", has read nothing by modern conservatives, knows nothing about the modern conservative movement, and does not even know the cast of characters in this Group: even from where I live I heard the gales of laughter, from liberal and conservative readers alike, when he/she picked out Enevada as a "hater". ENevada, for God's sake!)

My first, tentative guess is that OldWoman is a young undergraduate who has just taken an introductory political science course and is excited -- we all remember this feeling -- by the wonderful new ideas. Locke, Rousseau, induction, deduction. On the other hand, there are also indicators that OldWoman is an adult.

Anyway, it doesn't matter.

Some advice, OldWoman: stick around, but go back and spend a few days reading the older threads. If you really want to get involved in interesting arguments with people on the Right, you have found the Right place. But you'll need to do us the courtesy of arguing against what we really believe. (And you will find that we disagree among ourselves on many things.)

If you're looking for some knuckle-dragging religious fundamentalists or ultra-nationalist flag-wavers, you've come to the wrong place. They exist, but not here.

And think about the following:

Orwell was not attacking "the Right" in 1984. When he wrote that book, "the Right" was discredited and in retreat everywhere. He was attacking "the Left," or, more particularly, the Stalinist Left (he himself being a rather eccentric patriotic English socialist). Of course the Left doesn't like this, and has always to pretend otherwise, although Animal Farm is obviously the Soviet Union, and the world of 1984 is one of totalitarian regimes -- which could only have come to power via revolutionary means. But paper will take anything written on it, as Stalin noted.

As for "the Left" using induction, and being pragmatic ... there are indeed people on the Left who proceed in this way, as they see it. And there are many who don't. And the same goes for the Right. But it is extremely difficult to avoid having one's values and interests and particular history, determine one's facts. In fact, I would say that being able to see the world as it is, not influenced by personal biases of various sorts, is a desirable goal, but one which can only be approached, not achieved.

(And of course we can have an endless argument about the best way to characterize the political world ... Right, conservative, reactionary, neo-con, paleo-con .... liberal, progressive, far Left, socialist, social democrat .... worth while arguing and discussing, and not to be resolved.)

If anyone is still reading this, here is my own appreciation of Left vs Right:

A few hundred years ago, we began to experience a profound social change in Europe, which can be simplified and summarized as: the growth of new social classes, neither lord nor peasant, as a new way of getting our collective living grew up.

These classes were not satisfied with the old arrangement of things, which had suited the lord-and-peasant world. They wanted a share of political power.

Power never yields without a fight, and so we saw a couple of centuries of fights. In fact, they continue to this day, as the new arrangements pioneered by Europeans began to catch on around the world (driven by the same social changes which appeared first in Europe).

Slowly the consensus of Europeans (including those Europeans abroad) moved toward the idea of government by the consent of the governed, government (monarchical or otherwise) limited by a constitution, and a wide (increasingly wide over time) franchise.

At the same time, the spread of democracy, if we can agree to call it that, raised a new problem: the preservation of private property. The middle classes who were happy enough to challenge the feudal/landlord order were not happy with the idea that the newly-enfranchised poor might vote for an equal division of property.

The modern division between Left and Right stems from this tension: the Right is those people whose main attitude toward the democratization of society has been cautious, even negative, because they fear that turning state power over to the unlettered masses may result in disaster. (Not that a socialist or anarchist democracy would emerge, but that the old order would be replaced by one far more tyranical -- Louis replaced by Napoleon, Nicholas by Stalin.) The conservatives were those whose idea of the new society is "ordered liberty". The radicals were those whose idea of the new society was "equality". And there necessarily is a tension between these two concepts.

The tension between the thrust for the expansion of the franchise, and the desire to maintain a stable social order where private property is protected, has been negotiated, with spectacular failures in some countries, and qualified successes in others. (When a country's leadership can pull it off successfully, in a relatively short time, as the American Founding Fathers did, we then have difficulty in placing them within the Right vs Left spectrum. This is why both liberals and conservatives can, in good conscience, find their political ancestors among our conservative revolutionary Founders.)

Today, people on the Left are those who are not worried by this problem. They see the fears and concerns of the Right as groundless, and probably motivated by the desire to hold on to their power and privileges. They see little of value in the old order, and are happy to see the power of the state expand, to promote the goal of equality of condition. They believe that the "negative liberty" championed by the Right is meaningless without "positive liberty," the actual ability to enjoy these liberties, and this must be accomplished by state-directed redistribution of wealth. Needless to say, the Left tend to have a sunny and optimistic view of human nature, and see human failings as the result of an unjust social order.

The Right tends to react to the advances of the Left, and operates at a permanent disadvantage, since it cannot really claim the mantle of progress and modernity without doubts and hesitations and qualifications, nor does it have a vision of a Brave New World in which the human condition will be radically improved.

Now this is a huge simplification, and if someone wants to challenge my grossly over-simplified description of the last few centuries, and/or point out the issues I have not even mentioned, they are more than welcome to do so. Needless to say, there are plenty of people who are political, but who do not fall neatly into either the camps of the Left or the Right. And someone who was on the Left fifty years ago, but whose world outlook has not substantially changed since then, would probably be considered on the Right today. (One of the few political groups in the UK of which I am a member is named after a prominent American Democrat, Henry Jackson. But I doubt many liberals who read these posts would want to join me in that association.)

Message edited by its author, Nov 13, 2008, 5:03pm.

102>

...attack the substance...

Is that something like hitting the bottle?

>106

It sounds as though you are suggesting that "Scoop" Jackson was once considered a liberal. I would question that point, as his aggressive military and pro-Israel stances made him controversial within the Democratic party. He did support some environmental issues, but overall Jackson was considerably to the right of where Joe Lieberman stands today, as well as to the right of many mainstream Republicans in the Pacific Northwest during Jackson's time. Somewhat irrelevant to his position on the left-right continuum was his reputation for pork - on the level of Ted Stevens today, but without the allegations of corruption.

Okay, let me go back just a few years and point to Hubert Humphrey, a hard-line anti-Communist and simultaneously champion of almost any liberal cause you care to name -- really, a social-democrat rather than a liberal -- , who also supported the war in Vietnam, as an example of someone who was undoubtedly a representative liberal of his time, but whom liberals would loathe today.

The New Left, from which today's liberal intellectual pacesetters come, defined itself in opposition to the American liberalism of their time, which they called "corporate liberalism," and set as their goal "participatory democracy," the sort of democracy enjoyed by the populations of Cuba, North Vietnam, North Korea, and China.

This wasn't the only change liberalism underwent: the emergence of "identity politics" and the cult of victimhood was also important, although this too was symptomatic of a profound alienation from their own society.

Now I know that you will not agree with this.

But perhaps we can agree on my main point: political movements do not remain fixed in their typical beliefs, but change as the world changes. This also applies to conservatism.

Oregon's remarks on Henry Jackson got me interested in him, since I know little about his domestic record. So I looked up his Wikipedia entry (which is here for anyone else who is interested).

I cannot see anything there, other than his illiberal attitude towards Japanese internment during WWII (shared by most Democrats and Republicans, I believe), which would distinguish him from other liberals.

Yes, he was for a strong national defense, and more outspoken on this than the norm, and this made him increasingly not at home in the post-Vietnam Democratic Party. But was he conservative in anything else? Social welfare spending? Civil rights? Trade union concerns? If he was, I would be grateful for having this pointed out.

Also: I should have acknowledged that "liberal" and "Democrat" are not identical categories, and have never been so -- there was an even greater disjunction in the past.

If we believe that life begins at conception, then we must stringently fight the prevalent concept that it ends at birth.

"Participatory democracy" is a bad thing? I'd like to see how you went from "participatory democracy" to Cuba et al.

I don't know whether or not "participatory democracy" is a bad thing or not, because I do not know what it is. How might it differ from the actual democracy within which we live, where anyone is free to participate as much, or as little, as he chooses?

In fact, for the muddle-heads of the New Left, it didn't mean much of anything in particular, except perhaps as a coy synonym for "socialism" (the way liberals now disguise themselves as "progressives"), or as an expression of leftist discontent with the actual behavior of real people, who, as a rule, do not share the leftist enthusiasm for taking part in endless meetings and protests.

The New Left opposed the actual democracy in which they lived, because its inhabitants stubbornly refused to give them political power.

It was they, not me, who went from "participatory democracy" to Cuba et. al., where they found societies more to their liking: not because these societies bore any resemblance whatsoever to democracy, but because their counterparts were in power there.

The infatuation with romantic Third World guerillas seeking to set up totalitarian utopias was near-universal among young leftists at that time -- not only did it sustain an on-going business in iconic Che t-shirts, but it infected even nice, staid pacifists and peaceniks, such as the American Friends Service Committee, who became apologists for Vietnamese Communist repression.

Even highly intelligent people, like Noam Chomsky, became "useful idiots" who could be given rose-tinted glasses to wear and taken on a guided tour around gulag-Utopia and be counted on to write nice things about it. This is a well-known exercise, first practiced on Lincoln Steffans eighty years ago.

The people behind the current wave of "anti-imperialist struggle", the head-hackers and acid-throwers and homosexual-hangers, are a bit harder for leftists to idealize. So they confine their work to undermining the struggle against radical Islam, which has the advantage of relieving them from putting forward any alternative, even one as vague and meaningless as "participatory democracy", to the actual democracy they hate.

(Edited to change "expect" to "except" ... suffering as I do from the lure of dyslexia.)

Message edited by its author, Nov 18, 2008, 9:20am.

If I had a nickel for every time Doug trotted out Noam Chomsky...oh, excuse me, back to the conversation:

"Participatory democracy" isn't just a bit of New Left jargon or bad faith or whatever. It is a hard thing to pin down exactly, because it means different things to different people in different countries. (Like "grassroots".) In the Polish context, some people use the term in English when speaking of the rise of Solidarnosc. Now that ought to warm everybody's cockles.

I do admit to employing Noam Chomsky a lot. And I know that most of you reading this have never heard of this obscure academic, known only by afficionadoes of linguistic theory and anarcho-syndicalism like Krolik and me.

In this case, I used him as an example of the useful idiot type who is taken on a tour of a totalitarian state, where dissent, even suspected dissent, from the Party Line by the inhabitants means very bad things happen to you, and who reports back that it looks pretty good to him, all things considered, with a happy, dedicated population keen to pursue the Just Struggle Against US Imperialism, etc etc.

I chose Chomsky -- instead of, say, Jane Fonda -- because you expect this sort of thing from sweet old Quakers, the ladies of the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, and similar chowder-heads, not to mention the little Stalins of the New Left.

But Chomsky is, or so his supporters tell us, a very asture social critic, able to see through the lies and evasions of the official propaganda apparatuses of the ruling powers. So his passing grade for the North Vietnamese regime proves something.

I don't recall Solidarnosc being called an example of participatory democracy, but I didn't follow it closely. In any case, I am glad its CIA subsidy did the job. God bless Ronald Reagan.

There is plenty of room to argue about how to both widen and deepen participation in our imperfect democracy, as well as to help it flourish where it now only has a feeble toe-hold -- please don't put me down as an enemy of the democratic system, which I think is the best thing for humanity since the discovery of how to smelt iron. But the New Left were the enemies of democracy, not its friends.

The organization which assembled the most serious members of the New Left, SDS, had several tens of thousands of members at its peak.

At its final convention, the delegates tore the organization apart (and good riddance!), each faction choosing some brand of Stalinism as their preferred New Order. They pursued this nightmare for a few years, before going into academia and journalism and education, from which they now look back with nostalgia at their youthful years. Such committment, such idealism!

There are plenty of things wrong with the world as it is, and I can hardly condemn any young person who thinks that the Left, broadly speaking, is where the solutions are to be found. But there is a democratic Left tradition as well as a totalitarian one, and it is simply an unpleasant fact that the New Left of the sixties chose the latter.

Message edited by its author, Nov 18, 2008, 9:21am.

I do admit to employing Noam Chomsky a lot. And I know that most of you reading this have never heard of this obscure academic...

I rather suspect that most people who would bother posting to a political group would have heard of him. He's one of the most-cited writers in the world.

I tend to think of Chomsky more as a gadfly than an academic. Casual observation (i.e., not really paying much attention to him) would suggest that he prefers the accolades of the fringe over the musty halls of academe. Faint praise to suggest that he reminds me of Nader's smarter brother.

As for the "useful idiot" thing, there are enough of those on both sides to go around (eh, Sean?).

There are very few "useful idiots" on the Right who are mirror images of that type on the Left.

We have many varieties of idiot, and even more unpleasant creatures, but the sort of head-in-the-clouds apologist for unpleasant rightwing regimes is pretty rare.

Our apologists for unpleasant regimes, rather, are quite blatant and unapologetic about it. They are usually believes in raison d'etat, or indifferent to, or skeptics about, the chances of decent societies evolving in Third World countries.

For instance, you will have to look long and hard to find rightwingers coming back from a tour of Pinochet's Chile in the 70s, or Guatemala in the 80s, with stories of how happy everyone is and how remarkable it is that everyone supports the government, or maybe not so remarkable because of the amazing social progress that is being made, etc etc.

Rather, they either maintained a discreet silence about the carnage, or they justified it as necessary to fight communism. Awful, maybe, but naive they weren't. It might have been better, morally, had they been naive, but that's another question.

Chomsky is actually a highly intelligent man, and is possessed of a certain very real integrity. Although he has been taken in several times by the totalitarians, he has generally been quite good in adding his name to protests and appeals on behalf of their victims. He's no Bill Ayers.

But he is so convinced that he is totally correct, that his self-critical facilities have atrophied. I don't think he is capable of saying, "Yes, I got that one wrong." Perhaps it is a result of being surrounded by adulating young people for decades on end.

And he is so convinced that his political opponents to his Right (which includes most liberal Democratic political leaders) are simply motivated by unalloyed evil, that he does not extend to them the simple considerations that you expect in political argument, of trying to summarize his opponents' words fairly.

The analogy that comes to mind is of a post-war judge at the trial of an SS officer: details of this or that crime -- whether the man was actually present at every mass execution he is accused of being at, for example -- would probably not seem so important in the face of such monstrous criminality.

George Lakoff, who has crossed swords with him on non-political issues (aspects of linguistic theory), said "He's a genius, and he fights dirty." I think that sums it up.

My side has plenty of people who fight dirty, but, alas, no one of comparable genius.

So, Doug, I see you are at it again...taking the small group in which you actively participated in the 60s, and attributing their opinions, beliefs, and actions to everyone on the left.

118: That's just incorrect to say he's "not really an academic". Chomsky spearheaded the revolution in linguistics about 45 years ago. Whatever you want to say about the guys political views, he earned his stripes.

121
I'm not trying to take that away from him (note that I never said he was "not really an academic", and I am in proud possession of his On Language, which is on my ever-growing TBR pile).

My reference is to his more recent work on 9/11, etc., which seems to go a bit overboard. Apologies to any Chomskyites I might have offended.

119
As far as "useful idiots" on the right, Chuck Hagel seems to have had enough of Limbaugh and his ilk:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/200...

Message edited by its author, Nov 19, 2008, 1:27am.

"Useful idiot" is a term of art. It doesn't mean just anyone who is useful to one side or the other, and also an idiot. If that was all it meant, it could indeed apply to a number of people on the Right, although their usefulness has actually been to the Left, since they repel sensible and/or fair-minded people.

An interesting discussion of the origins of this phrase can be found in Wikipedia, here. For what it's worth, I am absolutely certain that Lenin never said or wrote this phrase, nor did he write the document attributed to him in Wikipedia, which is clearly forged by an anti-Communist with no empathic understanding of how Communists actually think.

Oregon: My little sect actually had rather esoteric beliefs. I was describing the mind set of several tens of thousands of young activists, easily documented. And their basic attitude has not changed significantly, as one can see reading the thousands of signatures on petitions from academics supporting Bill Ayers, or lauding the ravings of the would-be Stalin who heads the Revolutionary Communist Party, or the enormous popularity among academics and those influenced by them of Noam Chomsky (who regularly wins "most influential intellectual" polls), or the hundreds of schools and universities which assign Howard Zinn's American history textbook to their pupils.

All this oppositional feeling does not have the same focus it did prior to WWII, when radicals could join the Communist Party and look forward to a revolution based on the American working class.

That prospect was outdated even by the 1960s. And the New Left had contempt for white workers, seeing them as mired in racism, so that left the question of "agency" somewhat up in the air: many New Leftists had a vague idea that Blacks and other racial minorities, aided by the victorious revolutionaries in the Third World, would bring down Amerikkka. This didn't happen either.

Now they can't even bring themselves to embrace socialism any more, given its evident failure wherever it was tried. But this generation is still quite important in the Academy, where it exercises a lot of moral authority over those liberals whose official views are not so radical, but who agree, in some sense, with the aims of the radicals: a society which is Fair and Equal, where People's Needs are put before Property and Profit (and where intellectuals, rather than grubby businessmen, run things.)

Message edited by its author, Nov 19, 2008, 6:21am.

Yes, Bob Avakian is a VERY dangerous person. (Now, how many people know who he is?)

#80: This one is for Codyed, from today’s WSJ:

“SHANGHAI -- The heavy metal band Guns N' Roses is roiling China's music scene. But sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll aren't the issue.

The trouble is the name of the group's latest album: "Chinese Democracy."”

Link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12272824...