2012 May 22 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2009/10/20/leftists-demonize-critics/
0
0
  |   32 comments

The left continues to demonize critics on a scale seldom seen before. Not only has the White House declared war on an entire news channel – Fox News – but leftist commentator, news channels, newspapers and magazine do their best to convince the public that all opposition is “unpatriotic” as well.

Reason compiled a handy list of prime examples of Democrats calling Republicans and critical Independents “unpatriotic,” “unAmerican” and what not:

Bill Press, syndicated columnist and former CNN host: “There’s only one thing left: to rename the party for what it really stands for. It’s no longer the Republican Party; it’s the Hate America Party.”

Eugene Robinson, Washington Post columnist: “Why, oh why, do conservatives hate America so?…As Republican leaders — except RNC Chairman Michael Steele — are beginning to realize, “I’m With the Taliban Against America” is not likely to be a winning slogan.”

CNN Headline News host Joy Behar: Guest Richard Belzer: “We see, you know, they`re cheering when we don`t get the Olympics and – and demeaning the Nobel Prize…Joy Behar: Right, which is so un-American.

MSNBC’s host Ed Schultz: “This attack on President Obama trying to get the Olympics is about the most un-American thing I think I’ve ever seen.”

Radio host Cynthia Hardy on MSNBC’s Hardball: “So [with the case of Rep. Joe Wilson] what you get is this blatant disregard for the office of the presidency, which is extremely un-American.”

MSNBC’s host Ed Schultz: “Rush must have been popping a few too many pills that particular day. Turning a hopeful message about the resiliency of Americans into a partisan attack. That’s un-American ‘Psycho Talk,’ which is par for the course.”

Blogger Steve Clemons, appearing on MSNBC: “Jesse Helms of North Carolina was chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for many years. And many of these folks that have come into their own today, particularly in the Bush administration, were essentially tutored by Helms to bring, you know, somewhat of a ‘Fortress America’ attitude to the comments, which are, I think, quite unpatriotic.”

CNN Headline News host Joy Behar: “Now why don`t you figure that this is a little unpatriotic for [Palin] to go to Hong Kong and badmouth the president of the United States? At the very least it’s disrespectful.”

Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter, appearing on MSNBC: “But they’re trying to delegitimize him in any way they can, be as disrespectful, not just to him but to the office as they can. And to my mind, to be actually, what I would call unpatriotic in their approach.”

MSNBC host Keith Olbermann: “How are Democrats, anything but at best — I`ll use this combination — irresponsible at worst, unpatriotic for giving that party more say than utterly necessary than what they have already in many amendments of this bill in health care reform.”

At this moment, Obama critics aren’t the attacks serious. They’re laughing at them, shrugging them off. “Look at how deep leftists have fallen,” is the reaction – and that’s that.

Sadly, I think they are making a tragic mistake by refusing to lower themselves to the same level of leftists. There is a reason these people continue to call Obama-critics “unAmerican,” “anti-American” and “unpatriotic”: they realize that these attacks have effect. Perhaps not now, but certainly in the long run.

If you repeat the same line of attack time and again, you get inside people’s heads. Sooner or later, the right will be considered unAmerican – even by those who initially disapproved of this line of attack.

The only way to deal with these kinds of insults is by hurling them right back at them.

  1. Posted by Jeb
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #104112
    Jeb Honestly Michael, how short is your memory? Is everything more than two years old lost to you?
  2. Patrick Glenn Jeb, do you agree with any of the above comments (verbiage and/or tone) from Behar, Alter, Schultz, et al? I'm trying to sort out just where your equivalency argument is headed . . . Option #1: You think most/all of these types of comments impugning the patriotism of presidential critics are appropriate and fair game. You imply that similar types of comments were made by persons of a competing political/ideological persuasion, especially prior to two years ago. To be consistent, then, those past comments from the other side would also be appropriate and fair game; otherwise, that would suggest that it's okay for one side to make such comments but not the other side. I'm sure you don't mean that, though. At the same time, it would be kinda pointless and irrelevant to make the old argument of "the other side does it, too" if you think "it" is kosher. Option #2: You think most/all of the above comments were inappropriate and not fair game and therefore they were also inappropriate and not fair game when coming from the other side in the past. I expect this is what you meant, but wanted to clarify before proceeding with the discussion.
  3. Posted by Jeb
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #104117
    Jeb Patrick, I agree that the comments referenced above are outside the bounds of civil and constructive debate, though they are not atypical in modern American politics. It is Michael's assertion that 1) this is somehow new and 2) that it is the exclusive or even primarily the province of the left that I find ridiculous. My early opposition to the war in Iraq had me frequently painted as unpatriotic and un-American. This was all to typical in the early years of the Iraq war. If you remember it also lead to boycotts, the renaming of food, and all manner of other foolishness. Going back further look at the vitriolic commentary and conspiracy theories surrounding the Clintons (did you know they killed Vince Foster and tied two teenagers to train tracks ala Snidely Whiplash). One doesn't even have to go back that far, simply go to any right wing demonstration and you are likely to see pictures of Obama with a Hitler mustache. It is commonplace, particularly in the blogosphere and talk radio, to see/hear references to 'leftists' as fascists, communists, and baby-killers. I am not pretending that there are not analogues on the left*, but to attempt to paint the right as milquetoast while the left rages vitriolic (or vice versa) requires monumental partisan blinders. When he says,
    At this moment, Obama critics aren’t the attacks serious. They’re laughing at them, shrugging them off. “Look at how deep leftists have fallen,” is the reaction – and that’s that.
    it makes me wonder if he thinks about anything other than scoring partisan advantage before he writes. Does he even read the comments on his own site? Does he read the other posts on the sites he contributes to? I particularly find MvgD's call to the right to be more vitriolic to be distasteful and not at all in keeping with the 'moderate perspectives' that this site advertises itself as representing. He seem of late to have abandoned the moderate perspective in favor of the hyper-partisan perspective. * We could trade anecdotes all day.
  4. Pingback | Link #104119
    “Are You Challenging My Patriotism!” « The IUSB Vision Weblog [...] and blogging partner at Poligazette Michael van der Galien has a very good post  titled “Leftists Demonize Critics” which is certainlty worth taking the time to [...]
  5. Michael Merritt I disagree with all the statements, but eh, I'll give some soft criticism on the first one. Not because I think it's right, but because mere months ago the Republican Party tried (and failed) to change its references to the Democrats as the "Democratic Socialist Party." Trading barbs on the "name" of a political party or segment of the political spectrum happens with shocking regularity. That said, trading barbs of "they're unpatriotic" is also pretty common, and even if the Democrats do it more, it's all classic Alinsky. Oh, and Olby appears to be referring to his own party. Cause, you know, they're not being liberal enough to him.
  6. Patrick Glenn Jeb, thanks for the clarification. I suspect that we're dealing with at least 7 points/areas of argument and that you would agree with Michael (and me) on at least 3 them: Agreement #1. Jeb wrote, "I agree that the comments referenced above are outside the bounds of civil and constructive debate, though they are not atypical in modern American politics." And, likewise, I agree with you that pundits, politicians, others on the right have made similar comments that were also outside the bounds of civil and constructive debate, and that such comments are not atypical in modern American politics/discourse. Agreement #2. I also expect that you'd agree with me that calling someone "unpatriotic" is NOT NECESSARILY out of bounds because it is possible for an American to be unpatriotic (we could also extend this analysis to other questions of what is or isn't properly "out of bounds," but since the examples above mainly deal with patiotism, I'll focus on that for now). For example, we'd probably agree that the Rosenbergs were unpatriotic. Whereas, we'd probably also agree on many cases in which someone accused other person(s) of being unpatriotic in a manner that was unfair, reckless, irresponsible - therefore out of bounds. We need to call people on it, even if they are supposed to be "on our side," etc. Agreement #3. Based on likely agreement in items 1 & 2 above, it follows that you would also agree that Michael provided valid evidence for his first-order argument that segments of the left are in fact demonizing critics. Where we would disagree, I suspect, is . . . Disagreement #1. How to hash out the gray areas between what should/could properly be regarded as "unpatriotic." For example, I would regard Noam Chomsky and his hard-core accolytes as having espoused unpatriotic ideas, interpretations of history, etc. I don't see any problem with people having good faith disagreements about Chomskyism, for example, and I don't think it's out of bounds to say (and think) Chomskyism veers into being unpatriotic. Obviously, if you read any of my posts, I have no qualms about making very pointed attacks on ideas/movements with which I disagree (and think are dangerous, cause more harm than good, etc.), but I try not to impugn the good intentions of perceived adversaries (with a few exceptions). Again, the point is to avoid unfair, reckless attacks - as much as possible, attack the ideas/movements, not people's reputations - unless they really deserve it. A certain amount of nastiness and divisiveness goes with the territory of living in a free, pluralistic democratic society, but there should be a Marquess of Queensbury rules for political combat, and when someone steps out of line, they get smacked down by all sides, not just their opponents. As you admitted, most/all the comments cited by Michael (above) were out of bounds - but let's agree to call out such cases of sloppy maliciousness without lumping together every past and current accusation into a single undifferentiated pile. Disagreemnt #2. Whether the "scale [was] seldom seen before"? Disagreement #3. Whether the right has hitherto been above such behavior? Disagreement #4. How representative of the left is the above quotes/behavior? The other "intramural" question that Michael was entertaining was whether the right should stoop to the same level as the left, but that discussion presupposes more agreement on the above points than we probably have.
  7. Posted by Jeb
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #104153
    Jeb Patrick, Re: disagreement #1 First we should agree on a definition of patriotism. I would suggest Websters
    befitting or characteristic of a patriot
    with patriot defined as,
    one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests
    giving us
    befitting or characteristic of one who loves his country and supports its authority and interests
    as opposed to nationalism
    loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially : a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups
    and jingoism
    extreme chauvinism or nationalism marked especially by a belligerent foreign policy
    I have read only a limited amount of Chomsky and think that he overstates his case in his political arguments. He is certainly no nationalist, but I don't think I would go so far as to say he is unpatriotic (ie He does not love America and support its authority and interests). I can agree with most of what you wrote re disagreement #1. Re: disagreement #2 Are you and I really in disagreement that what we are seeing now is of a scale seldom seen before? The Lincoln Douglas debates are often held up in the US as the height of civility. Have you read any of the transcripts? Re: disagreement #3 Do you really think that the right has hitherto been above such behavior? If so, how do you explain the examples I laid out above? If need be I can supply you with plenty of examples of prominent Republicans saying things every bit as vitriolic as the comments above. I suspect we could keep the thread alive for days or even weeks trading anecdotes. Re: disagreement #4 Do you really think that the comments above are more representative of the Left than the vitriolic comments of the Right are of the Right? If so, what do you base this on?
    The other “intramural” question that Michael was entertaining was whether the right should stoop to the same level as the left
    As I see it no further stooping is required. We would all be better served if both sides ceased stooping. That unfortunately will not happen because 'stooping', despite most people saying they are turned off by it, is brutally effective. Both sides claim that they cannot unilaterally disarm and so try to lay the blame on the other side.
  8. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #104158
    Jay_C @Jeb Agreed, But we should be careful not the leave out "internationalism" as well here, I'm not saying anyone here has made that jump, but taken at face value, it can wash out the whole idea of Patriotism. I feel our stance on internationism should be, to remain a neutral player in the international political game. we should avoid conflicts and explicit alliances with other nations, although economic ties with other nations should be promoted to encourage trade and commerce, political ties should be minimal. So I guess to boil it down, I would say, patriotism versus nationalism *and* internationalism.
  9. Patrick Glenn On disagreements 2 - 4, I think we're mostly talking about questions of degrees. Re: disagreement #2 Yes, in comparison to the run-up to the Civil War, our current cultural/political divisiveness is like a Victorian tea luncheon. We've also experienced other eras that were nastier than it is now. But, since I've been following politics, the level is above what I've seen before. In addition to the reasons usually cited for this increased divisiveness, nastiness, etc., I think it's also because we are at a very important fork in the road in terms of what we expect from the state - the proper role, limits, size of government in 21st century American society. Re: disagreement #3 No, I do not think the right has hitherto been above such behavior, especially if we consider certain mercenary "conservative" Republican operatives and politicians as genuine representatives of the right. Furthermore, the left often disowns and/or assigns anyone who espouses any random hate speech/idea as therefore being ipso facto a "right winger" - i.e. hate = right wing. That's willful, malicious igonrance, but unfortunately this tactic has been brutally effective, too. If we set aside all the riff-raff arguments (and elements), then, yes, I think the right has been better behaved than the left over the last 5+ decades. One idea: let's compare apples to apples, say take all the left-wing think-tankers and all the right-wing think-tankers and then score them on civility, decorum, etc. My money is on the right-wingers. As for past individual cases, we'd probably disagree about marginal cases from both sides (again, the gray areas). For example, I belive that many 21st century American progressives promote some (or many) ideological, policy, and action/activist positions that could be described as corporatist in nature. But if I call them "corporatists," they're likely to get upset with me. Very few people would embrace that label, so they will come back with the Wiki definition of corporatism, which I think is a conveniently narrow and circular defition. Most progressives would rather be described as something like social democrats (which is reasonable). But others will announce that they're free-market capitalists (to disguise their agendas), but say "it's just that we need to fix certain market failures," and they find market failures lurking around every corner; and, by the way, they're in favor of single-payer health care (socialized medicine). Hey, it's their prerogatives to call themselves what they want, but it's my prerogative to not go along with their false advertising. That said, I try to point to specific things they say or promote as EXAMPLES of corporatism (or socialism) rather than labelling the person outright. Re: disagreement #4 Jeb asked, "Do you really think that the comments above are more representative of the Left than the vitriolic comments of the Right are of the Right? If so, what do you base this on?" Yes, I do, but only to a certain degree - I should try not to exaggerate the difference. Conversely, you probably see it the other way, but you should also try not to exaggerate how you see the difference. I base my perspectives mostly on life experiences - what I have seen, read, heard, felt. I was a moderate-progressive for years before I became a classical liberal. As for the intramural disagreement, you hit the nail on the head. But I also think that the brutal effectiveness provides mostly short-term gains - although those who favor a more active/interventionary/nanny-esque state (e.g., progressives) have the advantage in that short-term "statist" policy gains are hard to unravel and therefore become mid-to-long term gains largely through sheer inertia, whereas it's just the opposite for those who favor a less active state (btw, while we're making an effort at full disclosure, I agree with Jonah Goldberg, as well as comments you made in a previous thread, that - when it comes to the size and proper role of the state - we're mostly talking about degrees and priorities, within margins that are not as wide as we sometimes make them out to be; nevertheless, I feel that the margin is wide enough and we've slid quite a ways in the wrong direction).
  10. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #104160
    Doomed The left destroyed the GOP with over the top Rhetoric and lies and distortions repeated 1 trillion times till the lies become the truth. They are even repeated today with little or no contesting of the validity of the lies that have replaced the truth. In short now that the democrats/Left is in control they beg....beseech....plead for a RETURN to Civility...... PUHLEASE!.....reap what you sew. I see it everywhere. I dont know how many times I have been called personally a biggoted, poor hating, unpatriotic, redneck who wants grandma to die rather then give her health care when I debate POLICY. My debate is HOW are we going to pay for this? HOW....the answer is...You hate the poor and you want grandma to die and your a redneck, and how can you call yourself a christian when you want the poor and grandma to die and you hate your country. No... I said HOW are you going to pay for this health care...... Answer.....You unpatriotic, lying troll who dares to come here and spout Republican talking points when all you really care about is tax cuts. No I asked HOW are we going to pay for this health care reform bill.. Answer...no one takes you seriously because you come here spouting Republican talking points and you hate.......... On and on it goes.....Alinskization taken to its extreme. But the left demands a return to civility. What that means is as Barak Obama personally said........SHUT UP and dont do a lot of talking. Thats their idea of a return to civility.
  11. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #104161
    Jay_C Sorry, I should have said, patriotism versus nationalism, internationalism, transnationalism and cosmopolitanism
  12. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #104163
    Jay_C @Doomed I also agree with you Doomed, that does seeem to be the trend from the media, who seem to be doing the current administation's bidding.
  13. Patrick Glenn Also, I agree with Jeb and Jay_C that it is helpful to define differences between patriotism, nationalism, internationalism, transnationalism, etc. But then we'd also want to provide sub-definitions for the different versions/strains of nationalism. It is not necessarily bad to be a nationalist - depends on what kind of nationalism you mean. Similarly, I can think of some very worrisome notions of internationalism, but the term can also refer to things that most of us would agree are positive. In defense of the right, leftist-dominated academia plays a powerful role in defining (and "coloring") terms like patriotism, nationalism, corporatism, etc. As such, the word nationalism has tended to take on quite negative connotations, while the term patriotism has taken on anything-goes connotations. The left has dominated much of the recent annotative discourse. The right must have the steadfastness and wherewithal to fight against those devices (and the typical counterattacks) without being sloppy, reckless, or malicious about it.
  14. Patrick Glenn And, yes, Doomed has a point, too. I would hope that there's a way to engage liberals/progressives like Jeb - who argue in good faith - on the ideas, fight fire with fire as necessary and when and where appropriate, yet still remain responsible and disciplined in the process (i.e., not reckless and malicious).
  15. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #104166
    Jay_C Exactly Patrick, this is a multi-faceted issue, that requires fighting fire with those that use fire (by lambasting and decrying those that use fire initially) Then getting serious and "peeling the onions" of the "isms" above, talk about them in the open, honestly debate what we *can* agree honestly fits under the framework of our specific Constitutional Republic, and they what *should* exist under that same Constitutional Republic. These processes should be out there in the sunlight for all American Citizens to see, debate. But until this happens, we need to take those to task that use the methods that Doomed has mentioned above (on both the right and the left).
  16. Posted by Jeb
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #104174
    Jeb Patrick, Re D2 I don't think that we are more politically divided now than we were 15 years ago or any point in between. The primary difference as I see it is technology. We are now much more able to see our differences and gather ourselves into echo chambers regardless of how far out of the mainstream our ideas might be. Prior to the internet age we did not see this near so much and the wackaloons that got fired up about every conspiracy theory were not heard because they were separated. The internet has given every fringe a place to gather and shout whatever nonsense they like. On the whole it has been a good thing, but it comes with a price. Re D3
    especially if we consider certain mercenary “conservative” Republican operatives and politicians as genuine representatives of the right.
    If we extend that courtesy to one side it must also be extended to the other. If Rush is out so is Olberman, if RedState is out so is KOS, etc.
    For example, I belive that many 21st century American progressives promote some (or many) ideological, policy, and action/activist positions that could be described as corporatist in nature.
    I would assume from this that you see that vast majority of the developed world (most are social democracies of one stripe or another) as corporatist. Is that a proper assumption?
    But others will announce that they’re free-market capitalists (to disguise their agendas)
    I don't think that anyone with a basic understanding of economics is a pure free-market capitalist. A pure free market comes with an array of negative externalities that I think all of us would abhor (slavery to name one). What I think most people mean when they self identify as a free market capitalist is that they prefer more free market type solutions to most problems and I think that most people that self identify as such believe it regardless of what the 'objective truth' of the situation may be. Regardless I think that most would agree that the best way forward is a mixed economy that has some elements of the free market along with social and governmental controls. We often disagree about where the ball should be but the vast majority of us place it somewhere between the 40yd lines. (That is the middle 20% for you Europeans) Re D4 Our perceptions are certainly colored by our ideologies and we are more likely to see fault in those we disagree with than those with whom we agree. This is of course exacerbated when the vitriol is aimed at us. I notice more vitriol coming from the right than I do from the left, but recognize that to some extent I have partisan blinders on and so am not comfortable making a definitive proclamation that the right is more vitriolic than the left, but YMMV.
    But I also think that the brutal effectiveness provides mostly short-term gains
    If it were truly one sided that may be true, but I have my doubts. After all in politics what is the long term other than multiple short term events? Couple that with our very human proclivity to place the present foremost and view the past quite selectively through that prism and you have a recipe for continued mud slinging. As for who that advantages, I think that very much depends on the issue. How many tax cuts are proposed with sunset clauses that are never intended to sunset*? * At the very least, not to sunset without delivering substantial political damage. Doomed, Did you read 'Chicken Little' all the way to the end? The sky wasn't really falling, Y2K wasn't all that it was made out to be, the Republican party is at a low ebb but is far from destroyed, America will continue to prosper whichever health care reform package is passed, etc, etc, etc. Lighten up.
    What that means is as Barak Obama personally said……..SHUT UP and dont do a lot of talking.
    cite.
  17. Patrick Glenn Jeb, for the most part, I agree with your analogy that most of us are arguing about where the ball should be placed within the 40 yard lines - allowing for all the usual caveats about the real world being much more complicated than that, etc. - it's a useful way to look at it. Some days, I might see it as a battle between the 30 yard lines, but I wouldn't quibble over yard lines. And, no, I do not advocate a pure free-market system (I'm not a libertarian). But I do think we've spent most of the last 75+ years on your side of the 50 yard line and I'm not too worried about the ball moving too far in the other direction. I expect you see it the other way, but as you ackowledged, that's a matter of perspective. However, even if we accept the parameters of playing between the 40 (or 30) yard lines, and we accept that we have different perspectives that will color our perceptions, I would still be concerned about the following four items: 1. The 40 yard lines keep getting redefined. 2. Our society/economy have played the last 75+ years on the wrong side of the 50 yard line (however it was defined at different junctures), which has had serious negative consequences that are usually underappreciated by large segments of the population. 3. That the gravity on your side of the 50 yard line is powerful and dangerous - it's only a matter of time before the 40 yard line becomes a goal line stand. I don't mean overnight. These things take decades or centuries, and we are still a relatively virgin republic. To use a bad anachronism, I believe that our Framers designed our Constitution and framework of government with the knowledge that when a society spends too long on the wrong side of the 50 yard line, tyranny will follow. 4. We can no longer afford to play on the wrong side of the 50 yard line (shout out to Doomed) as we have especially 1945 - present. During the Cold War era, we did what we had to do, but that system of corporatism-light is no longer sustainable. That's partly why I think political/cultural divisions are widening, although I agree with you that the new media forms exacerbate the effects. Most people don't like making big changes and the stakes are quite high. The progressives think we need to make certain kinds of big changes, but so do many self-identified conservatives and classical liberals as well as tea party folks, etc., (just different changes) and this contributes to the heightened divisiveness.
  18. Posted by Jeb
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #104200
    Jeb
    1. The 40 yard lines keep getting redefined.
    Definitely true on social issues, much less so on economic issues and foreign policy. I think that the movement on social issues over that ~60 years has been mostly to the good. That is particularly true if you happen to be female, homosexual, or a minority. There is considerably lower likelihood that a black man will be lynched for looking at a white woman wrong for instance, it is no longer legally acceptable for a husband to force himself on his wife in most if not all states, etc.
    2. Our society/economy have played the last 75+ years on the wrong side of the 50 yard line (however it was defined at different junctures), which has had serious negative consequences that are usually underappreciated by large segments of the population.
    I would agree, but I suspect for quite different reasons.
    3. That the gravity on your side of the 50 yard line is powerful and dangerous –
    Again, I would agree, but I suspect for quite different reasons.
    4. We can no longer afford to play on the wrong side of the 50 yard line
    and once again...
  19. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #104212
    Doomed Social issues we are just outside the GOP red zone. Fiscal issues the GOP punted 16 times after a safety by Reagan and Bush and the Democrats used a punt return to the GOP's goal line. The score is GOP 0, Democrats 32 and they are fixing to score again. Foreign policy. The GOP fumbled on the Dems 20 yard line and they are on the Democrats 30 yard line and they have the ball and are driving toward midfield. In short, government ebbs and flows. Democrats are winning the social battle hands down. Fiscal issues. The Gop gave up a safety 16 times (Reagan, Bush) and punted to the Democrats 16 times. In Short the GOP SUCKS, when it comes to fiscal sanity. The problem is the democrats fumble the ball every snap. Gop drove deep into the democrats territory only to fumble the ball on the 20 yard line with Foreign policy....Obama's managed to drive the ball out to the dems 30 and we are waiting on a Instant replay challenge to see if Obama stepped out of bounds with the Begging China for money syndrome.
  20. Posted by Jeb
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #104216
    Jeb Doomed, Just curious, where do you place the 50 on social issues? What legislation would need to be reversed to put us back on the 50?
  21. Patrick Glenn Jeb, I forgot to respond to your earlier question: "I would assume from this that you see that vast majority of the developed world (most are social democracies of one stripe or another) as corporatist. Is that a proper assumption?" That's a difficult, complex question - one I would like to explore more deeply in the future. It would be an interesting topic to delve into in a future thread, although it'd probably veer into very theoretical territory that might not appeal to some people. For now, I'll give a (sort of) short answer. Depends on how we define corporatism. To begin with, we're usually not talking about anything like totalitarian corporatism (e.g., Nazism or hard-line facsism), although approximations of such forms still exist today in rare cases, but not in advanced economies. The permutations between social democracy and more benign forms of neo-corporatism can get tricky, but I do think it's useful to sort them out - I'm just not going to try to do that here because it's a big task. Instead, let's very briefly consider how different strands of the more benign versions of neo-corporatism have entered the U.S. versus European systems. One of the dominant definitions would suggest that such currents would be stronger in Europe. That definition assumes that neo-corporatist arrangements are only possible in societies in which labor is highly organized and various labor unions are hierarchically organized in a single labor federation. On the other hand, other "benign" strands of corporatism or neo-corporatism - for example, corporate liberalism, crony (democratic) corporatism, and the military industrial complex - would probably be stronger in the U.S. than Europe. Many aspects of corporatism that are found in U.S. society, politics, economy probably happened largely by accident. Almost no one in postwar American society has explicitly, consciously advocated on behalf of corporatism/neo-corporatism (although some/many were either candid or closet socialists); however, the political struggles and compromises in the U.S. two party system have tended to generate results that have taken on corporatist aspects. Moreover, the U.S. has shouldered a disproportionate share of the burden in protecting free nations, international markets, international security, etc. Thus, the corporatist aspects were generated partly by necessity (e.g., Cold War), but they were also a drag on prosperity, racial progress, self-improvement, etc. I believe very strongly in American exceptionalism. The American people have succeeded in spite of negative drags (like corporatism), but it comes at a cost, albeit a partially necessary cost. Even the more purist classical liberals understand that we all have to make certain compromises in a dangerous and chaotic world, but we would have strong disagreements with progressives about where/how to compromise and to what degrees, etc. Steven Malanga wrote a really good treatment of this subject back in April: http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2009/04/obama_and_the_reawakening_of_c.html. Three key paragraphs are excerpted below. "As chilling as these authoritarian versions of corporatism sound today, in the 1930s they found admirers in the U.S., where the ravages of the Great Depression provoked public longing for a safer, more thoroughly planned economy without as much resistance and debate from recalcitrant business leaders or opposition party members who opposed the New Deal. Even today one occasionally hears a longing for a benign version of this elaborately planned economic world in phrases like 'getting the trains running on time,' [Thomas Friedman?] or in a recent column in the New York Times which suggested that Hitler’s wartime buildup amounted to a successful government stimulus in Depression-era Germany." "Today, some American conservatives will argue that we never put aside the corporatism of the U.S. during the New Deal. They can point to any number of initiatives, from Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society to Richard Nixon’s wage and price controls, as evidence of continued drift. Progressives, by contrast, will argue that America has been governed over that same time by a corporatist regime of big business conspiring with government against the middle and lower classes so that only the rich benefit." "The facts belie both versions. If corporations have been running our economy for their own purposes, or in tandem with big government, they haven’t been doing an awfully good job of protecting their interests, considering how quickly U.S. firms rise and fall and how the Fortune 500 turns over. And if only the rich are getting richer someone needs to tell Bill Gates, a kid from a middle class background with no college degree, or Warren Buffett, who grew up working in his grandfather’s grocery store, that they need to return the billions they’ve somehow acquired to the Rockefellers, the Astors, the Vanderbilts and other once-rich families whose fortunes have long been in decline."
  22. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #104223
    Doomed Just curious, where do you place the 50 on social issues? What legislation would need to be reversed to put us back on the 50? @Jeb Social Issues that in my opinion need to be rebalanced is the revisionist history being taught in schools. This one aspect of our society is teaching our children from Kindergarten onward that goes against the grain of Conservative teachings in the homes. Give me this one thing and I will rebalance the political parties and make them return to the 50 yard line.
  23. Posted by Jeb
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #104225
    Jeb
    Social Issues that in my opinion need to be rebalanced is the revisionist history being taught in schools.
    Could you be more specific? What revisionist history currently in our history classrooms needs to be re-revised?
  24. Posted by Jay_C
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #104231
    Jay_C @Patrick Glenn Thanks Patrick... "I believe very strongly in American exceptionalism. The American people have succeeded in spite of negative drags (like corporatism), but it comes at a cost, albeit a partially necessary cost. Even the more purist classical liberals understand that we all have to make certain compromises in a dangerous and chaotic world, but we would have strong disagreements with progressives about where/how to compromise and to what degrees, etc." "And if only the rich are getting richer someone needs to tell Bill Gates, a kid from a middle class background with no college degree, or Warren Buffett, who grew up working in his grandfather’s grocery store, that they need to return the billions they’ve somehow acquired to the Rockefellers, the Astors, the Vanderbilts and other once-rich families whose fortunes have long been in decline.”" Great!
  25. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #104249
    Doomed Could you be more specific? What revisionist history currently in our history classrooms needs to be re-revised? @Jeb. Its actually very difficult to be specific Jeb when every text book being thrown at you is replete with revisionist history that paints the USA in a bad light. It is akin to the movie 300 when they look up and the sky is black with arrows. Your asking me to point out a specific arrow in a sea of arrows. You are asking the impossible. But just one example of the text book that was accepted for the 9th grade civics class portrayed George W. Bush as a war mongering, Neocon...exact wording....used in the context of SOME SAY THAT additionally evidence was tainted and handpicked to make a case for war...etc..etc......While in the same chapter the Code Pink group and Cindy Sheehan were painted in the same chapter as true American patriots who stood up for their country in a time of great strife and turmoil. There was no SOME SAY or SOME DISAGREED......Michael Moore is discussed at great lengths while Rush Limbaugh is painted a racist, divisive figure. This is just one text book. A recent survey of the graduating 12th graders in my town revealed that 19 percent knew why the Vietnam war started. 7 percent knew why the Korean war started. In addition of those polled only 3 percent could actually point to Vietnam and Korea on a map. Only 47 percent could name the first president of the United States and asked why the Civil War started 26 percent didnt know what the question was asking.
  26. Posted by Jeb
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #104255
    Jeb
    But just one example of the text book that was accepted for the 9th grade civics class
    cite? (for both the text and the school where it was accepted for use)
    A recent survey...
    Not particularly surprising, though I doubt the results would be much better with 30 year olds or 50 year olds. These polls have been coming out periodically since I can remember, at least since I was in High School in the 80s, and the results have always been abysmal.
  27. Posted by Jeb
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #104256
    Jeb Doomed, BTW I am still waiting for the Obama 'shut up" cite. I have a feeling that I will be waiting quite a while on both counts.
  28. Posted by Jeb
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #104330
    Jeb Doomed, I am still waiting on those cites. I am beginning to think that they don't exist.
  29. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #104335
    Doomed Jeb sed......BTW I am still waiting for the Obama ’shut up” cite. Not even sure what your talking about. But then sometimes Jeb your attempts at being a moderate overload your far left leanings and you cant help but start the Alinsky process on those you disagree with. Waiting for cities. Sorry my friend....Im not telling anyone on the internet what City I live in. As for the text book there are actually many on a watch list that BOTH sides of the ISLE have a very large problem with....BOTH democrats and Republicans. Both Conservatives and Liberals. American Passages. The JROTC has some problems being taught that America was founded as a Christian Nation. Texas passed legislation that Newt Gingrich must be taught as a history figure. Revisionism is all thru our school districts. If you don't want to believe that then you simply don't spend any time looking at anything that challenges YOUR OWN BELIEFS.
  30. Posted by Jeb
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #104340
    Jeb
    Jeb sed……BTW I am still waiting for the Obama ’shut up” cite. Not even sure what your talking about.
    Your previous comment (#10) where you said
    What that means is as Barak Obama personally said……..SHUT UP and dont do a lot of talking.
    I asked for a cite and you have yet to provide it, perhaps because it doesn't exist.
    Waiting for cities. Sorry my friend….Im not telling anyone on the internet what City I live in.
    Since when does citing a text book require you giving up any information about where you live? You had not previously mentioned that the alleged school was local to you so divulging that information would not have ID'd you. This looks like more evasion. Is this evasion because the book/event in question do not exist?
    The JROTC has some problems being taught that America was founded as a Christian Nation.
    Perhaps because it was not.
    Texas passed legislation that Newt Gingrich must be taught as a history figure.
    If history classes actually make it into the mid-90s now he should be included in any treatment of American politics.
    Revisionism is all thru our school districts.
    That depends on the definition of revisionism you are using. Historical revisionism as I understand the term is not in and of itself a bad thing.
    historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event.
    Read history texts from the 50s and tell me they are not in need of revising.
  31. Posted by Doomed
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #104342
    Doomed What that means is as Barak Obama personally said……..SHUT UP and dont do a lot of talking. I guess you mean this one. Which is what I was referring too. http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dont-want-the-folks-who-created-the-mess-to-do-a-lot-of-talking/
  32. Posted by Interested
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #104555
    Interested
    historical revisionism is the reinterpretation of orthodox views on evidence, motivations, and decision-making processes surrounding a historical event.
    Read history texts from the 50s and tell me they are not in need of revising.
    Do you know what the definition of History is Jeb?