Never mind that “a lot of people are still mentally living in that country [my emphasis] . . . their children are not,” says Frum: the jobs and opportunities just aren’t there for them anymore like they once were for their parents and grandparents. (Thus, in addition to the immigration/demographic factor, we have a generation gap to ponder about in order to help us account for the gradual shift in both the composition and voting patterns of the American public, come 2012.) Also never mind that the grand ole’ party of yore has become hijacked since by the “corporate-boardroom” types. At least the conversation is on! And it’s not a conversation between liberals because the liberals have just won and are still smarting from their victory: having just been given the stamp of approval, they have no reason to question their self-assured ways. Nor is it a conversation between liberals and conservatives, unless by “conversation” you mean the kind of gridlock we’ve all been exposed to by our do-nothing Congress for four years now and counting on virtually every aspect of policy, foreign or domestic. No, it’s a conversation between thoughtful conservatives, rare as they may be, for only they, not the liberals, have the right kind of motivation to recover from their loss, to search their hearts and souls, to reflect and to evaluate. And who knows, each of us may end up the wiser for the fact.
If “pro-life” and “pro-choice” form a set of seemingly irreconcilable positions on the abortion question, what fundamental issue splits the American public along the liberal-conservative divide? Again, taking the lead from David Frum, one could say it’s the belief in the new and the old America, but we can do better than that. Indeed, once we consider the steady demographic shift due to both the influx from immigration and differential birthrates between whites and non-whites, and its presumed impact on Mr. Obama’s re-election victory, a more precise formulation suggests itself, a formulation which brings the desired contrast into sharper focus: in the final analysis, it’s the belief in the utter dependency (on the largesse of the liberal government) on the one hand, and the belief in complete self-sufficiency on the other.
And so, here we are. While the Republican hierarchy perpetuates the myth of the American Dream among its rank and file, a myth that, in light of all the available evidence, should long since be discarded, the Democratic establishment is no less guilty for implying that if we are at a disadvantage in any way, we can’t do without the government’s help. Needless to say, these two positions, as stated, are not only mutually exclusive: though both contain a kernel of truth, they’re also utterly cynical and ideological to the core.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Cindy
I have finished page 3, Roger. I like where that page has ended, very astute point. I will return again to finish tomorrow.
2 - Cindy
Roger,
I think you need to write where people are capable of comprehending what you write.
3 - Dr Dreadful
Or where he can be persuaded not to repel half his potential audience by insulting them before he even starts.
4 - roger nowosielski
I didn't realize I was being so dense, Cindy. You got through page 3, so where is the difficulty now? Anyways, I'll call tomorrow.
5 - roger nowosielski
zing never comments on my stuff anyway. I thought given him a push and shove might do the trick. But there is no reason for you to feel slighted.
6 - Cindy
He wouldn't be insulting anyone who even half understood what he is saying. Alas, I think that isn't possible. Perhaps there is a conspiracy regarding cultural indoctrination!
7 - Cindy
No difficulty or criticism for/by me, Roger. I am speaking to the lack of commentary on an obviously astute article.
8 - Cindy
He necessarily repels his audience because they are blind.
9 - Cindy
They might wish to investigate that point. Instead of expecting to be fed their pablum.
10 - roger nowosielski
I have a different take on this, Cindy, at least different than Dreadful's. The way I see it, none are willing to admit the emperor is naked.
11 - Cindy
Which, in my own experience they are, no matter what the fuck you ask of them. They will not question their own beliefs.
12 - Cindy
None are capable, Roger. You do yourself a disservice in thinking them unwilling. They have never even tried.
13 - roger nowosielski
No, they're not incapable. Denial takes an effort, a conscious effort.
14 - Cindy
Most of my comments were directed to Dr. Dreadful. (Just for clarity.)
15 - Cindy
Roger,
I need to discuss two very important teachers of mine and why I think you are wrong. Call me.
In other words, "denial", as you call it, is only a denial of what someone else believes, and is ordinary. In fact, everything "normal" is ordinary.
If I might say, and you can quote me--"we made it all the fuck up."
16 - roger nowosielski
Planned to call you on Thanksgiving day anyway, rain or shine.
17 - Cindy
When you think about it you realize that we--the normal society are no less a cult than say, Scientology. So, what makes THIS cult (culture) more legitimate than that one? Not much--a legitimating governmental body.
The followers of any cult are necessarily brainwashed into that cult's thinking. No matter how loose the boundaries of that thinking.
Okay, that is my basic argument. Call me tomorrow.
18 - roger nowosielski
Will do.
19 - Dr Dreadful
They will not question their own beliefs.
And what do you think "their" beliefs are?
20 - roger nowosielski
Don't fall for that trap, Cindy, Dreadful is taking things out of context. The correct reference is a set of beliefs implied by the subject article, and if I'm not mistaken, that's what you were referring to. If perchance he happens to disagree that these beliefs are a fair approximation of a typical liberal mindset, he is yet to voice his disagreement.
The onus is on him.
21 - Dr Dreadful
Whether the onus is on him or not, he feels the above exchange illustrates quite neatly why no-one else feels inclined to join the two of you in your echo chamber.
22 - roger nowosielski
Of course, not. You'd rather be beating up on "easy targets" like Arch Conservative or Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor) rather than engage in a conversation in which your own presuppositions stand a chance of being challenged.
And echo chamber or no echo chamber, neither Cindy nor I have given you a cause to feel insulted, so perhaps you ought to get off your high horse.
23 - Zingzing
Roger, speaking of context, perhaps you'd like to think about why I said the phrase you highlight as so egregious. I follow comments more than articles usually, which is how i got here, so that explains why I'm okay not being an ob/gyn on that unnecessary pap thread (how many ob/gyns are on that thread?), so maybe I spelled it out better during that multi-thread conversation elsewhere, but there's a reason behind it. It's not just blindly battering the opposition, and I'd love to see if you even have a clue. (and if you seriously want to bash someone for taking things out of context as you just did doc, I suggest you do it under another, more fanciful name, because you've sullied the one you're using now with that shitstick.)
Cindy--did you notice how Roger used his supposed belief that I was female (which he's known not to be true for years, but he keeps on bringing up periodically) as a not-so-veiled insult? Every time I comment on women's issues and he's around, he does this kind of thing. I have no idea why. Maybe he's not as left as he thinks he is, or whatever you said.
Have a nice holiday.
24 - Christopher Rose
Surely the silver lining is the very fact that the Republicans lost?
If they had won, the USA would be facing a very bleak and bitter future...
25 - Dr Dreadful
You'd rather be beating up on "easy targets" like Arch Conservative or Warren Beatty (not the liberal actor)
Archie, misguided though he may be, is more than capable of holding his own in any argument. Warren is... well... a bit special. And if you think I confine my targets to those whose arguments can be easily demolished, then you haven't been paying much attention. (How is your navel these days, BTW?)
rather than engage in a conversation in which your own presuppositions stand a chance of being challenged.
I ask you, this time, what you think those presuppositions are.
neither Cindy nor I have given you a cause to feel insulted
I didn't say that I, personally, felt insulted. But there is some accusatory dialogue involving dark-coloured items commonly found in the kitchen on your part.
Cindy's #18 epitomises this nicely: The followers of any cult are necessarily brainwashed into that cult's thinking. No matter how loose the boundaries of that thinking.
In other words, no matter what anyone says who doesn't happen to toe the line of Roger and Cindy's little clique, no matter how much variability their utterances may have from anyone else's, they can automatically be dismissed as brainwashed.
Now what does that pattern of behaviour remind me of? Oh, yes... a cult.