Today on Blogcritics
Home » The Consequence Of A Barack Obama Presidency

The Consequence Of A Barack Obama Presidency

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Even just five years ago, it probably seemed very unlikely that a black person would ever become President of the United States. But in a landslide victory over Arizona Senator John McCain, Barack Obama has been elected the nation's 44th President.

In relative terms, two years feels ancient; yet that's the time it took president-elect Obama to climb the political ladder to become the first black presidential candidate and now, the first black Commander-in-Chief.

Was it a miracle? It depends on whom you ask and how you want them to answer.

Obama rode the backs of thousands of volunteers and millions of donors eager to see change in a country that had enough. In the process, he made promises and shattered expectations (both good and bad).

But looking back, what was the 2008 Presidential Election really about?

Were people simply fed up with George W. Bush? They had their shot in 2004, but I guess John Kerry wasn't a favorable alternative.

Barack ObamaWere people sick of the Republican Party? Well, this is obvious, given Obama's victory coupled with the Democratic seat gains in the both the House of Representatives and Senate. But then that brings us back to the primary battle between Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton.

Wasn't all the negative sentiment toward a combination of President Bush and the GOP enough for Democrats to rally against one candidate? Why did it take so long? The truth is, that race was extremely close and revealed many of the lingering questions people had about what kind of direction they wanted the country to have. Chiefly, people had an idea that only one person fit the bill, and they were willing to fight (given that the primary was finally decided at the wire).

Surprisingly, that political enthusiasm extended far into the presidential race, which probably came down to character. Of the Obama supporters I know, there wasn't really bad blood between them and McCain. I guess people really believed Obama might be "the one" instead of "that one."

And this becomes the probable consequence of an Obama presidency: complacency.

So many people put so much effort into getting him elected, that it might have clouded what they wanted out of a Barack Hussein Obama White House. There has been much celebrating of Obama's being the nation's first black president, but was it so much getting him elected or getting a black person elected that will make this a landmark election?

There will be lots of talk about Democrats achieving a House majority and enlarging their existing Senate majority, but now what? The country has tons of problems that still need to be addressed, and a Democrat-ruled Washington shouldn't seriously be counted on alleviating any legislation backlog, now that a few Republicans are no longer at the party.

I guess what I'm really trying to get across is the near certainty that this election was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see true democracy at its best and worst. The amount of civic pride many people showed in getting eligible voters excited about participating can't be overstated.

True, there were many bumps and bruises, but through the conflict and confrontation, I think there were scores of healthy discussions about the way the country is and the way the country should be. People didn't feel excluded; they felt a part of it. People also got sick of it, which makes some very eager to move on.

There definitely will be a post-election hangover and Obama being sworn in as President come January will reignite his supporters and hopefully even some Republicans as well, but I fear first-time voters popped their cherry with no true likelihood of chronic balloting. I also fear those new legislators will find their constituents having already accepted that change has come and will continue regardless of their further involvement.

Complacency will destroy change and its message. November 4, 2008 shouldn't just be a date that signaled to the country that change has come, nor should it be a date that gave Obama a free pass to change as he saw fit.

Americans should constantly and continually challenge the political establishment they have just shaken up. Obama is merely at the top of it now.

Powered by

About Tan The Man

A proud dork and loser, Tan The Man writes mostly about film and music, and has previously covered the Outside Lands Music and Arts Festival, South By Southwest and WonderCon.
  • Arch Conservative

    “Americans should constantly and continually challenge the political establishment they have just shaken up.”

    Tan in what way does electing a representative of one of the two major parties that has been cornholing us for years constitute challenging and shaking up the political system?

    It doesn’t. A real shakeup would have been Bob Barr, Chuck Baldwin or Ralph Nader.

    We got the same pile of dung in a pretty new package last night.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Don’t you feel relieved, Arch. Now we don’t have to defend Bush or McCain anymore. We can settle in and become true revolutionaries again, as the GOP has always been when at its best.

    Dave

  • Ruvy

    I fear the consequences of this gentleman being elected president in the States go far beyond whether Americans will become complacent or not.

    There is always the issue of whether he will be allowed to assume office, something which seems automatic now, but which may not be. Then, assuming he does assume office, there are the problems that an American government under his leadership will be expected to solve.

    Demonstrations are great highs. I went to enough of them to know. Today, those who bought the Obama bottle of snake oil and drank deeply are feeling wonderful. But the highs of demonstrations do not solve systemic crises in the American economy, or deal with the serious mess that the Bush administration has left around the world. And believe me, the mess is bad.

    These essential issues will require an article (or two) to look at, and writing in an internet cafe as I am right now, that is something I cannot do immediately.

    But, since I, my neighbors, and my fellow countrymen will be affected directly by this election, even though we live a third of a world away, trust that I’ll have something to say.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    I gotta agree with you. That’s the beauty of the First Amendment – the right to argue till we’re blue in the face, to shout from the rooftops, to gleefully point out the hypocrisy of those we oppose and decry the injustices committed by those in power.

    Like it or not, we need the Republicans…just as you need us. We need you to keep us honest…and hopefully, when the wheel turns and the Republicans are once more in power, we can do a better job keeping you honest than we did for the past eight years.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Sad commentary, Glenn. The truth is that renegade republicans did more to hold Bush accountable than most Democrats did, and when Democrats did object they picked the wrong issues and did more harm than good.

    It’s time for the positive elements of the GOP to shed the deadwood and move on.

    Dave

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    Sheesh! Try to be nice, try to reach across the aisle, and what does it get me?

    Okay, WHAT, exactly, did ‘renegade Republicans’ do to hold Bush accountable? I know what DID happen to those Republican appointees who tried to speak up – they were made examples of in order to keep the rest in line.

    IMO the greatest failure was on the part of the press, on their failure to show the same courage that Murrow had in the McCarthy era which had so many parallels to the Bush 43 era.

  • Arch Conservative

    Dave in case you haven’t noticed I haven’t felt compelled to defend Bush, McCain or any other GOP player in a long time.

    I voted for Chuck Baldwin. If Obama turns out to be another Carter and the GOP runs someone halfway decent in 2012 I will probably vote for the GOP candidate but if both parties continue to pursue their own partisan interests for the next four years at the expense of the public I will most likely vote third party again.

    Glenn why do you want to keep walking down the aisle when it smells like shit on both sides of the aisle? Do you honestly think that Obama is going to solve everyone’s problems as his minions have said he will?

  • bliffle

    Can we trade Archie away and get Moon back?

    They’re both partisan and exclamatory, but Moon is a much better writer.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Actually Archie is taking a one month holiday.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Arch –

    Obama’s not a panacea – none of us ever thought he was.

    But he can restore America’s image in the world, just as Reagan did a generation before – but to an even greater extent.

    Just look at the reaction of people all across the world, how they are reacting to Obama’s election. “America’s back!” “Bigger than the moon landing!” “The first truly global president!”

    These aren’t my words – I’m just too lazy to track down the page right now, got it off brietbart.com – these are from those who will look once more to America for leadership.

    Yes, you et al are bitter. We were bitter in 2004, but the wheel turned and now it’s your turn. But can you at least for now try to follow McCain’s advice to support President-elect Obama?

  • Lee Richards

    Dave says the GOP must shed the deadwood and move on, and he is entirely correct.

    The reason they haven’t until now is that they were seduced by that ‘deadwood’ which was part of a coalition that helped them win big.

    The GOP won’t be winning much any time soon unless they can find ways to win over African-Americans, women, Latinos, and young voters.

    That means getting over the anger, bitterness, divisiveness and self-righteousness they have fed on since Roe v. Wade. No more Falwells, Robertsons, Limbaughs, Dobsons or Coulters as anti-cultural heroes and avatars, no more McCarthy-like guilt by association attacks, no more demonizing moderates or those to the left of Reagan.

    Republicans at their best are fiscal conservatives and liberal thinkers, wanting always to limit government control over and interference with individual freedoms and rights. They are Americans first, and stand with all other Americans against any who would divide us.

    The recent GOP has been a far cry from those principles, veering out of control to the gutter on the right. If that far-right fringe–deadwood–continues to set the GOP agenda and choose its candidates, the Party is usually going to be on the losing side of the demographics come election time.

    And deservedly so.

  • Zedd

    Dave

    “We can settle in and become true revolutionaries again”

    When in your voting lifetime did that happen. If you are talking about Reagan, he started this mess.

  • Clavos

    If you are talking about Reagan, he started this mess.

    Read Glenn’s #10 on that point.

  • Cannonshop

    “Shaken” what establishment, exactly??

    This election Re-Affirmed the Establishment by placing one of its favoured sons in the white-house. It reaffirmed that with enough money, and the support of the establishment media, a son of the Chicago Political Machine can be turned into the “Popular” choice.

    Advertising, party loyalty…all reaffirmed.

  • bliffle

    Grasping at straws, Cannon?

    That’s a pretty convoluted excuse for a backhanded slap at Obama.

    Is this going to be the basis of the new rightist slanders of Obama? That he’s from Chicago?

    The ghost of Joe McCarthy stalks the land.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Y’know, check out the newest Newsweek –

    It turns out Sarah Palin not only did not know what countries were involved in NAFTA, but also did not know all the countries in North America…and also did not know that Africa was a CONTINENT rather than a single country, as can be seen on the clip of O’Reilly talking to the Faux News Chief Political Correspondent.

    Yeah, Arch – your boys REALLY know how to vet someone to have their fingers on the nuclear button….

  • Clavos

    Pssst, Glenn:

    You won. It’s over.

    Get to work and start planning how you’ll fix things come January; you don’t have to demonize Sarah Palin, anymore, y’all did a great job of that during the campaign.

    Y’all have the reins now. Get the fuck to work.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    This is going to be fun Clavos.

    For the whole time I’ve posted here either as a comenter or as a writer, the “liberals” or “leftists” have been tearing apart the Bush administration. Not that they didn’t deserve to be torn apart. They most assuredly did.

    But now the shoe will be on the other foot. Lisa Warren has arrived here just in time to discover what a bitch it can be to defend an incumbent. Same for Mark Schannon, who appears to have awakened just in time.

    Are there any other “liberals” around here? Oh, yeah, there’s Jet and Cindy.

    And me?

    Good old socialist Ruvy is going to have a good time watching as the US of A tries to dig itself out of the grave Bush has dug so deep for the lot of you….

    Oh, remember; it’s not a done deal for Obama until he stands up on 20 January, puts his hands on a Qur’an Bible and takes the oath of office. That’s when the fat lady sings and when you can light up your victory cigars. That’s over two months away, and two months ia a very long time in politics.

  • Les Slater

    “‘America’s back!’ ‘Bigger than the moon landing!’ ‘The first truly global president!'”

    I’ve been saying that the ruling class would prefer Hillary Clinton to Barak Obama since fairly early in the primaries because the expectations raised by Obama would be a problem. The New York Times goes into that a little with Obama Aides Tamp Down Expectations

  • Marcia Neil

    The University of Kentucky has apparently hosted a bid to legitimatize the use of effigies as dolls, post-dating a use of statuary to represent significant figures.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    The POINT of my post was not to ‘demonize’ Sarah Palin. The POINT was to show how close we came to having someone so ignorant – not stupid, but ignorant – in the White House.

    Clavos, if you do not learn the lessons of the failures of the past – even the past of last week – then you are doomed to repeat those failures in the future. It is CRUCIAL to analyze any major event after that event is done, so that one can learn the good and bad lessons therein.

    Bush was intellectually incurious, and so was McCain and especially Palin. The Republicans should LEARN from this and hold their candidates to a higher educational standard in the future.

    That said, PALIN for the Republicans IN ’12! I do so hope she’s your nominee….

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    Actually I think Palin did quite a good job of demonizing herself with little help.

    And I doubt that Cindy, Mark S, Jet and I are the only progressives posting here… If that were true, then this would be a sad site. Let’s see, I count Dawn and Heloise and Jordan –who may be foreign but provides true balance– and Baritone, and …(gee, I feel like I’m on Romper Room for those of you old enough to remember that) and several others who are far more “fair and balanced” than Dave and Clav for example or Ruvy who has an ax to grind re Obama and Israel… We shall see.

  • Clavos

    Actually I think Palin did quite a good job of demonizing herself with little help.

    But help she had, and to spare…

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Les –

    Again, those words were not mine. I was only posting what much of the rest of the world is feeling…and the opportunity Obama has to be a true world leader.

    And I agree wholeheartedly that the world’s expectations for Obama have been set almost impossibly high…

    …but we’ll see, won’t we? After all, ‘impossible’ is only such until proven otherwise….

  • Clavos

    It is CRUCIAL to analyze any major event after that event is done, so that one can learn the good and bad lessons therein.

    Thanks Prof! I love to be “taught” by “progressives.” (sounds SO much better than “liberal” doesn’t it?)

    The POINT was to show how close we came to having someone so ignorant – not stupid, but ignorant – in the White House.

    Oh, wow! Good one! Nobody ever caught that before!

    Where’s the “ANALYSIS” in your #16?

    Looks more like gratuitous, gleeful gloating to me.

    You made no new point, introduced no new idea.

    “Analysis?” “Lessons?”

    Horseshit, Glenn.

  • Les Slater

    Glenn,

    I knew those weren’t your words but are an example of the euphoria that has overcome many. It was a convenient intro to the NYT article.

    “…but we’ll see, won’t we? After all, ‘impossible’ is only such until proven otherwise….”

    Did you notice in the Times article the reference to the election of Clinton in 1992? Not only was that euphoria misplaced, but that administration accelerated the attacks on social services, democratic rights, doubled the number of cops and funded a huge increase in prison capacity and population. Bush just carried on from where Clinton left off.

    Bush deepened the attacks but not out of some meanness in him but as a necessary consequence of the deepening crisis of capitalism. That crisis will not abate with Obama becoming president. It will deepen and Obama will have to continue and deepen the attacks.

    Les

  • Clavos

    Let’s see, I count Dawn and Heloise and Jordan –who may be foreign but provides true balance– and Baritone, and …(gee, I feel like I’m on Romper Room for those of you old enough to remember that) and several others who are far more “fair and balanced” than Dave and Clav for example…

    Is it just a coincidence that all those on your “fair and balanced” list are liberals?

    Coincidence? I think not.

    From over on this side of the fence, you’re all just as partisan (if not more so) as any of the righties on here, especially Baritone and you.

    Cliché alert:

    “There are none so blind as those who will not see.”

  • http://booklinker.blogspot.com Deano

    *shrugs* “Fair & Balanced” is a relative notion, you won’t find any winners in that sort of argument.

    The current spate of childish back and forthing is a mixture of relieved, giddy excitement from the Obamites that comes across as a bit of unrepentant gloating in the eyes of the McCain supporters.

    My suggestion is that everybody take a few days off of this sh*t.

    I’m reminded of a quote from Betty Williams (won the Nobel Peace prize for her work in Northern Ireland) –

    “Every two or three hours, we ressurect the past, dust it off, and throw it in someone’s face.”

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    “Fair and balanced”

    That will always depend on who’s judging what’s fair and balanced. Perhaps some good indicators are the degree of one’s willingness to acknowledge when one is proven wrong, the objective realization of the degree of one’s ignorance, and the desire to continually improve one’s understanding.

    But I will say this: in my experience, the more a person insults, the more likely that person is to have an insecurity issue…and the less likely one is to meet the ‘fair and balanced’ requirements I listed above.

  • Baronius

    Clavos, she was listing progressives, not “fair and balanced” people.

    This is sort of a continuation of the “BC Rocks” thread. We have a healthy mix of left, middle, and right, and all the subgroups. I see that Lee is depicting this election as a failure of conservative values, like McCain represented those. He borrowed a few, despite his voting record. And while Democratic turnout was at record highs, Republican turnout was at record lows. McCain simply never won over his own party.

    To me, the defining moment in the campaign was when McCain returned to Washington to rally his party for the bailout. It’s impressive that the people judged the candidate based on who he is, which is really all you can hope for. But who McCain is is a guy who shows up, alienates half his party, misreads the politics of a situation, and votes for a massive government scheme. That was the turning point for McCain in the polls.

    Did McCain fail because he and Bush have been too pro-life, too anti-government, too articulate about international affairs? When McCain was against Guantanamo, against tax cuts, in favor of immigration and campaign finance reform and fetal stem cell research and regulations to prevent global warming, was he being too conservative?

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Lisa,

    “Progressives”? That’s what you guilt trip(p)ers are calling yourselves these days? Hey, at least Cindy and I are straight up. We call ourselves socialists. Les says he’s a communist. Whattsa matta? You can’t handle the word “liberal”?

    But let’s move on just a bit. Arguing over labels is really a waste of time. I honestly do not think there will be another presidential election (those are my religious ideas talking), but assuming that one is scheduled for 2012, believe me, Americans will be sick of the hypnotic rhetoric coming from the newest Nimrod who expects to enter the White House this coming January.

    Right now it sounds fresh and wonderful, but after a few months of mellifluous bullshit to keep the crowds quiet, it will begin to pall. Hypnotic words do not pay the bills of a bankrupt country, or provide solidity to an economy that is floating on thin air and about to fall down. Poor people cannot eat hypnotic words either.

    And in a few months, you guys will face a major international crisis if Obama does take office. It probably will come in the Middle East, and Obama will do what his immediate predecessor has done, kiss Arab ass. And Americans will not like it.

    At that point, all the rhetoric of “hope” and “change” will sound truly empty in the ears of people who today are celebrating. The new boss will look and sound almost like the old boss – well, he’ll sound a little smarter….

    And then I’m going to enjoy it as you try to defend President B. Hussein Obama.

  • Zedd

    Clavos,

    Reagan did not restore Americas image in the world. He started the double taking that has now become all out disgust for us. Sad that you don’t know that.

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Zedd –

    I’m a liberal, but I have to disagree with you. I know what the attitude of the military was like when Reagan first took office, and what it was like eight years later. The increase in morale, in professionalism, and particularly the end of the Cold War that colored everything we said and did in the military…these I credit to Reagan.

    He made a host of mistakes. In hindsight, other than winning the Cold War Reagan did very little that was right; but to the rest of the world Reagan represented America well. He DID restore our image and helped the nation as a whole regain some self-respect.

    Maybe you personally don’t see things that way, but I’m speaking of the nation as a whole, and that’s what I believe.

  • Cannonshop

    Glenn, this is one you aren’t going to convince her on-it’s like trying to explain the difference in morale between 1991 and 1996 to someone who not only doesn’t understand, but also doesn’t WANT to understand.

    Another way of putting it, is that some folks only see My Lai and Abu Ghraib, they don’t think about Fallujah or 73 Easting, the Whale’s Back, or the other places where Troops did it right.

    Explaining why Mogadishu was a God-damn BETRAYAL just goes over (or under) their detection apparatus, trying to explain why, once committed, soldiers SHOULD expect the full faith and support, even when the policy isn’t one they like, is just…futile.

    It’s a kind of “target fixation”, I think. Someone doesn’t like the CiC, doesn’t like the policy. That’s fine, but once the blood is on the ground, you finish what you started. the time to avoid war is before war starts, not in the middle with people on the ground.

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    Ruvy, I don’t consider myself a socialist; my views are too complex for that. I’m straight up, too, just not a socialist.

    As for responding with the list, that was for Ruvy to add to his small one, Clav. The only one I listed as fair and balanced was Jordan as I don’t know what his political affiliation is and he is not an American.

    Baronius is very right re turnout and McCain’s failure to excite and rally his party.

  • Zedd

    Glenn,

    You are talking about internal attitudes. We were seen as hawks externally. Reagan did a lot of line drawing in the sand. You forget the rest of the world is much more socialistic than we are. His paranoid attitudes against socialism, his quickness to demonize those whose ideas he didn’t agree with was not impressive to the more intellectual (comparatively speaking) public outside of our boarders. Reagan’s cowboy persona was perplexing and base.

    What you are talking about is what was marketed to the American public. You guys believed the hype and actually thought that the rest of the world thought we were amazing in every way. Reagan talked A LOT about how how great we were. It was propaganda. Everyone fell in love much like a school girl does to a smooth talking guy who gives her compliments all of the time. As an immigrant it was sad just how needy Americans were for compliments, pushing for you to tell them how great they were. America has always provided great potential. However, it is a place like any other place. You live day to day, doing hum drum stuff like every where else. Americans at that time especially, were so deluded about their grandeur. If you didn’t express deep gratitude for landing on this soil and share some horror story about your place of origin, people were almost ready to boil you. Arch is still a remnant of those old attitudes. The slogan was “America, love it or leave it”(?) NEEDY! Instead of fostering an environment where critisism and free thought was welcome, Reagan actually pushed for a bizzare commitment to patriotism, flags, The Gipper and baseball, deeming those who felt otherwise, unAmerican enemies of freedom. The draw to all things American was not boosted by Reagan. If you had credited it to our role in WWII or said Kennedy….

    The end of the cold war was significant off course but it was not taken to be a huge image boost for America (outside of America). Reagan was nationalistic.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Zedd,

    What you are talking about is what was marketed to the American public. You guys believed the hype and actually thought that the rest of the world thought we were amazing in every way. Reagan talked A LOT about how how great we were. It was propaganda. Everyone fell in love much like a school girl does to a smooth talking guy who gives her compliments all of the time.

    Americans haven’t changed over 25 years Zedd. A very similar thing as what you describe above just took place over the last couple of months in America with B. Hussein Obama. Count the adulatory and joyous articles in this magazine alone. Look at the admiring poster in this article, or the video in Matt Sussman’s article. Read the joy in Heloise’s article and the paean of praise in Lisa Warren’s. Now, as a “landed” immmigrant, you can not see what was so clear to you as a new immigrant; what is so clear to an ex-pat like me.

    Everyone fell in love much like a school girl does to a smooth talking guy who gives her compliments all of the time….As an immigrant it was sad just how needy Americans were for compliments, pushing for you to tell them how great they were.

  • Clavos

    Reagan talked A LOT about how how great we were.

    Sorta like the new guy…

    Everyone fell in love much like a school girl does to a smooth talking guy who gives her compliments all of the time.

    Sorta like the new guy…

    it was sad just how needy Americans were for compliments, pushing for you to tell them how great they were.

    Sorta like…well, you get the idea.

  • Clavos

    Sorry, Ruvy. Shoulda read yours before I posted mine, but once again we agree on a point.

  • Baronius

    I think that within the context of the 1970’s, Reagan was saying something new. We were told back then that the best we could hope for was peaceful coexistence with Communism, but were most likely facing a gradual defeat. We were looking at military loss and economic failure. Reagan said something different.

    If any analogy works, it’s that Obama sounds like Carter. He’s saying that we need to listen to those who are trying to kill us, that America should emulate the dinosaurs of Europe. Where’s the feel-good in that?

  • Zedd

    Baronius,

    Reagan was aware of the climate, where the Soviet Union was economically and like any politician took credit for the inevitable. While Reagan’s attitude may have encourage a sooner demise of the USSR, he didn’t cause it. Anyone who would come to that assessment would be reaching a naive conclusion.

    Clav,

    It’s clear you haven’t been listening to Obama.

  • Zedd

    Ruvy,

    The enormous glee is about the historical event more so than the man. You are usually much sharper. What’s going on today?

    Clav

    You seem a bit punch drunk too. What’s up?

  • Baronius

    Zedd, to be honest, I’m uncomfortable talking about Reagan with you. He did great things, and took the fight to nearly every corner of the globe – except to your country of origin. I can’t blame you for any ill impression you have of him. But he did take the fight most everywhere, at a time when the Soviet Union didn’t look weak at all. I remember the constant talk about Soviet missiles, the loss of US credibility after Vietnam, with the invasion of Afghanistan and the hostages in Iran. Seeing the Russians as weak is a distortion caused by hindsight. Reagan impoverished the Soviet Union; he made it collapse. That wasn’t going to happen under detante.

  • Les Slater

    Baronius,

    The U.S. lost the cold war. The demise of Stalinism is one prop for world capitalism that doesn’t exist, at least not in any credible or powerful form.

    This Stalinists sold out many revolutions. Some will claim they wouldn’t have succeeded anyway, but they ALWAYS did their best to sabotage any possibility.

    Not having a Communist Party in the U.S. supported by a state power will be one less handicap dragging us down as the working class in this country organizes to take the power away from the capitalists who are in a deepening crisis.

    The fall of the Soviet Union was a great thing. It works to the advantage the workers of the world.

    Les

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    The GOP won’t be winning much any time soon unless they can find ways to win over African-Americans, women, Latinos, and young voters.

    It was interesting while I was electioneering on election day to compare the local Texas GOP races with the national race. Only the Texas GOP was running black candidates for statewide office in Texas – and they won easily. The few black democrats were running for much smaller offices. And on the whole the GOP candidates were younger and more idealistic than the democrats. There’s a huge difference between the grassroots GOP and the establishment, and that establishment is going to have to go.

    If you’re a black politician in Texas and want to get ahead fast, be a Republican.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    “If you’re a black politician in Texas and want to get ahead fast, be a Republican.”

    Sounds quite noble.

  • Cindy D

    RE #16

    Glenn,

    That video on the O’Reilly show about Palin, holy freakin’ crap! The McCain campaign staff said horrible things about her. Throwing tantrums and papers, being nasty and aggressive, continued spending of money on clothes when they felt she had enough and 20k Todd’s wardrobe, blaming people when in fact she did things wrong–like she refused to prep for the Couric interview. They didn’t know what to make of it all. Out of character for someone in her position I imagine.

    Crazy woman. Whew. (scary to look back)

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Noble? It’s not ignoble. At worst, it’s pragmatic. If you think you have good ideas and want to be able to implement them, you have to get elected. There’s nothing in the basic philosophy of the GOP which is hostile to the interests of african americans.

    Dave

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    Not having a Communist Party in the U.S. supported by a state power will be one less handicap dragging us down as the working class in this country organizes to take the power away from the capitalists who are in a deepening crisis.

    Ever the believer, eh, Les?

    A study on left wing kibbutzim in the 1950’s concluded that communism was a religion. From the way you wrote that comment above, you proved the anthropologist’s point.

  • http://ruvysroost.blogspot.com Ruvy

    The enormous glee is about the historical event more so than the man. You are usually much sharper. What’s going on today?

    Maybe you forgot this, Zedd. The historical event that occasioned Reagan’s election was the alleged embrace of conservative ideology by the American public and the rejection of the liberal ideology that had appeared to predominate.

    It was called “morning in America”.

    Now, you Americans have rejected a “conservative” ideology and embraced a more liberal ideology whose standard bearer appears to be a black man.

    And one of our own writers calls it “morning in America” In both instances, the same smooth talk salving a nation that needed to be told it was still great was the “Dr. Good” that was sold – the elixir of hope and change.

    You can’t see that the same national character, with the same weaknesses made the same embrace. That’s because in 1980, you were an outsider. Now you are not.

    Sorry, O Zulu warrior princess. Even with my glasses on, I have very sharp vision of what has happened in America. Even seeing it from a third of a world away.

  • Les Slater

    “Ever the believer, eh, Les?”

    I examine my beliefs in the light of objective, historical, evidence.

    “A study on left wing kibbutzim in the 1950’s concluded that communism was a religion.”

    I am not clear on the semantics of that statement. Are you saying that a ‘study of left wing…’ who claimed they were communists, investigated by someone outside, rendered a verdict that they, in the group, were really religious? Or are you saying that that this group, who may, or may not, consider themselves communist, decided that communism, is in fact a religion?

    Neither way impresses me in the least. Who are the ones making the analysis? What are their qualifications?

    Why would anyone looking at anything objectively give any credence to such nonsense?

    And besides, anybody living on a kibbutzim in Israel, left wing or otherwise, could not be considered a communist. I presume living on a kibbutzim is a voluntary endeavor. Setting up camp within a colonial settler garrison state can in no way be compatible with communism.

    Any communist within any Moscow or Beijing led parties has long ago been expelled. It goes way back, long before the 50’s.

    Any ‘communist’ defending the right of Israel to exist would have to be a ‘national communist’, that’s essentially ‘national socialist’, and we know what that is, right?

  • Ruvy

    Les, I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings. I don’t remember the name of the book and sitting in an internet cafe, I don’t have the inclination to google it up for you, but google up “Spiro – kibbutz – mapam” and you’ll find the work I’m referring to. The kibbutz studied viewed the USSR as its role model and viewed the anthropolgist, Spiro, as an American imperialist. When they realized that he was not trying to smear them, they became somewhat less distant. It is my own opinion that in his assessment of the second generation of kibbutzniks, he sensed this distance from him and did not make adequate adjustment for his own reaction to it.

    The kibbutzniks viewed themselves a members of a cell devoted to world revolution, seeking to raise a generation of intellectuals who could work the land as well. The communist beliefs they espoused – NOT THE JUDAISM THEY BARELY PRACTISED – were viewed by Spiro as constituting the equivalent of a religion.

    Go look up the work yourself and see what I’m talking about.

  • Zedd

    Ruvy,

    You missed it.

    “Now, you Americans have rejected a “conservative” ideology and embraced a more liberal ideology whose standard bearer appears to be a black man.”

    The people that have listen to Obama like him because he says it’s not about left or right. It’s about solutions.

    Ruvy the problem in this situation is that you heard a few statements from YOUR President Elect (you are American) when he was running early on, and you lost all sensability. You got stuck after that and haven’t been able to think since. You haven’t kept up. You don’t know what Obamas ideas are. It’s obvious. Tell the truth and end the ranting.

  • Les Slater

    “The kibbutzniks viewed themselves a members of a cell devoted to world revolution, seeking to raise a generation of intellectuals who could work the land as well. The communist beliefs they espoused – NOT THE JUDAISM THEY BARELY PRACTISED – were viewed by Spiro as constituting the equivalent of a religion.”

    Just as I thought, you don’t have the slightest clue as to what a communist is. These are just misguided folksy idealists living on stolen property.

  • Cindy D

    RE: #32 Reagan

    Zedd,

    “He started the double taking [sic]…”

    Yes, including the myth of the Republican as fiscal conservative who reduces government.

    A huge spender who increased the size of government.

  • Baronius

    Cindy, Reagan set out to do three things: destroy Soviet communism, restore the economy, and reduce government. He succeeded at two of them. May we all accomplish 2/3 of our life goals, particularly ones on that grand a scale.

    I can’t fault him too much for failing to shrink government. The Republicans who came after him, them I can fault. You could draw a straight line from Bush Sr.’s lips to Bush Jr.’s bailout and see a decline in ideological conservatism, an increase in the federal budget, and a drop in the number of Republican officeholders.

  • Cindy D

    Baronius,

    Just to clarify. I was focusing mostly on the myth, Reagan was just a good example of how it was perpetuated.

    Many see the Republican Party as fiscally conservative and for smaller government…and it doesn’t seem to matter which Republican or what any of them actually does.

    Maybe they don’t really care about fiscal conservatism, maybe they really only care about tax cuts?

  • Franco

    The Consequence Of A Barack Obama Presidency

    The overwhelming majority of Americans who elected Obama did not overcome racism last Tuesday night. The overwhelming majority of Americans overcame racism long before that or last Tuesday night could have never happened.

    The fact that this seems yet to be recognized (as I can find no discussion of it here in any thread) is really disturbing, yet not that surprising, although it should be.

    European-Americans (whites) Latin-Americans (tan) Asian-Americans (yellow) and other African-Americans who had built stong families and made a better life, all of these different races have been trying to say this for al long time to African-Americans and those making excuses for them. When they did, they were told they did not understand and that was racists in it self. I know, I spoke up about it quite often over the past decade, and for the 2 years I have been on BC, has have a few others, and that was the retort we got from those betting the drums of racism.

    We have a new President now, and the first thing I want to show my appreciation to him for is proving to so many who would not listen to what so many of us already new. Racism is in the minority and has been for some time now. What I celebrate is the fact that finally at long last with his realization there are no more blanketed excuses. Blacks now have an overwhelming majority of Americans, of all colors, who have now made that abundantly clear to them.

    This is a profound time of responsibility for black Americans. I support you, I solute you, and I will do all that I can to join hands with you. But you will have to show me you care about that. Don’t come to rage at me about racism, I am not a racist. Its time to let your racist anger go, and let go of those who fan those flames, it holds you back and we have work to do. Let’s get at it.

    So good night Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton, and hello Martin Luther King!!!!.

  • Baronius

    Cindy – It takes less political courage to cut taxes, that’s for sure. The funny thing is, Obama ran to the right of McCain on taxes. A lot of Obama supporters thought they were voting for tax cuts.

  • Les Slater

    Baronius,

    No taxes at all are required on those making less than $250K per year.

    The capitalist class that runs the government in their interest already collects most of what the workers produce. All social needs should be funded from that enormous wealth which they would otherwise squander.

    Les

  • bliffle

    Are tax cuts still an open issue?

    I thought that after the experience of the past 7 years, vanished surpluses, spectacular deficits, 10 months of increasing job losses, and an economy that’s crashing like the Great Depression, that the theoretical notions about the benefits of tax cuts (to the rich anyway) would be discredited by the empirical evidence.

  • Cindy D

    Baronius,

    RE #57 I meant tax cuts for the rich.

  • Zedd

    Franco,

    Your statement was dumb. You don’t know what racism is. You wont take the time to find out because you think you automatically understand it. You have never tried to research the topic because you assume you know because well, its about Blacks so I automatically know more, somehow. READ first. You are embarrassing yourself. Your knowledge is abysmal.

    Off course, you don’t care about how stupid you sound because you think the topic doesn’t really matter because you are dumb about it.

    But I would hush anyway. Dumb is dumb, even if it’s about the Black folks. It’s just dumb. Shhhhh.

  • Les Slater

    bliffle,

    Taxes themselves are just a smokescreen. The bosses get value from the employment of workers. They pay the worker enough to keep him coming back. This is a social relationship. The boss owns the means of production and the worker has only his labor power.

    How much is paid in direct wages and social wages is a function of the relationship of forces between labor and capital.

    The resources that must be expended on social wage, health care, schools etc, all come from surplus value. Taxes are part of the surplus value of labor that the capitalists designate goes to the government. It is just a means to keep demands off him.

    The government of the capitalist class chooses how much to tax. The government can always claim it is broke. The cost of social services should come out of the capitalist’s surplus value directly.

    Les

  • Franco

    #63 — Zedd

    Thanks for proving my point Zedd.

  • Les Slater

    “Thanks for proving my point Zedd.”

    I’m with you, Zedd. Your 63 appears to be a good appreciation of Franco’s 58 as far as his belief that racism is no linger an issue. The outward manifestations may have receded in some quarters but racism runs deep and is nowhere near through playing itself out.

  • Cindy D

    European-Americans (whites) Latin-Americans (tan) Asian-Americans (yellow) and other African-Americans who had built stong families and made a better life, all of these different races have been trying to say this for al long time to African-Americans and those making excuses for them.

    This is a profound time of responsibility for black Americans. I support you, I solute you, and I will do all that I can to join hands with you. But you will have to show me you care about that.

    I am not a racist.

    “No, it doesn’t mean that white America has rejected racism. Indeed, I have been quite deliberate for months about pointing out the way that racism 1.0 [“the old-fashioned kind”] may be traded in only to be replaced by racism 2.0 (which allows whites to still view most folks of color negatively but carve out exceptions for those few who make us feel comfortable and who we see as ‘different’). And yet, that tonight was a drubbing for that 1.0 version of racism still matters.”

    “…the success of one man of color does not equate to the eradication of systemic racial inequity.”

    From: Good, and Now Back to Work: Avoiding Cynicism and Overconfidence in the Age of Obama by Tim Wise 11-5-08
    ——

    How very arrogant of you.

  • Zedd

    It was more dumb than arrogant.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Les, I actually agree largely with your #64. I was considering writing an article specifically about this, as it explains why the leftist elite find high taxes and socialism to be to their beneift – they’d rather pay taxes to have the government take care of the people than take personal responsibility for anything.

    I imagine that where we differ is that you think that what you described is exploitation of the worker, while I just think of it as the natural and desirable order of society.

    Dave

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    Bizarre, Dave. Who ARE these leftist elite who want everyone taken care of and don’t take personal responsibility? Are they educated people like me who take care of themselves, DON’T take money from the government, volunteer copiously, give to charity, and are decent, hardworking people, like all the other left wing, well educated people I know?

    I can’t figure out who it is you are talking about because no one I know who is a supposed member of this ephemeral left wing elite, say, like Obama, yes?, ie., well read, well educated, working a job (or two) and doing as much as they can for their community, raising kids, taking care of aging parents, etc., and taking no money from anyone, paying taxes, and so on; and being good citizens by volunteering in their towns or cities or their kids’ schools….going to church or synagogue even… Who ARE those people you are talking about? Hmmmmmm?

    Are they the people who also worked for Obama? Or the ones who manned the polls all day? Or the ones who are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy like my friend in the real estate business who has now taken on 2 other jobs because no houses are selling? Are they the ones like my friend who works 12 hours a day at the business she runs for my sister who is disabled? My friend who has five kids and is putting every one of them through college? Or are they the ones like my other friend who took her elderly parents in to live with her at the same time she lent her son money to start his own restaurant?

    Let me know, will you?

  • Cindy D

    But you will have to show me you care about that.

    I call that arrogant.

  • Cindy D

    Sorry Zedd,

    Yes, dumb.

    But, I wanted to restate what I said. Because I meant arrogant. Who the hell has to show him anything? How dare he condescend to judge other people’s lives based on him small, know-nothing, bigoted presumptions.

  • Franco

    #66 — Les Slater

    “Franco’s belief that racism is no linger an issue.”

    I could not possibly expect anything other then that kind of response on racism coming from a communist. You need oppressed people of race and oppressed workers or you have nothing to say.

    The communist mindset always sees the glass half full and exploits it.

    However thretening you find it a glass of water half full, the time on the clock for your racist drums are running against you in American.

    If would have been nice to have at least seen you solute these mountains of racial freedoms But like I said, the nature of your thinking prevents the natural occurrence of these positives, because they work against you. In your mind, liberated blacks in America working and bettering there lives are only going to become enslaved as oppressed workers. Hence your show of support for Zedd, a black womnan, not agreeing with me.

    Your just full of all kinds of optomistic things to say.

    Now, I never said that racism was no longer an issue. You can try and put your communist words on my mouth but I will spit them out. Now lets revisit what it is that I did say, and I challenge you to prove my words false!.

    (1) The overwhelming majority of Americans have spoken and they have spoken for a black man for President of the United Sates.

    (2) There is no way that could have happen without the overwhelming majority of Americans providing such an anti-racist vacuum.

    (3) This vacuum of anti-racial freedom must be positively filled, and blacks must fill it for themselfs in the economy. It is their responsible to do so. There is no one else to do it for them.

    “The outward manifestations may have receded in some quarters

    That is your positive and resounding endorsement for what occurred last Tuesday night? How pathetic Les.

    The proclamation from Americans for Obama flies in your face and has in fact shown the vacuum of racism of the majority. That can’t be good news for you. The fact that blacks should fill this vacuum and show the world what they are capable of can’t be good for you either how you will have to tell them that their freedom will only find them enslaved as oppressed workers. Your just a constant ray of sunshine. Moving positively in this direction will end even more racism and there could be no better way to do it.

    “but racism runs deep and is nowhere near through playing itself out.”

    Never said it was Les, just like it exists between blacks against blacks in many parts of African. The Congo and the 5.3 million blacks killed at the hands of blacks the past 10 years over there? You want to rage on racism and predidice, you’re on the wrong continent.

    I assert that there are more racism among blacks against whites in American and has been for some time now. I assert this this will only defint thier own cause. I assert that if you cant’ make it in America, you can’t make it anywhere.

    It’s sad that you can not share in all this positive and wonderful optimism Les, and join me and others is supporting black Americans in filling this majority vacuum. But I know, it works against your cause, and you must now warn them that there freedom will only allow others to enslave them as oppressed workers like all the rest of us non-business owners. Which is a load of crap. Our system has problems, but not any we can not make corretions to. You avocate scrapping the whole thing for communism. Well let look at the two systems brifly.

    Communisim is about total control of everyone and everything by the state. Free maket is about total freedom of everyone and everything by the people, and the states job is to protect those freedomes. We could not be farther apart in the world.

  • Cindy D

    Franco,

    You are not only a font of arrogance but also of ignorance.

  • Franco

    #71 — Cindy D

    ((But you will have to show me you care about that.))

    I call that arrogant.

    Lets take a look at what you left off my statement above and put it back into proper context. Here is what I said.

    “I support you, I solute you, and I will do all that I can to join hands with you. But you will have to show me you care about that. Don’t come to rage at me about racism, I am not a racist. Its time to let your racist anger go, and let go of those who fan those flames, it holds you back and we have work to do. Let’s get at it.”

    Seeing that you have shown me you do not care about my support, which you are free to do, it would be interesting to hear however your reasons for rejecting it and taking such a hostle additude over it.

    Then we can talk about arrogant.

  • Franco

    Les Slater,

    Now speaking of oppressed workers in America that you so love to do.

    First, I assert that any number of employees can come together and start up a business of their own, that is if they want to risk their life savings, home, car, what ever they put of as collateral, and then work the 12-14 hours per day that most all owners have to while their employees put in about half that time and are off on their one chosen time.

    Les, convince me that employees can’t start their own business if they chose to? And inclued blacks in your argument as well while you at it.

    Second, if they can’t do that on their own because they won’t take those risks, and or are unwilling to have to work that hard, how is it that by revolution and taking someone else’s company by force qualifies them to be responsible owners it they could not do it on the own in the first place.

    And remember you can’t have all chiefs and no Indian’s once you take the company by force. So explain how the new revolutionary management of the company qualifi4es as being made out of finer ethical clay when they are in power virus the previous owners.

  • Franco

    #74 — Cindy D

    Franco,

    You are not only a font of arrogance but also of ignorance.

    Ad hominem attack argument (argument against the man) (argument against the person). This is false logic. It’s a fallacy because even arrogant and ignorant people can still make true statements.

    Cindy, kindly respond in making an argument or rebuttal directly to the specific claim or statement you contend with, and please leave what you think you perceive to be my attitude or level of intelligence out of it. They have no bearing on whether the claim is true or false. Thank you.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Lisa, regarding your #20. I don’t see how it is a response to anything I said. I never mentioned Obama in my comment,and I suppose my analysis could apply to a much broader spectrum of people than just the left or the elites.

    The truth is that most people in America do not volunteer and do not give substantial amounts of money to charity. They instead assume that by paying taxes they are relieved of their individual responsibility towards others by transferring that responsibility onto the government.

    Furthermore, they are even more willing to see the government provide the support they choose not to provide to the needy themselves by using the money of other people taken from them involuntarily.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    Franco,

    “So good night Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton, and hello Martin Luther King!!!!.”

    I share your disgust with Jackson and Sharpton but would have a hard time accepting your optimistic equating of Obama with King.

    You will notice in my 66 I said, “Your 63 appears to be a good appreciation of Franco’s 58 as far as his belief that racism is no linger an issue.”

    ‘…as far as…’ That was a conditional statement. Very consciously and deliberately so. I found much of your 58 quite positive and generally agree. Certainly nothing to get into a debate about.

    What I saw as troubling was ‘What I celebrate is the fact that finally at long last with his realization there are no more blanketed excuses. Blacks now have an overwhelming majority of Americans, of all colors, who have now made that abundantly clear to them.’

    Blanketed excuses? Whether you intended or not, I saw that as a denial that racism still exists, at least not in any important way.

    Like I said, racism runs deep and has not played itself out yet.

    Do I relish the fact there is racism? No, it is one of the things keeping workers divided to the advantage of the bosses. I cheer in a similar way that you do, even with the election of Obama, it is a good sign from that perspective. Not only has anti-Black racism receded, but also anti-immigrant, ant-gay, anti-woman and a whole lot of other phobias and hatreds.

    It’s late. I’ll re-read your last couple posts and try to further answer them later.

    Les

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    That’s right, Dave. Back off now.

    Do your research. Find out how much people DO give to charity and who gives it.

    The general assumption among conservatives is that the liberal elite don’t contribute. I keep seeing these dumb ass bumper stickers: Annoy a Liberal, Get a Job and Work Hard (or something to that effect). You made that same assumption and now you take the liberal elite OUT of the picture.

    You make these blanket judgments and when you are called on them you back away.

    Our responsibility to society is huge: WHO do think runs all the soup kitchens and halfway houses and community based organizations? Every “liberal elitist” I know is completely responsibly not only for pay taxes to help the less unfortunate but for also getting down into the trenches and doing a lot of the work, too, ALL WHILE living a normal, hardworking decent life.

    THAT, Dave, was the point I was making.

    And that, Dave, is responsibility. We may think the government should help, yes, but we are willing to, too.

  • http://www.marksaleski.com Mark Saleski

    regarding your #20. I don’t see how it is a response to anything I said.

    another example of why it’s impossible to take you seriously, as the main thrust of your statement was:

    it explains why the leftist elite find high taxes and socialism to be to their beneift – they’d rather pay taxes to have the government take care of the people than take personal responsibility for anything.

    and no, you didn’t mention obama, but instead the “leftist elite” and “socialism”, two of the most tired cliches of the entire campaign and political discussion in general.

    there is no more fact behind those two concepts (as attached to “the left”) than there is behind the mud gob that obama is a terrorist.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Mark, you don’t actually expect Dave to make sense do you? That’s not what he does…

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    Oh, Christopher.. two clever comments back to back on two different posts. You are on a roll today. Thanks for the smiles.

  • Franco

    #79 — Les Slater

    “I share your disgust with Jackson and Sharpton but would have a hard time accepting your optimistic equating of Obama with King.

    Apparently I did not make myself clear. I was not equating Obama with King at all.

    My statement was in direct reference with it’s proceeding paragraph where I assert that angry black racism and those who rally this hate in blacks and fan its flames, like (Jackson and Sharpton) must be rejected, and the truly positive sprit of King in trying to unit the races in mutual respect must replace it.

    With this in mind, let’s take a look one more time at that preceding paragraph and see if you can find where I support Kings dream on unity, and where I reject the dark black racism of divide that Jackson and Sharption promote. Here is that paragraph.

    “This is a profound time of responsibility for black Americans. I support you, I solute you, and I will do all that I can to join hands with you. But you will have to show me you care about that. Don’t come to rage at me about racism, I am not a racist. Its time to let your racist anger go, and let go of those who fan those flames, it holds you back and we have work to do. Let’s get at it.”

    Now, did you see where I support Kings dream on unity, and where I reject the dark black racism of divide that Jackson and Sharption and their ilk promote.

    If you focus on the negative and hate for your energy, it is negative and hateful energy. If you focus on the positive and the love for your energy, it is positive loving energy. This is not rocket science. For as a man thinkith, so he is.

    People can hate and be angry for so long that it actually becomes like a friend to them, and it can be hard to let go, it can even be like a lost love or death in the family.

    I was rejected by Zedd with that same negative energy of Jackson and Sharpton and their ilk, and she relies less on the positive energy’s of King, which she rejected when I displayed them. I assert that holds Kings dream back, and that is way I at the very beginning of my paragraph in question is state “This is a profound time of responsibility for black Americans.” Because it is the profoundly responsible thing to do to embrace King and let go of the Jackson and Sharpton and their ilk.

    That is why I said to Zedd “thanks for proving my point.”

    I will reject that negative energy, its divisions, its hate, its dog chasing tail mentality. I will always reject it for all the days of my life and instead embrace and support the positive light of King. I will not abandon him for anyone not matter if they are black or white.

    Additionally, I hope that I have cleared up your misconception that I was equating Obama and King. Obama has to do his own equating to the light of King and rejection of the Jackson and Sharpton aproach and I hope he fully does that.

    But regarless of what he does, he can not do it for us, we have to do it for ourselves. We need not look to the state, we only need look to our own hearts and King knew that fully. Do you really think King would not being saying all these same things if he were alive today with Obama as his president too?

    Now back to your statement for a moment. It would be interesting to hear your thoughts in support of your statement that you find it hard accepting optimistic equalities with Obama and King. What exactly do you mean?

  • http://www.glosslip.com Dawn

    I’ll tell you what I find alarming in all of this is the degree of hatred and dangerous opposition to our new president. I have been visiting a lot of GOP and conservative blogs in the last few weeks and I am shocked at the level of hostility these folks have to our new president-elect. I have seen not-so-veiled threats toward Obama, and general ill-will, not to mention, bad karma. People suggesting he ride in a convertible with the top down, or worse. Then there’s the blatant baiting of authorities to come find “them” while they wait with their “guns” locked and loaded.

    Jeebus, WTF is wrong with people? I have decided (with of course a few exceptions, Arch not being one of them) that the remaining GOP/Conservatives fall into two camps: angry white men who are deeply afraid a non-white controls their fate, and those loopy evangelicals who are huddled in their panic rooms waiting for the rapture.

    Scary either way. Now, instead of engaging in healthy political debate, with realistic expectations of my govt. for the next four years, I have to stress myself and pray someone doesn’t try and “remove” our 44th Prez.

    Seriously, how can we trust the GOP again when their first and only response is either violence or invoking end of times?

    I just want to raise my children in a world where centrist values based on decency is the norm. Is that too much to ask?

    I don’t think Obama is the messiah or anything of the like. I think he is a smart man inspired to fix some major ills in this country. He is by no means perfect or without faults. Anyone with the ambition to be president should be kept in check, but I do think he is a decent, family man with good values and the determination to make wise choices. How can those qualities be bad.

    Oh, and the whole freakout by conservatives for Obama suggesting mandatory volunteering by young people smells of hypocrisy. It’s okay to draft people to kill other humans, but not to volunteer to help their community and world? Yep, that’s Christian values for you.

    For the record, I will deeply encourage both of my children to join Americorp, just like my wonderful, liberal, smart and wise step-daughter did.

    Republicans/Conservatives/Evangelicals – all of you, take a deep breath and hard look at yourselves. Clearly America isn’t interested in your divisive, hate-filled, bigoted agenda. You are the way of the past, Obama is the way of the future.

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    Thanks, Dawn. I agree 100 percent. I just heard from a friend the same sort of hate filled stuff from her so-called Republicans “friends”that you are hearing. It made her very sad. I told her she just needs to stay away from them. I doubt she can convince them at this point that Obama is not a Muslim socialist bent out on destroying the U.S. I don’t know what the hell gets into these people but it DOES have something to do with fear of the black man, no matter how much they deny it.

    Jesus, asking him to ride in a car with the top down. If that isn’t the sickest thing I ever heard. It makes me want to weep.

  • Zedd

    Franco,

    Honestly I really don’t think you are arrogant nor ignorant. I think you are right, for someone like you. That post is good for you. I think you can’t process things in a way that would lead to a reasonable conclusion. Your conclusion is dumb. It’s not your fault though. I can’t get upset. No one cab talk you out of it. It’s just you. There are multitudes of you out there.

    In your state, enjoy life. Continue to happily wonder the Earth joyously giving instructions to people who may be smarter, more accomplished, harder working, more creative, organized, responsible, nicer, kinder, richer, better traveled, or cooler than you. In a way I envy your bliss, seriously. But knowing just how embarrassed you make people feel, I kinda don’t. But I get embarrassed easily. Like when watching Sara Palin being interviewed by Couric. I had to switch channels cause it was so embarrassing. I was alone in my bedroom and felt utterly embarrassed! She actually is talking about 2012 instead of hiding from all humanity. Like you, she thinks she is great and can criticize people publicly when she didn’t even know that Africa was a continent. Flush!! Well it’s sort of the same with you. Except your assignment for me and my children and my mom and brother and cousins, friends and nephews, church members and co-workers (think I’ve hit all the blacks in my life) oh and strangers on the street is too much. Hence, the post. I thought you sorta needed to know. It’s dumb. Stop yourself. No matter how blissful, manic and/or wise you may think you are at the time, STOP.

  • Zedd

    Dawn,

    I don’t think Obama is the Messiah either.

    I think he is a smart who had the nerve to say what we’ve all been thinking. Because he is smart, he will probably be the guy to gather the right people together to make things happen.

  • Zedd

    Redo:

    Dawn,

    I don’t think Obama is the Messiah either.

    I think he is a smart guy who had the nerve to say what we all have been thinking. Because he is smart, he will probably be the guy to gather the right people together to make things happen.

  • Clavos

    I’ll tell you what I find alarming in all of this is the degree of hatred and dangerous opposition to our new president. I have been visiting a lot of GOP and conservative blogs in the last few weeks and I am shocked at the level of hostility these folks have to our new president-elect. I have seen not-so-veiled threats toward Obama, and general ill-will, not to mention, bad karma. People suggesting he ride in a convertible with the top down, or worse.

    All of that, and more, has been (and continues to) appearing on the lefty blogs all eight years of the Bush administration. Lots of veiled and not so veiled threats on his and his cabinet’s lives, etc. Hell, look at all the vitriol directed against Palin in the last few months.

    That’s why I like and respect BC so much: It’s not one-sided (most of the time), and even our worst commenters pale compared to what you saw on the right-wing blogs lately, and what was evident on the left-wing ones for the last several years.

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    Clav, guess I never visited those “lefty” blogs….. that threatened the cabinet with assassination….like people are doing already with Obama. Never saw anything like that. Dissatisfaction with Bush, yes. But death threats. Nope. Never. Ever. Hard to believe. But if you SAY so. What I see is that the right wing stuff is pretty mainstream. And that is what is really scary.

  • Franco

    #63 — Zedd

    Franco, your statement was dumb. You don’t know what racism is. You wont take the time to find out because you think you automatically understand it. You have never tried to research the topic because you assume you know because well, its about Blacks so I automatically know more, somehow.

    Ad hominem attack argument (argument against the man) (argument against the person).

    An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

    It’s a fallacy because the characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim has no bearing on whether the claim is true of false.

    Zedd, kindly respond in making an argument or rebuttal directly to the specific claim or statement you contend with, and please leave what you think you perceive to be my characteristics or beliefs out of it. They have no bearing on whether the claim is true or false. Thank you.

    Additionally Zedd, your post #87 is also exactly that same kind of ad hominem attack argument. The entire post from beginning to end is an (argument against the man) (argument against the person). You continue to exercise this false logic.

  • Marcia Neil

    The legal-inquiry process is not cut-and-dried with regard to human behavior; those who present facts and arguments can burden us fatally with their prejudices and interpret our replies any way they want that benefits them.

  • http://www.glosslip.com Dawn

    What Lisa said, and then some.

    I make a point of listening to all sides of an argument before I make decisions, which is why I am willing to read right-wing blogs, non-partisan blogs and so-called lefty blogs. I think it’s important to note however, that most assassinations (Lincoln, JFK, RFK and MLK) were left-leaning, civil rights pushing leaders and were done so by those who opposed that agenda.

    So, you can see why folks on the left would feel a little antsy about seeing such anger towards our first racially diverse leader. There’s a history there. Not to mention the fact that the NRA is a mistress of the right-wing party, not the lefties. We are tree-hugging, Prius loving, granola eaters, the most offensive thing we’re known for is smelling like patchouli.

    Don’t even mention Ayers, that’s the exception, not the norm.

  • Clavos

    What’s a “Prius?”

  • http://www.glosslip.com Dawn

    A Prius is an energy efficient hybrid car made by Toyota and loved by many a lefty-loon 😉

  • Clavos

    And what about Che, Fidel, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, Bernardine Dohrn, Jeremiah Wright, Fr. Pfleger, Just to name a few other lefties, none of whom probably smell like patchouli?

    Oh, and BTW: JFK was shot by a Soviet-loving…lefty.

    And RFK was killed by a man to whom Bill Ayers (an undisputed lefty) dedicated his book. And RFK for reasons having to do with Arab nationalism.

  • zingzing

    clavos, do you really equate soviet communism with the american left? sure, we lean further that way than you do, but i doubt you’d mistake me for a soviet-loving lefty. soviet-style communism is pretty well universally disregarded as unworkable, at best. total fucking evil at worst.

    the american left is, as the term suggests, chiefly “american.” the “left” is relative. i think a lot of us would be a little uncomfortable with european levels of leftism and would scoff at soviet communism. of course, there are some here who would disagree with me.

    but if you think that it is people like us that shot jfk, heloise will tell you who killed her. i swear, we’re not total loons. we’re just not as crazy as you are. but we’re all idiotic americans.

  • Clavos

    zing,

    My point, which you’re so adroitly ducking, is that violence in support of ideology is practiced by both the right and the left, right here in the good old USA, sometimes even by the (both left and right wing) federal government; as in Waco (Democrat administration) and Ruby Ridge (Republicans).

  • zingzing

    we’ve gone over that (waco, ruby) before, clavos. both were ridiculous. in those situations, for once, i trust that the government went in with good intentions and made many mistakes that contributed to an unwanted conclusion to stupid, stupid people with guns. you get guns involved in something and someone is going to get shot dead. just the way of the world. the government was stupid, but you know what? the victims made the dumbass hick decision to stockpile weapons. so fuck em.

    of course, my point, which you also avoided is that the american left is a far different beast from a nearly everyone you pointed out in your post. pol pot is a long way from obama, just as you are a long way from the right wing in canada–or, just as you are a long way from george bush, even though both of you are on the right.

    our american right and left are BOTH much further to the right than the right or left in most any other country on earth. comparing our politics to any other country’s is going to lead you to some ridiculous conclusions.

  • Les Slater

    Fidel Castro has been the head of state that has been the most targeted for assassination in the last half of the 20th century. This has not only been from the right but has had the encouragement, financing and participation by a string of U.S. governments, both Republican and Democrat.

    The great liberal Kennedy sanctioned the overthrow of president Ngo Dinh Diem of Viet Nam in 1963. He was murdered, an assassination by the Kennedy regime. This was the head of an allied government, a puppet government, put in power by the United States. The guy was a Roman Catholic no less.

  • Clavos

    zing,

    Again, I wasn’t placing either the (american-style) right or left at a specific point on the spectrum, merely pointing out that americans of all political persuasions (and their government) are capable of, and do, wreak violence on americans from time to time.

  • zingzing

    alright, clavos. point taken.

  • Les Slater

    Calvos 102,

    Americans? You know what Malcolm X said about the Kennedy assassination, don’t you?

    Les

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    Clav, the American “left” as it is in the USA is very peaceful compared to the American “right” in the USA (ie., Rush, Hannity, etc….) You simply cannot compare what comes out of right talk radio and right blogs with what the progressives or liberals who worked to get Obama elected were and are doing. Ayers and “communists” like those who assassinated JFK are not in any way connected with any progrssives or liberals I know or have know for the past 30 years. Get a grip.

    And JFK’s desire to take Castro out was a government desired, CIA desired thing…just as the Bush White House’s whole get Saddam, get Noriega, etc. stuff was. That was a lot more than left or right wing ideology.

    What is going on today on right wing talk radio and right wing blogs (and even what Palin did in her speeches) has nothing on the left to compare to.

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    PS Clav: You really didn’t know what a Prius was?

  • Les Slater

    Lisa,

    “And JFK’s desire to take Castro out was a government desired, CIA desired thing…just as the Bush White House’s whole get Saddam, get Noriega, etc. stuff was. That was a lot more than left or right wing ideology.”

    No ideology at all, just pragmatically going after anything or anybody getting in the way of their imperial prerogatives.

    Les

  • Clavos

    Lisa,

    Rush and Hannity advocate violence? I don’t know; I don’t listen to either, but I would think that if they were inciting publicly like that, the feds might have something to say about it.

    And there are a hell of a lot of liberals who preach hate with the best of ’em–I don’t have to tell you, you publish on PuffOh; I’m sure you’ve seen the hate spewed on that totally partisan, one-sided site.

    I didn’t say anything about kennedy trying to take out Fidel–I approve of any attempt to take him out by anybody–tell it to Les, he’s the communist.

    One thing about you lefties; a lot of you have no sense of humor. Of course I know what a Prius is – it’s a Japanese hybrid car (which doesn’t get as good mileage as other Toyota vehicles), and the second ugliest car on the road (after the Pontiac Aztek).

  • Les Slater

    Right on Clavos.

    The Aztek is by far, far… the UGLIEST thing on the road.

  • http://www.maskedmoviesnobs.com El Bicho

    what Toyota gets better mileage than the Prius?

  • Clavos

    what Toyota gets better mileage than the Prius?

    None. I’m full of shit.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    That’s right, Dave. Back off now.

    Lisa, I don’t need to back off because I actually know what I’m talking about. It’s a terrible mistake and an example of the arrogance I have been talking about that you assume I don’t have the facts at my fingertips.

    Do your research. Find out how much people DO give to charity and who gives it.

    Well, let’s start out with this fact. There is a close correlation between charitable giving and voting patterns. The top 12 states for charitable giving are all ‘red’ states which tend to vote Republican – in fact, they include the most red of the red states.

    Perhaps you’d like a charitable giving comparison between the recent candidates in the presidential campaign. That is also available. You can guess the results, can’t you? In fact, I gave more to charity in the last year than Biden did, even though his income is about double our family’s with two working adults.

    Next, there’s the issue of religious giving. I’m not religious, but I acknowledge that the working class and the political right are as a whole, far more religious than the leftist elite. And the pattern of giving to religious charities is very significant. A study from Indiana University (PDF) shows that overwhelmingly, donations to religious charities come from those earning $100,000 or less, while those earning $1 million or more donate a disproportionately small amount to religious charities.

    Now, you might say that this doesn’t mean that the wealthy elites don’t contribute to non-religious charities. But the same report shows that the very rich also neglect these charities, which are patronized the most by the middle class and the moderately rich.

    When it comes to charities which focus on providing basic needs, like the soup kitchens you mention in this comment, they are again, overwhelmingly funded by those who earn under $100,000 a year, and only 1 in 10 who earn over $1 million a year donate to support them. And this isn’t even taing donations in kind into account, and I know from personal experience that most of those I meet working in food and basic needs related charities are far less wealthy than I am and I’m hardly one of the super-rich.

    The general assumption among conservatives is that the liberal elite don’t contribute.

    It’s not that they don’t contribute, it’s that they see contributing in a different way which is very characteristic of the left. They believe that everyone should contribute to the poor whether they want to or not, so they see the government as the primary agent of charity rather than individuals or private institutions. This doesn’t mean they don’t care about the poor and downtrodden. It just means that they see it as a societal responsibility rather than an individual responsibility.

    But to be fair, the elites do like to give to the big health charities like the cancer societies – large bureaucracies which focus their efforts on research for the benefit of humanity as a whole and which tend to give a lot of recognition to large contributors. They also do well on giving to the arts and to education, again areas which benefit everyone including themselves, not the individual poor.

    You make these blanket judgments and when you are called on them you back away.

    No, when I’m called on them I provide evidence. Then, characteristically, the strawman arguments and ad hominems begin coming out.

    Our responsibility to society is huge: WHO do think runs all the soup kitchens and halfway houses and community based organizations?

    Based on the data, mostly the working and middle class.

    Every “liberal elitist” I know is completely responsibly not only for pay taxes to help the less unfortunate but for also getting down into the trenches and doing a lot of the work, too, ALL WHILE living a normal, hardworking decent life.

    No question, there are some on the left who take charity very seriously and do everything they can to help. But the data does support my overall assessment of who takes responsibility and who does not as groups within society.

    THAT, Dave, was the point I was making.

    A point which is wrong, as it turns out.

    And that, Dave, is responsibility. We may think the government should help, yes, but we are willing to, too.

    Just a little less willing to help personally than those who think government should leave them alone.

    And as a final note, as a society we give far, far too much money to large foundations focused on research and health and education and far two little to actually helping out the needy. That 2/3 of all charitable giving goes to these giant and often very inefficient charitable bureaucracies is a real shame. You get a lot more bang for your buck giving money to a local charity which helps the poor direclty.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I think it’s important to note however, that most assassinations (Lincoln, JFK, RFK and MLK) were left-leaning, civil rights pushing leaders and were done so by those who opposed that agenda.

    How about Garfield and McKinley who were both conservative pro-business Republicans? Add them in and your two assassinated presidents are balanced out pretty effectively. Plus Lincoln was a Republican and although liberal, certainly not left-leaning in any modern sense. And JFK was a rather conservative, tax-cutting democrat. For that matter except in the area of civil rights, which is hardly an exclusively democratic issue, MLK was pretty conservative too. So your argument is twaddle.

    And Dawn…

    Oh, and the whole freakout by conservatives for Obama suggesting mandatory volunteering by young people smells of hypocrisy. It’s okay to draft people to kill other humans, but not to volunteer to help their community and world? Yep, that’s Christian values for you.

    I challenge you to find ANY republican who advocates any kind of draft or involuntary servitude. The party was founded on opposition to government sanctioned slavery and no Republican president has ever signed a draft into law except for Lincoln who only did so very reluctantly towards the end of the Civl War. It is the democrats who have drafted Americans to fight in wars again and again and Republicans who have opposed the draft and ended it when they could.

    I know you want to believe that Republicans are evil and warmongers, but the historical facts don’t bear out your assumptions.

    For the record, I will deeply encourage both of my children to join Americorp, just like my wonderful, liberal, smart and wise step-daughter did.

    And you think that Republicans don’t encourage their kids to volunteer? Just as I provided data earlier to help Lisa out on this, let me recommend Joseph Fried’s book Republicans and Democrats: Rhetoric and Reality which references a number of different surveys on volunteerism and finds that overall Republicans volunteer about 20% more than Democrats do, as well as donating more to charity.

    Republicans/Conservatives/Evangelicals – all of you, take a deep breath and hard look at yourselves. Clearly America isn’t interested in your divisive, hate-filled, bigoted agenda. You are the way of the past, Obama is the way of the future.

    Most Republicans I talk to are willing to give Obama a chance. There’s a lot more concern about the radicals in Congress than there is about Obama. There’s also a great deal of distress about Democrats who keep calling Republicans ‘bigots’ and talking about things like a ‘divisive, hate-filled, bigoted agenda’ and turning every argument into accusations of racism. The left seems incapable of understanding that most of the opposition to Obama was not on the basis of race, but on the issues and his beliefs. It’s dismaying that so many democrats resort to this kind of hatemongering and demonization rather than at least according Republicans the minimal level of respect to believe their stated reasons for opposing Obama.

    Cruising hate-sites and extremist anti-Obama groups doesn’t give you a fair picture of where things stand on the right at this time. They just reinforce your prejudices.

    Dave

  • Franco

    Cruising hate-sites and extremist anti-Obama groups doesn’t give you a fair picture of where things stand on the right at this time. They just reinforce your prejudices.

    Spoken for truth!

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    Franco, you have an incomplete URL in the URL box above where you type in your comments. Please either complete it or delete it.

    Thank you.

    Christopher Rose
    Blogcritics Comments Editor

  • Les Slater

    Many, if not most, of those that describe themselves as liberals think Republicans are either evil or stupid, if not both. This extends to the roughly fifty percent that vote Republican. I for one could not see any good reason for anybody preferring Kerry over Bush in 2004.

    Liberalism, which is often accompanied by elitism, has NOTHING to offer.

  • Clavos

    “Liberalism, which is often usually accompanied by elitism, has NOTHING to offer.”

    There. Fixed it for ya, Les.

    You’re dead on, BTW.

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    I would have thought anybody who considered Republicans as either evil or stupid was pretty stupid themselves.

    I don’t understand either the assertion that liberalism has nothing to offer or that it is usually accompanied by elitism.

    Trite slogans don’t make very persuasive arguments…

  • Les Slater

    Chris,

    “I would have thought anybody who considered Republicans as either evil or stupid was pretty stupid themselves.”

    That was sort of the point that I was making. I think if you look objectively here on BC you will see some evidence of that.

    “I don’t understand either the assertion that liberalism has nothing to offer or that it is usually accompanied by elitism.”

    No administration, Republican, Democrat, conservative or liberal has solved problems of late. They are getting worse. This predates Reagan. None of these have ANYTHING to offer.

    It has been the broad layer of the population, particularly the working class, who have been pushing back on racism, sexism, xenophobia and homophobia as well as other reactionary ills.

    BTW, only a quite small minority of the population would describe themselves as liberal.

    Les

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    After around fifty years of effort by some to roll back the social relaxation that started back in the 50s and 60s, which has primarily been focussed on those of a more tolerant nature and has used the word liberal as a cover for their attacks on tolerance and understanding, it is no surprise that the number of people willing to identify themselves as liberal has reduced.

    Personally, I think tolerance is a good thing most of the time. The question shouldn’t be why we should allow something but why we shouldn’t.

    Republican/Democrat and conservative/liberal are not interchangeable words. I don’t recall seeing a liberal government in the USA for quite some time now, authoritarian or bossy seems more common a quality.

  • http://www.glosslip.com Dawn

    Honestly Dave, the only conservative site I read regularly is HotAir and BC’s politics section.

    So, while not all conservatives are spouting these vile suggestions, I’ve seen them ALL over the web on any given site with comments.

    Let’s face it, you yourself said “let the rioting and carburning begin” when it was clear Obama was going to be our next president. And despite your best efforts to the contrary, that was a race-loaded statement.

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    I have read nothing on HuffPo that advocated violence….

  • http://www.EurocriticsMagazine.com Christopher Rose

    I can go one better, Lisa. I have read nothing on HuffPo.

  • Les Slater

    “Personally, I think tolerance is a good thing most of the time. The question shouldn’t be why we should allow something but why we shouldn’t.”

    We agree.

    “…the social relaxation that started back in the 50s and 60s…”

    The sexual revolution, fight for Black rights, opposition to the Vietnam war, woman’s and gay liberation? None of these were spearheaded by any government, liberal or otherwise. They were ALWAYS opposed by the government.

    Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were FORCED by powerful movements to enact any legislation. There was a deep radicalization.

    Even the reactionary membership of the Supreme Court was was FORCED in 1973, in it’s majority, to grant the right to women to control her own body.

    ALL administrations, then, and since, have been attacking those gains.

  • Clavos

    The sexual revolution, fight for Black rights, opposition to the Vietnam war, woman’s and gay liberation? None of these were spearheaded by any government, liberal or otherwise. They were ALWAYS opposed by the government.

    Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon were FORCED by powerful movements to enact any legislation. There was a deep radicalization.

    …ALL administrations, then, and since, have been attacking those gains.

    Good points all, Les.

  • Cindy D

    RE: #112 by Dave

    Well, let’s start out with this fact. There is a close correlation between charitable giving and voting patterns.

    Not so fast Dave, Center on Wealth and Philanthropy at Boston College (CWP-Boston) challenged the Catalogue for Philanthropy’s (CFP) analysis of the data you present there in your link.

    CWP-Boston objected to the analysis saying it didn’t account for differences in cost of living, among other things. They reanalyzed the data, based on available disposable income, and discovered that, for example, New York gave more of a percentage of its disposable income as measured by income tax data.

    CWP-Boston also objected to the name “Generosity Index”, as being imprecise and misleading, they named their own report “Charitable Giving Indices”.

    See the very last page of this PDF for the chart:
    CWP Measure 4 of Giving Relative to Income Ranked by State, 2004

    From the chart, here are the top ten CWP-Boston Rankings relative to income:

    1) New York
    2) District of Columbia
    3) Utah
    4) California
    5) Connecticut
    6) Maryland
    7) New Jersey
    8) Georgia
    9) Massachusetts
    10) Hawaii

    Reply from CFP (the source of your data) to CWP-Boston about CWP-Boston’s new report and reanalysis:

    What the Report finds objectionable and attributes to the Generosity Index (GI) is not the GI, but the media’s interpretation of it—a distinction of which the Report is evidently unaware….As we have said many hundreds of times (cf. the 2005 Catalogue, p. 6 and on this website [link]) the GI does not claim to measure or compare the philanthropic generosity of people in various states; we have no interest in that, and in any case believe it cannot validly be done, because it is too complex a subject and existing data is inadequate. The Report attempts to do it, and shows by its own example that assertions on this subject are only estimates, not facts.

    So Dave, not only is it misleading to take that interpretation as “fact”. The organization that created the study says that it does not measure what you are claiming it does.

  • Cindy D

    Correction RE: My #126

    Make that:

    “The organization that created the study says that it does not measure what you are claiming it does–i.e.: correlation between voting patterns and charitable giving.”

    Further, CWP-Boston demonstrates that when adjusted for disposable income, the picture of charitable giving in the CFP analysis are not the last word on the subject.

  • Lisa Solod Warren

    Yes but this was directed at Clav who said there were violent posts.

    Too bad Chris, there is some excellent writing there….

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    I don’t understand either the assertion that liberalism has nothing to offer or that it is usually accompanied by elitism.

    I don’t either, Christopher. I think these statements from Les and Clavos are based on the common misuse of the term ‘liberal’ here in the US, which may not be the same in the UK or elsewhere.

    Dave

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Cindy, the CFP study is a very ‘gross’ study. It’s so generalized that trying to use it as a detailed analysis of anything is relatively worthless. However, in the context of the much more detailed study I referenced later in my content the suggestion is that the gross conclusions reached by many based on the CFP study would appear to be fairly accurate, regardless of their own unwillingness to stand by those conclusions or the efforts of others to counter them. When multiple different types of analysis using different data reach the same conclusion, there’s something to it.

    Dave

  • Cindy D

    RE: #130

    Dave, I did not look at your later study. (Too much effort looking at your first one! LOL) Maybe I’ll get a chance to do that. If I don’t get interested in something else. Which it looks like I will, because,

    I would like to do my own rough disambiguation regarding liberal, conservative, blah, blah, blah.

    I will semi-agree with one thing you said in #129. When you are referencing “liberal”, it seems you are looking at the term based on classical liberalism and neoliberalism. But, most people here, it seems to me, are presenting themselves as social liberals, without necessarily referencing classical liberalism or neoliberalism.

    And I disagree about your understanding of what Les said. I am only guessing, but I would wager that Les is using liberalism just the way you are. That is why he can take that position against it. One I myself would take.

    Clav, I would guess, would support liberalism in the sense you mean it. And I would wager he is against social liberalism.

  • http://www.republicofdave.com Dave Nalle

    Cindy, the first report was all of a page and a half long. Hard to believe that exhausted you.

    I agree that it’s possible that Les is opposed to classical liberalism. I’m not surprised that you’re opposed to it, given your totalitarian tendencies.

    I won’t speak for Clav, but I’m for liberalism on social issues, but don’t think we should be liberal with our money – or that of the taxpayers – in the most classical and non political sense of liberal.

    Dave

  • Les Slater

    Cindy,

    “And I disagree about your understanding of what Les said.”

    You may disagree, but Dave does understand. He disagrees with my use of the terms liberal and liberalism. I can’t argue with him there. Of course I was using it in the sense that McCain might call Obama a liberal. He also disagrees with my general framework and conclusions.

    Dave and I believe in some basic concepts of classical liberalism, but not all.

    Clav understands both my use of the term ‘liberal’ and I believe, the general political thrust of my 124.

    The Democratic Party has NEVER been progressive. The end of anything progressive with capitalism itself ended with the defeat of radical reconstruction.

    Les

  • Clavos

    And I would wager he [Clav] is against social liberalism.

    I’ll bet I would surprise you, Cindy. If you’re interested, tell me your concept of social liberalism, and I’ll respond, point-by-point.

  • Cindy D

    Dave,

    Cindy, the first report was all of a page and a half long. Hard to believe that exhausted you.

    I spent about an hour and a half researching its validity and reading about it and the other study I cited. So, be careful about your assumptions. I didn’t read it an react.

  • Les Slater

    Clav,

    “There was a deep radicalization.”

    Just as I hit the ‘Publish’ button for my last reply to Cindy, I was reminded that the ‘radicalization’ went far beyond those social movements I mentioned, which started in the 40’s. Culture, including music, were part of that radicalization.

    Just as I hit the ‘Publish’ button, ‘Pull my Strings’ by the ‘Dead Kennedys’ came through my headphones from my internet ‘radio’ station.

    Les

  • Clavos

    Culture, including music, were part of that radicalization.

    Perhaps even the greatest part of it, especially the music. I’m old enough to remember the very first stirrings of “Rock ‘n Roll” (as it was known then), and even before, the melding of rockabilly and traditionally Black only music. It was that blending that effected the ‘crossover,” attracting white kids like me. And yes, we did hear the music, even in Mexico.

    If my parents’ opinion from back then is to be believed, it was definitely the music that radicalized the whole culture. :>)

  • http://jetsnewsviews.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Les “I for one could not see any good reason for anybody preferring Kerry over Bush in 2004.”

    Unfortunately Les, it took the country a while to catch up to us… the reason for supporting Kerry was that he WASN’T Bush.

    Turns out we were right.

  • http://jetsnewsviews.blogspot.com/ Jet

    I’ve yet to meet a conservative that I could nail down a specific definition of the term “Liberal.”

    As far as I can tell they have no clue as to what one is, other than it’s a term like “Boogie Man,” something “Evil-or an evildoer”.

    The term is usually used as a vague insult such as “He’s a Liberal!” “Those liberal is congress will be the downfall of our democracy” and the ever popular The “Liberal Press” much as one would call someone a faggot, or a nigger-without actually getting to know the person that just spat the word at.

    Truth be told the honorable word (As in Liberal College)(Liberal Arts degree) has completely lost its meaning, and very few who are right of center actually have a specific idea when they screw up their face as if they’d just eaten a lemon and spew out, “That… that… uh Liberal!” ewwwwwww.

  • Les Slater

    Jet,

    “Unfortunately Les, it took the country a while to catch up to us… the reason for supporting Kerry was that he WASN’T Bush.”

    You really liked Kerry? I don’t mean voted for him, or even did your best to get others to vote for him, but liked him.

    Unfortunately Jet, we never had the opportunity to find out how different he would have been from Bush.

    We got Obama now, let’s hope we learn something this time.

    Les

  • http://jetsnewsviews.blogspot.com/ Jet

    I campaigned for him and was pissed when he didn’t support his vice presidential candidate John Edwards.

  • Clavos

    I campaigned for him and was pissed when he didn’t support his vice presidential candidate John Edwards.

    How prescient of him…

  • http://jetsnewsviews.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Well Clavos? Specifically define what a Liberal is, you use the term enough…

  • Les Slater

    Jet,

    You campaigned for Kerry, but did you like him?

    Les

  • http://jetsnewsviews.blogspot.com/ Jet

    Les, Kerry has a carisma(sic) that captures you. I met him in person on a campaign through Columbus.

    He’d found out that I’d purchased a couple gross of “Farenheit 911″ DVDs and was handing them out at the local gay bars. The head of the Ohio Democratic Party invited me to meet him with about 15-20 other campaign workers just before he was to give a speech.

    Yes, I liked him, you don’t run for president unless you’re likeable and meeting a candidate in person definately has that effect on people.

  • Les Slater

    Ok, you’re the first one I’ve heard that from.

    I know a woman who is very critical of Bill Clinton’s policies but when she met him she just melted.

    I could see that in Clinton, even from afar, but Kerry? I believe you though.

  • Clavos

    …you use the term enough…

    But not in this thread, Jet.

    However, I do use the term often in reference to myself. I am, for example, in favor of gay marriage, abortion for no more reason than convenience (or no reason at all), the legalization of drugs, the granting of legal status (but not citizenship) to all illegal immigrants, anti racism, pro feminism, pro equality of opportunity, etc. etc.

    It’s all about context, Jet.

  • Cindy D

    RE #132

    Dave,

    I’m not surprised that you’re opposed to it [classical liberalism], given your totalitarian tendencies.

    Well, I’m not actually Dave, not the way Chomsky would understand classical liberalism. I’m only opposed to it as it has been shallowly construed to defend a system its originators could not have foreseen would exist. In other words, its normal construction is to have it defend industrialized capitalism. I don’t think the writers of the time would have done that, I think they would be against it.

    What I was doing was trying to guess at various people’s meanings. It didn’t serve to disambiguate, but only to confuse more…at least it confused me more. I still don’t really understand, for example, what Les means by classical liberalism. I have no idea what Clav or you mean by social liberalism.

    As far as MY “totalitarian tendencies”:

    Your entire belief system distorts any idea of freedom in my view. It’s is the opposite of what it claims to be. That’s why you have to distort reality in order to oblige your view. Look at the reality of commoditizing people under Capitalism. People as commodities? That’s freedom? Your beliefs are based on something imaginary–they rely on pretending that something that does not exist (free markets) does exist.

    You want to believe you are for freedom and in order to do so, you will have to uphold this idea that Capitalism provides “freedom of opportunity”. Where you are then obliged to explain the inequality that results from state interference in markets to effect the protection of Capital wealth, as being actually caused by something else. Let’s see…it’s the fault of those on the bottom. You have to hold the poor in contempt for their lot in order to justify that capitalism is fine and working. After all, with such freedom available something must be wrong with the people who do not take advantage of it.

    You claim not to support the state, but your whole system requires a big state. Classical liberal writers would not have supported corporatism. These thinkers did not anticipate corporations being given rights that surpass those of even people. They were writing about human beings. You do support it Dave, and so do the people who have defined, in the normal usage “classical liberalism”.

  • Les Slater

    Cindy,

    Your last paragraph is close to my view on classical liberalism. Classical liberalism was quite radical, and progressive, when compared to feudalism and theocracy.

    At the time Adam Smith wrote ‘Wealth of Nations’ the term ‘capitalism’ was not used. Smith used ‘system of perfect liberty’ or ‘system of natural liberty’. This was at the beginning of industrial capitalism and we have learned much since.

    It was Marx that pointed out the NECESSITY of the inherent conflict between capital and the working class. This conflict has proven to be both true and necessary. The only way to end this conflict is to end the reign of capital.

    Les

  • http://ex-conservative.blogspot.com Glenn Contrarian

    Dave –

    Back to your ‘charitable giving’ – I think it’s already been established that religious offerings are counted in those statistics (because that’s how the government totals the amount given to charities, through the income tax statements), thereby skewing the totals strongly towards the conservatives.

    Why did I say ‘skew’?

    You implied it yourself, that charity is almost a duty. HOWEVER, to Christians, we give what’s in our heart – and if we give nothing, then we have nothing in our hearts. In other words, our Church offerings truly ARE a duty…which means Church offerings are NOT a ‘charity’ and should not be counted as such. Furthermore, one’s Church offerings should not be given with the expectation of a financial benefit come tax return time…but if you count your offerings as ‘charity’ on your taxes, that is PRECISELY what you are doing – expecting a partial pecuniary return on your offerings.

    A Christian who offers nothing (when he has something to give) is NOT a Christian…which makes it a DUTY, and NOT a ‘charity’.

    As I’ve often said, I’m a devout Christian, and I do NOT count my offerings as charity. In fact, that is the doctrine of the Church of which I am a member – we are not to list our Church offerings as ‘charity’ on our income tax.

    Take away all the religious offerings out of the ‘charity’ reported to the government…and all of a sudden you’ll see a FAR different scenario. Why do I know this? Read the Combined Federal Campaign booklet – you’ll see that the great majority of the charities are ones that liberals like myself would favor.

  • Ms. Know

    I feel that history was made yes, but what about our country? We have left-wing illuminati officials in leadership with no experience, and that will be a big consequence will pay dearly for.

%d bloggers like this: