Today on Blogcritics
Home » Culture and Society » The New America

The New America

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

Whereas previous generations of Americans laid down their lives for our freedoms, this generation willingly gave theirs up at the voting booth last night. Americans gave up real rights, such as the right to religious liberty, and very likely our second amendment rights, in exchange for services masquerading as rights, such as the “right” to “free” birth control. In fact, exit polls suggest that Obama was successful in making abortion an issue this election, handily winning the single woman vote by huge margins, even though abortion was never part of Romney’s platform or even on his to-do list.

Clearly, Romney failed in his run for president, though in truth, the deck was stacked against him by a media employing bias like never before. And while this Wednesday morning quarterback has a few criticisms of the campaign: too safe, too willing to let attacks on his person lie unanswered, too soft in the second and third debates, my main criticism is for the American people. Because at the end of the day, Romney ran a pretty good campaign despite the challenges he was up against. Romney may have had his flaws, the media may have had their bias, but it was the American people who failed last night.

Some folks have expressed their condolences to me for my candidate losing. Right back at ’em; I express my condolences to the country as a whole for the country losing. Because the country lost last night. The thoughtful were overtaken by the rank. The makers were overtaken by the takers. American politics has now fulfilled Alexis De Touqueville’s prediction that freedom ceases to exist when the electorate figures out that they can vote themselves an ever growing share of others’ income. Make no mistake, the country has exceeded it’s tipping point and will never be the same again.

What’s sad about this is that if the facts were laid bare, my gut says Americans would not have voted the way they did. Earlier, I mentioned how prior generations of Americans had made the ultimate sacrifice for freedom. Compare that to today’s Americans, who couldn’t be bothered to understand the facts before they voted. This generation of Americans gave up their freedoms because they couldn’t be bothered to read past the headlines, or take the time to understand the issues or the impacts of the current policy. Media bias only works when the audience doesn’t care to dig deeper or question the information presented. How else to explain the fact that Joe Biden’s performance in the VP debate rewarded him with a second term? How else to explain Obama winning re-election despite being the most polarizing figure in terms of race and class to ever inhabit the White House? Or despite our current unemployment and GDP levels? Or despite the fiasco in Benghazi.

America gets what she deserves. When you don’t study for a test, you tend to fail. And that’s exactly what happened here. The liberals who typically inhabit the discussions below my articles will probably deride me for posting sour grapes or question the premise that I’ve raised. But there is no question about it, we had a limited government that lived within a set of rules. Thanks to voters last night, that’s all over now, and to the detriment of our future economy, so are individuality, and the ability to live like a free people.

In my prior article, I talked about the Bloomberg endorsement of Obama and how they were birds of a feather. Most don’t like the large soda ban as an obvious intrusion on the individual’s ability to make decisions for themselves. Sadly, last night’s victory for Obama was confirmation that such policies are welcome and in fact are rewarded by an American people who are barely even paying attention. Whether it comes to deciding the size of the soda you can order, the amount of salt in your food, or what kind of health care you can obtain, make no mistake that yesterday’s vote by the American people was a victory for government, and a loss for individual freedom.

Welcome to the new America.

Powered by

About The Obnoxious American

  • Baronius

    If it makes you feel any better, the electorate also decided to keep the Republican Congress in place to block that abandonment of founding principles. And given the fact that second terms are typically less effective than first ones, we may see little change if any in our laws. There will be the implementation of “Obamacare” – there’s no stopping that now. But it’s a collection of policies, any of which can be modified. There will be the Great Budget Compromise of 2013, and who knows what that’s going to look like. But anything more? Not legislatively, I’d bet.

  • http://frivolousdisorder.com/ Frivolous D

    1. “gave up… the right to religious liberty” – Really? Where? How? Specifically what right did religious liberty enjoy 4 years ago that they no longer enjoy!

    2. “and very likely our second amendment rights” – Again, really? Obama signed bills allowing guns in national parks and on Amtrak. He broke his promise to pushed for the reinstatement of the assault weapons ban and he has made no effort to close the gun-show loophole.

    3. “the “right” to “free” birth control.” – Covered by insurance is not the same as free. Covered by insurance means that reproductive rights is also a health-care issue.

    4. “Obama was successful in making abortion an issue… even though abortion was never part of Romney’s platform” – Is this a laugh-line? Romney (10/17): “I’ve said time and time again, I’m a pro-life candidate,” Why would Democrats take up the issue? They already have Roe v Wade. Sorry but Republicans brought this to the table.

  • http://frivolousdisorder.com/ Frivolous D

    I think Baronius is correct in saying that we won’t see any grand-legislation in the next four years out of the administration. And, yes, he will keep Obamacare safe for four more years.

    I would add, though, that there’s a good chance that he’ll have the opportunity to appoint to the Supreme Court. No need to tell you what that could mean.

  • Baronius

    Friv – Probably not much of a difference for the Court. Roberts, Alito, and Thomas are all under 65, and I can’t picture Scalia retiring during an Obama presidency. The others who are in their 70’s are all pretty reliably on the left. So as with the rest of this election, it’s more of a Republican opportunity wasted than a Democratic gain.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Obnox, you really need to get a grip on the idea that rational people can have a perfectly good grasp of the facts and come to a different conclusion about them than you.

    The idea that they must all be brainwashed or ignorant because they voted Democrat just won’t wash.

  • http://www.lunch.com/JSMaresca-Reviews-1-1.html Dr. Joseph S. Maresca

    The trend in recent elections has been to re-elect incumbent presidents, as was done with
    Presidents Reagan, Clinton and Bush the II. President Obama latched onto that proclivity of
    the American people to vote for stability in governance. In addition, President Obama has gotten
    us out of two big wars and the electorate did not want to take a chance in starting any new
    and costly wars. Staying out of big wars is the real key to reducing the deficit – not cutting
    taxes.

  • http://frivolousdisorder.com/ Frivolous D

    Baronius, again, I may have to admit your right. As for Scalia, I think his bumper sticker reads, “They will take my gavel from me when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.”

  • Glenn Contrarian

    OA –

    Whereas previous generations of Americans laid down their lives for our freedoms, this generation willingly gave theirs up at the voting booth last night.

    Really? For the life of me, I can’t think of a single bill that was passed where people gave up ANY liberties in this election, but there were several bills that passed where people GAINED liberty…such as with gay marriage and marijuana decriminalization. But don’t let that ruin your illusion, now.

    Americans gave up real rights, such as the right to religious liberty, and very likely our second amendment rights, in exchange for services masquerading as rights, such as the “right” to “free” birth control.

    Where and how did we give up ANY religious liberty? What happened, OA, was that we elected a president who believes in the separation of church and state…which ideal the Republicans gave up back in the 1980’s when they decided that it was okay if they could use the government to push their religious beliefs on others. And when it comes to Second Amendment rights, would you care to point out ANY anti-gun legislation Obama signed into law? Actions speak louder than words, OA…but don’t let that little fact ruin your illusion, now.

    exit polls suggest that Obama was successful in making abortion an issue this election, handily winning the single woman vote by huge margins, even though abortion was never part of Romney’s platform or even on his to-do list.

    Never mind that criminalizing abortion in all cases (including in cases of rape and incest) except to protect the life of the mother is part of the official Republican platform. Really, OA, you should learn to pay attention as to WHY we voted the way we do…but don’t let the facts ruin your illusion, now.

    Clearly, Romney failed in his run for president, though in truth, the deck was stacked against him by a media employing bias like never before.

    Yeah, that eeeeeevil MSM, since they didn’t attack Obama for really being born in Kenya, and since they didn’t expose that global warming conspiracy, and since they weren’t as far-right as Faux News – and since they didn’t predict a Romney landslide like some Faux News leading lights did – well, THAT means they’re part of that vast left-wing conspiracy, huh?

    Here’s a clue, OA – most of us REAL lefties consider the MSM to be right of center…with at least as much cause as you’ve got to call them ‘left of center’. But don’t let the facts ruin your illusion, now.

    Media bias only works when the audience doesn’t care to dig deeper or question the information presented. How else to explain the fact that Joe Biden’s performance in the VP debate rewarded him with a second term? How else to explain Obama winning re-election despite being the most polarizing figure in terms of race and class to ever inhabit the White House? Or despite our current unemployment and GDP levels? Or despite the fiasco in Benghazi.

    1. Biden WON the debate – not because of his demeanor, but because he kept pointing out Paul Ryan’s outright ‘malarkey’.

    2. Obama was the most polarizing figure…how? If he’d been Republican, you would have been hailing him as the second coming of Reagan! Why? Because our individual federal tax burdens are lower than at any point since the early 1950’s, our corporate tax rate is lower than at any point since 1972, the rate of growth of government spending is lower than at any point since Eisenhower, AND he has LOWERED the deficit 8% since 2009. In other words, OA, Obama is the most fiscally CONSERVATIVE president since Eisenhower, more so than Nixon, Reagan, Bush 41, or Bush 43.

    You castigate him for the DREAM act…never mind that Reagan’s amnesty was MUCH bigger. You decry Obamacare…never mind that Obamacare is almost a carbon copy of Romneycare and is largely drawn DIRECTLY from what the Heritage Foundation and Newt Gingrich supported in the 1990’s. One-third of his oh-so-terrible stimulus was TAX CUTS, and when it comes to government stimulus packages, he merely followed an example set by Reagan and Bush 43. He’s passed fewer regulations than either Clinton or Bush 43 did in their first terms. AND he’s deported RECORD numbers of illegal immigrants, got bin Laden and most of al Qaeda, and ended a major war!

    C’mon, OA – if we judge Obama by his actions, he’s a moderate REPUBLICAN! YES, Obama was divisive…but it wasn’t because of anything he did. It was ONLY because he didn’t have an (R) behind his name. But don’t let little things like facts ruin your illusion, now.

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

    Nice skewering of this BS article, Glenn.

  • Igor

    Obnox refuses to face the failings of his party, his candidate and beliefs and insists that it’s the fault of the press (as usual) and, finally, the American people. Looks pretty cowardly to me.

  • Clavos

    Demographers have proclaimed for some time now that the country was moving toward a population in which no one ethnic group will be the majority; many have mentioned 2035 as the date this process would culminate.

    I think we saw the process gather velocity with this election, which boiled down to the people of color forming a coalition under the Democratic banner (although with a fairly good-sized contingent of whites joining them), while the Republicans, almost 100% lily white, formed the opposition. I take away from the result of this election that white folks have finally lost their position (as a group — individuals will prevail for a few more years) of power, authority and privilege in the USA. I believe that never again will whites dominate the rest of American society to the degree they have until now. Yes, there will be seeming returns to the old structure; white presidents will still get elected (but less and less frequently and they will face Congresses of increasing non-white membership), but the overall trend will be fewer and fewer whites in positions of power in the coming years.

    Since most of the non-whites are and will be Latino (they already outnumber the African Americans for example) If you don’t already speak Spanish, learn it. From this event on, this process will only accelerate; as the news circulates in Latin America, ever larger groups of immigrants will begin to arrive, swelling the ranks of the Latinos to a point where much of the country will mirror Miami and South Florida, where almost every position of power and authority, from politics, to business to law enforcement is already held by a Latino/a these days.

  • Igor

    @11-Clavos: the usual lamentation of racists. Did you ever think that MAYBE your ideas and policies are corrupt and it’s not just a racist plot against you?

  • Doug Hunter

    #11

    Mostly true, no velocity change though. The percentage of white vote drops 3 points every four years and has for a long time. We may be reaching a tipping point where a divided white population can no longer compete with unified minority ones. That’ll change though once they realize we aren’t the boogeymen they thought we were, they’ll split into their own factions. Our policies are headed to those of western Europe, our demographics to those of Brazil (Have you seen the women there?)

    My prescription: Drop abortion and gay marriage as issues immediately along with any other social issues. Focus on limited government, liberty, classic liberalism. Force the christian coalition back to the democrats where they belong with their conservative black and hispanic demographics. Then wait a decade or so. Coastal whites, the educated of all races, and the ‘cool’ kids will come back home to the right and we can move forward.

    Not gonna happen though.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    I take away from the result of this election that white folks have finally lost their position (as a group — individuals will prevail for a few more years) of power, authority and privilege in the USA.

    Both Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly just admitted much the same thing.

    Since most of the non-whites are and will be Latino (they already outnumber the African Americans for example) If you don’t already speak Spanish, learn it. From this event on, this process will only accelerate; as the news circulates in Latin America, ever larger groups of immigrants will begin to arrive, swelling the ranks of the Latinos to a point where much of the country will mirror Miami and South Florida, where almost every position of power and authority, from politics, to business to law enforcement is already held by a Latino/a these days.

    Well said, and quite true…and all those who might be offended at the eventuality should remember the Serenity Prayer i.e. if you really can’t do anything about it, then don’t worry about it. An oak tree is much stronger than a blade of grass…but when the winds blow, generally speaking, it’s not the blade of grass that has to worry.

    That’s why I told my sons I want them to learn two things – to be happy, and to adapt. Change is indeed the only true constant.

  • Clavos

    Igor:

    Snap!

    I’m Mexican born and raised and a Mexican citizen with dual citizenship. I identify myself as Mexican, and if I have any racism in me, it’s against arrogant, condescending gringos like you; gringos who think you’re better than everyone else, and have pissed off people all over the world with your attitude throughout your history. I live in Miami because it is a Latino city, and I look forward to the day when we outnumber you — and we will, bet on it.

  • Doug Hunter

    #11

    Also, there are alot of benefits to what you describe. Immigrant groups self select so the more motivated and ambitious end up making it. Also, declining birthrates among european stock means new blood needs to be brought in… that is if you want to have someone there to change your diaper in the old folks home!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Doug –

    That’ll change though once they realize we aren’t the boogeymen they thought we were, they’ll split into their own factions.

    Actually, it’s we whites who need to learn that the non-whites are not the boogeymen we thought they were. We and not they are the ones who need to learn to adapt. But then, conservatism and social adaptation are all too often mutually exclusive.

    Our policies are headed to those of western Europe, our demographics to those of Brazil (Have you seen the women there?)

    Cool on both counts!

    My prescription: Drop abortion and gay marriage as issues immediately along with any other social issues.

    Nope – ain’t gonna happen. Y’all sold your political souls to the Religious Right, and now they are the ones who have been setting the social agenda for the GOP for some time now.

    Focus on limited government, liberty, classic liberalism.

    Sounds good from a conservative standpoint…but liberals like myself know that’s a path we’re not going to travel willingly, thank goodness!

    Force the christian coalition back to the democrats where they belong with their conservative black and hispanic demographics.

    Oh, no, you got the political cooties called the Religious Right and we don’t want them!

    Then wait a decade or so. Coastal whites, the educated of all races, and the ‘cool’ kids will come back home to the right and we can move forward.

    Um, Doug – it’s as you said – it ain’t gonna happen. Besides, we’ve got coolness and to spare – watch Obama’s slow-jam with Jimmy Fallon some time. He was really only following the footsteps of Clinton playing the sax on the Arsenio Hall Show way back when! And besides, the Boss is on our side, whereas you’ve got Ted Nugent and the Oak Ridge Boys. Coolness? Please!

    But to give you some hope, I suspect that this election is the beginning of a sea change, the beginning of the decline of the Religious Right. If and only if (1) conservative punditry can muster the courage to reject the Religious Right, and if (2) conservative punditry can go cold-turkey on race-baiting, then the GOP might, just might be able to start back on the path to become a big-tent party once more. You see, even though they don’t set policy, conservative pundits are the ones who are setting the tone for the GOP – ask any of several former Republican politicians who dared to speak out against Rush Limbaugh!

    #1 I think is doable and might even be starting now – and the GOP policymakers are not stupid. They can see as well as anyone the price they’re beginning to pay for selling their political souls to the Religious Right. But #2 is not so easy. Why? Here’s a story for you: a good friend of mine is a black woman. Back in the early 1960’s, she was talking to a Mormon missionary. She was just a child at the time and asked, “Do blacks go to heaven?” The Mormon missionary replied, “Why yes, they go to dog-and-cat heaven.” You see, for generations it was Mormon doctrine that black skin was the Mark of Cain and so they weren’t even allowed to be Mormon clergy until something like 1977. You see, it wasn’t just because of Obama that blacks stayed away from Romney in droves.

    The GOP is going to have to get rid of the Religious Right first before they can hope to diminish the general perception (whether or not it is based on reality) that the GOP is more than a little influenced by racism.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Clavos –

    I’m Mexican born and raised and a Mexican citizen with dual citizenship. I identify myself as Mexican, and if I have any racism in me, it’s against arrogant, condescending gringos like you; gringos who think you’re better than everyone else, and have pissed off people all over the world with your attitude throughout your history. I live in Miami because it is a Latino city, and I look forward to the day when we outnumber you — and we will, bet on it.

    And I can’t gainsay a single word you said here. It’s just funny to me that – at least on BC – you are so much more critical of the big-tent party than you are of the lily-white party.

  • Clavos

    Doug,

    Thanks. The reason i think there will be a velocity change is because I see the influx of Latino immigrants accelerating as the world observes the results of this election, which presumably will be favorable for non-whites; but you could be right. In any case I think we agree there’s a certain inevitability to the trend, whatever the velocity.

    As to the future possibility of the Latinos splitting into factions: you’re dead on the money there; in fact, one of the irritants is the tendency of non-Latinos to lump all of us together as a single group, when there are substantial differences between Mexicans, say, and Argentines, etc. That alone is enough to cause the splitting.

    You ask if I’ve seen Brazilian women. I worked for ten years for Varig Brazilian airlines and traveled frequently to and through Brazil. They are gorgeous, and I have a theory as to why: as you probably know, Brazil is the only LatAm country to have imported Africans as slaves in significant numbers. They also freed theirs at about the same time the US did; Emperor Dom Pedro II abolished slavery (freely — not under duress) in the early 1860s.

    Following abolition, there was a tremendous volume of intermarriage between the races, to the point that today there are few pure bloods of either race. I think it was the ubiquitous intermarriage that produced those beautiful people. I say people because the men in Brazil are very striking as well. As a group, the Brazilians are the best looking group of people I’ve ever seen anywhere, and during 30 years of working in the airline business, I got to do a lot of traveling.

  • Clavos

    Glenn,

    First, thanks for your #14.

    A quick answer to your question about my embracing of the lily-white party instead of the big tent party: while my social attitudes are closely allied to those of you Democrats (most of my personal friends are liberals, and that’s the major reason why).

    However, I remain a political conservative, by which I mean I support small government (as you know) have a strong aversion to debt (either my own or the government’s), and because of what I’ve seen happen in the world almost incessantly my entire life, I vigorously support a strong military and an agressive attitude in protecting the country from the predators of the world. This idea also gives rise to differences between my thoughts as to who are predators vis-a-vis who your party considers to be. One example, I think Ahmadinejad and the ayatollahs are snakes and it bothers me that Obama is trying to establish a “friendly” relationship with Ahmadinejad; I would much rather blow him (and his puppet masters) to hell .

    There are other differences, but those are some of the highlights.

  • Doug Hunter

    #10 Re: Brazil

    No doubt, I didn’t just throw the first Spanish (or Portuguese in this case) speaking country I could think of out there, it seems like that same mix may be the future here as we have a black population. My long time best friend and business partner is from there. His wife, mother, and three sisters are all fit and beautiful as many there seem to be. My wife is Puerto Rican which has some of the same mix, our kids will fit right into the new America. I say bring it on!

  • Doug Hunter

    Clavos, speaking of aversion to debt. Do you think it’s possible the world is in the midst of a long cycle sovereign debt bubble among western powers? It’s something I’ve occasionally got a sinking feeling about… that one day every government’s debt may become junk at the same time and really there is then no backstop as they become essentially powerless to do anything about it except firing up the press and hyperinflation. It seems the solution to Greek bonds is EU bonds and US funding is borrowing from China… it’s bonds on bonds on bonds. At some point it seems the music could stop and the whole Keynesian experiment could go nuclear dwarfing the housing bubble, (whose answer of course was debt funded stimulus). The mother of all bubbles I’d call it.

    Is that ignorant conspiracy talk or is there some fundamental reason it couldn’t happen? The biggest bubbles seemed to be backed by the biggest truisms… the stock market always goes up, house prices always go up, you can alway borrow a bit more money our government always pays you back.

  • Clavos

    Doug, I’m no economist, though I did take a full year of economics in college; one semester of micro, followed by one of macro. Anyway, I do believe it’s possible for developed nations’ debt to accumulate to a point when the “bubble” bursts, if for no other reason than it can and does happen in other commodities. While money isn’t strictly speaking a commodity, it does have some important similarities, the most important of which, of course is confidence in its value. The thing is, the dollar is the developed world’s standard currency (really the whole world’s) and our rate of borrowing has accelerated to an alarming point in my opinion. If the world should lose confidence in the dollar, it seems to me that loss could trigger a a failure that would generate a worldwide panic and subsequent frantic scrambling by each affected nation to protect their wealth, including, as you said, firing up the presses. Your point about all the US paper held by China brings to mind a scenario wherein China, being seriously crippled by a sudden sharp devaluation of the dollar (because of holding all that paper), and at that point wouldn’t be able to turn to the US to demand payment because we wouldn’t have it either. That situation would undoubtedly create a domino effect that would spread worldwide.

    Because of the very fundamentalism of international inter-nation borrowing, I think that if anything breaks, yes, it will go viral.

  • http://takeitorleaveit.typepad.com/ roger nowosielski

    Igor is off his rocker to see your #11 as a lamentation of a racist. Either that, or he simply responds to you on a strictly antagonistic basis, regardless of content.

    So yes, an arrogant and condescending gringo is the proper description, to which I would only add: a grumpy old man.

  • http://cinemasentries.com El Bicho

    not sure how Clavos talking about the country’s changing demos is considered racist. Igor makes himself look like the Boy who Cried ‘Wolf’.

  • http://cinemasentries.com El Bicho

    some conservatives see the loss as a time for reflection. others like OA continue to wallow in denial.

  • Igor

    Hmmmm. Wonder what I said.

    IMO the discussion someone was having back around #10+ was racism disguised as something kindler and gentler, like ‘demographics’.

    Can’t we all just get along?

  • Dr Dreadful

    Igor, you’re reading something into Clavos’s #11 that isn’t there, unless the tendency of Americans to classify everybody by “race” is itself racist.

  • Doug Hunter

    #28

    An interesting question in itself. The mounds of demographic and racial data are pushed by liberals with the purpose of finding statistical differences which can be attributed to racism. If you bring up the idea of a truly colorblind society that does not even regard or ask about race you’ll usually be accused of racism.

    It’s very strange and quite backwards to my logical mind, a colorblind society, equal treatment, lack of race consciousness is racism while special treatment, forced outcomes, racial bean counting is somehow the opposite… probably part of that amorphous ‘social justice’ concept that’s floating out there.

  • Dr Dreadful

    The mounds of demographic and racial data are pushed by liberals with the purpose of finding statistical differences which can be attributed to racism.

    It’s more for the purpose of ensuring that racial groups aren’t discriminated against, but I can see how getting things arse-about could be an upshot of the process.

    The problem with classifying everything by race is that no system can catch everything. Working on HUD programs as I do, I encounter this sort of thing all the time. According to the federal government, there are only five races: White, Black, Asian, Native American and Pacific Islander. You end up doing things like categorizing people of Punjabi descent as “Asian” when genetically they’re closer akin to Europeans. You can have a situation where a Sikh landlord is systematically discriminating against his Hmong tenants in favour of his Indian tenants, and unless someone says something you’re never going to know because the database classifies everyone as “Asian”.

    Even more bizarre is the “ethnicity” classification under which you can be one of two things: Hispanic or non-Hispanic. That one’s really helpful. My wife, for example, has Swiss-German, Nicaraguan, Puerto Rican, Spanish and French ancestry, so which is she?

  • zingzing

    “If you bring up the idea of a truly colorblind society that does not even regard or ask about race you’ll usually be accused of racism.”

    well, it depends upon what you say about that idea, but you know that. you take a dim view of liberals and “social justice,” so it’s no suprise you see nothing but the dark possibilities. but remember that your point of view is not the entirety of the picture.

    for example, your “forced outcomes” thing probably means you think minorities get an unfair leg up (right?). but if you look at it with your non-poo-face, it could also mean that the social traps certain groups of people are particularly vulnerable to are guarded by a safety net. you see a problem, you put in protections against that problem, because that problem does harm to a certain group of people, and that does harm to the society at large. we’re all better off for these programs.

    do you really think that because a program doesn’t directly benefit you, it has no benefits to you at all? or am i reading too much into your comment?

  • Doug Hunter

    #30

    Yes, it’s kind of a blunt tool. I believe the blanket term ‘black’ has by far the most diversity, a Pygmy is not an Ethiopian is not and an Aborigine etc. etc. Asian is right up there. White Europeans are but one small branch of the human tree.

    #31

    I certainly take a dim view of “social justice”, moreso when it applies to race, sex, all the protected classes. Individuals are individuals, you don’t start with the assumption that all whites/men/protestants are privileged with perfect lives or that all minorities/women/etc have the opposite experience. You just don’t treat people as groups, it’s that simple. Without that consideration you don’t need ‘social justice’ you just need plain old fashioned blind justice and the good old equal opportunity laws we’ve had on the books for decades (bring the hammer down on those afflicted with the ‘isms’).

    There aren’t alot of forced outcomes currently in the US as many don’t stand up to judicial review. Quotas are out for the most part, certain contracting and procurement opportunities exist, but not a whole lot. I’d say the ‘unfair leg up’ minorities may get is somewhat less than the benefit I get for having honorably served (worked? I hate how all government work is called service… it’s a dang job like everyone else has.) in the military… not much in total. That doesn’t mean that changing out a supreme court justice or two and reelecting democrat majorities won’t take us in that direction.

    Everything the benefits society benefits me, it’s nice not to get shot in the face when I walk outside by someone trying to feed their family or their drug habit. The 48% of the country that does not vote democrat has a stake in the future as well, I have kids who I want to have the best life possible as well. I don’t believe getting people reliant on government service cradle to grave is going to move this country ahead. I don’t think adding to the trillions we already borrowed from the kids’ piggybank so we can kick back and enjoy life today at their expense is good policy. I think democrats don’t have an idea to raise the tide and lift all boats they are fixated on equalizing us and the easiest target is the lowest common denominator.

    If they did have an answer why didn’t they use it in their bastions… Detroit, Philadelphia, Chicago, etc.? Seriously, there were wards in Philly voting around 10,000 votes for Obama with about 50 for Romney. I’d be willing to bet crime and poverty are rampant there. How do they have this visceral fear and blame for Republicans for their situation when they’ve been in blue cities in blue states for generations? Look further at DC with the massive federal funding they get and it’s still rife with crime and poverty… if they had an answer surely they would use it there… massive funding… massive education spending… an all democrat leadership in literally the heart of the nation. Hell, at the rates they’re voting the people probably don’t even know any Republicans, all they know is what they heard… which leads us back full circle to racism… sometimes it’s easier for the leaders to point and shout racist than face their own failures.

    If there wasn’t such fear of the racist boogeyman, perhaps some people would realize that sprucing up the project and topping off the food stamp benefit card probably isn’t as much incentive to get out of intergenerational poverty as say the Republican solution… jobs. Maybe, just maybe, the Republican message would appeal to more than 1 in 200 people in these places.

  • Zingzing

    The “republican solution… Jobs” is a promise they’ve broken. How many jobs bills did they propose? Anyway, again, you look at the dark side, the “cradle to the grave” stuff, I mean. Not that that doesn’t exist. Some people are going to become addicted to that stuff, and some people abuse it. But some people, who never had a shot in this life, never got an education, never had any money to even think of getting one, never had a shot at anything but a minimum wage job, they actually need that stuff. Imagine what their lives would be if they didn’t. Do you want our poorest starving or turning to crime? That our poorest can survive and have some hope of getting out of poverty through social programs is a great thing.

    And at the same time, our middle class is surviving on just another teat, that of credit (which is a far more dangerous teat to suckle, at least when it comes to the overall health of our economy)… Most of that money from credit does not return into our economy in the same way that social program dollars do. Blaming the poor for our troubles, when it’s our NATIONAL inability to live within our means is like slapping the mosquito on on your ankle wihile ignoring a vampire sucking at your neck.

    But it’s never our fault. It’s always the weakest among us who would drag our “strong” nation down. It’s the welfare queens, not those amongst us who fell for “too good to be true” mortgage deals. It’s social programs that are dooming us, not the trillions we spend on meaningless wars. It’s the unemployment benefits that we can’t pay for, not the decade of ridiculous tax cuts for the “job creators” who have failed to create jobs.

    We’re so busy shifting the blame to anyone but ourselves. I’m cool, you’re cool. It’s those other people.

  • Doug Hunter

    #33

    Proposed jobs bills.

    A handful, they claim dozens but then can’t trust politicians. Senate democrats control what gets to the floor there so they haven’t even brought the bills or budgets the house passed up for debate. Of course, it’s only Republicans that obstruct… hehe.

    I didn’t blame anyone. I asked you what was so successful about Democrat policies that got such resounding vote margins from the inner city. Again, DC is the absolute perfect example. They get massive government expenditures, they’re at the heart of government jobs, they spend around $30,000 per student per year on education, and they have straight blue democrat governance. They also have sky high murder rates, sky high violent crime rates, poverty only behind AR and MS (whose cost of living is so far lower they’re barely comparable), etc. The country would go bankrupt long before we could spend as much on services for the whole nation as we do in DC. It simply won’t fix the problem, we have a shining example of that failure.

    No blame, just an observation. Against the backdrop, I wonder why Republicans get 1 of 10 to 1 of 200 votes in these areas. The only reason I can fathom is the sheer scapegoating and demonization of the Republican party in the eyes of these largely minority groups by their own leaders and the powerful democrat political machine. I believe fear of racism is the trigger. Racism exists, but rural Mississippi dipshits are literally thousands of miles away with no political clout and zero influence in DC, or Detroit, or Philly, and the list goes on. Their democratic leadership is right in front of them and they’re not doing a damn thing and yet they keep voting for them over and over and over. The definition of insanity IMO.

  • Zingzing

    “The definition of insanity IMO.”

    the other side is promoting idea of further cutting what help they do get (which, as you know, is barely subsistence-level). It would be insane to vote the other way. There’s an underclass in nearly every democracy (find one without such an underclass, i challenge you).

    Let’s look at dc. What do you know? Violent crime is down by 50% since 1995. Property crime is down by 49.8% in the same time frame. Amazing. These people are insane? Maybe not. I dunno, dc was the first one I looked at. Detroit or Philly might hot show the same type of improvement. But it seems to me like you’re working from cliches and assumptions, not reality.

  • Zingzing

    As for your link to jobs bills, just look at those names… You can’t link to the actual bills from that site, but many of those look like total sophomoric bait. Instead of sending up job bills that had a chance in hell, they sent up “job bills,” like all those “regulatory relief” and “energy tax relief” and “access to capital” acts that are just gussied up deregulation and tax relief to the rich schemes. Most of those are “jobs bills” about as much as my dick is a hammer. It won’t do the job you asked it to do. (sorry.)

  • Doug Hunter

    #35

    Crime is way down in the entire nation since the late 80’s, red state, blue state, inner city, rural, everywhere. The per capita incarceration has spiked to triple the rate in that time period. Modern police are better at finding criminals and we’re keeping 300% more of them in prison at any given time so they can’t commit more crimes (and mentor more future criminals). I’m sure that helps.

    Here’s a link:

    US Incarceration Rate *Note, this is per capita so the total increase in raw numbers would be even higher.

    Over time is a tough comparison all around, technology and society tend to evolve and things get better in many ways. I’m aiming more at today.

    Look, you’re right. What you’re saying is entirely logical, once people get government support they can’t remember how they could ever exist without it and ‘would be insane’, i.e. never, vote Republican again. In fact, they will cling to it and never be without it… that’s the problem… that’s the trap. It’s not even the dollar cost of these programs, it’s the human cost of a wasted life scrimping by on welfare and food stamps in government housing maybe subsidized by someone on disability or SS with no hope and no future. Oh well, I guess we’ll find out if more money redistribution can fix it. I just hope the country can afford it, if DC is any indication you get little bang for your buck.

    Again, I’ll rephrase the question so you get it. In light of the fact that DC gets gobs of federal spending, is in the core of government jobs, spends $30,000.00 per student per year on education (almost 3 times the national average), has a higher minimum wage, and pure D leadership at the helm are they so unsuccessful when compared to other urban areas? They’re right near the top of the murder and violent crime and poverty stats. Why do they continue to blame R’s for the problems as evidence by votes? If federal spending and education spending and government jobs and democratic policies worked so well, why isn’t it evidenced in the testbed of DC where they get multiples of funding?

    Cliches and assumptions? Bollocks. You obviously don’t know me, granted I don’t spend all my time here.

  • Doug Hunter

    #35

    Very true. I didn’t do alot to defend the list, just pointed out the claim. There definitely is a budget in there though.

  • Doug Hunter

    I’m headed off for awhile Zing, appreciate the exchange. My gathering is that federal spending is only slightly more successful at fixing the root of poverty as tax cuts are for creating jobs. Neither occurs without a willing mind and an a practical opportunity.

  • Zingzing

    “What you’re saying is entirely logical, once people get government support they can’t remember how they could ever exist without it and ‘would be insane’.”

    How do the rich feel when their shit might be cut off? I worry a lot less about the rich, how about you? Who can afford it more, and what might the social consequences be? I’d rather hit those that can take a hit.

    “I’m headed off for awhile Zing, appreciate the exchange.”

    Godspeed, sir. It was testy, but civil, which is what I hope for in the political discourse over the next four years (or two if I’m being realistic).

  • Clavos

    Nice discussion, gents. Enjoyed reading it.

  • Dr Dreadful

    Probably best that it ends now before you-know-who shows up with more pearls of white supremacist wisdom.

    He can sniff out a conversation about race from 11 miles away, that one.

    :-)

  • Dan

    Thank you for the introduction Dreadful.

    Just as Charles Darwin predicted American exceptionalism based on the “genetic endowments” of those “adventuresome” and “individualistic” whites who emigrated from Europe, the racial polarization seen this last election has a genetic component as well.

    When Ted Kennedy and liberal Democrats abandoned the founders intentions by expanding immigration in favor of non-white peoples in 1965, whites were first told that the racial composition of the population would not be changed. As that lie ultimately became exposed, the new lie was that race is a trivial thing, and that the newcomers desired to live the same political philosophy as traditional white Americans. Nothing to fear here!

    Now that the election is decided, libs are crowing about demographic destiny, and the need for the Republican party to abandon the traditional conservative principles of government that enabled exceptionalism.

    prepare for decline, resentment, and austerity.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Dan, you made it! Took you a while, but welcome. :-)

    As usual, though, you’re viewing everything distorted through the lens of your favourite hobby horse.

    This discussion isn’t about convincing the GOP to “abandon the traditional conservative principles of government” (we don’t need another Democratic Party, we’ve already got one). Those principles have nothing to do with what colour your skin is or what particular intricate little twists a certain acidic molecule within the nuclei of your cells takes. The key is to sell the message to new demographics without compromising your basic principles. It can be done: up until not so very long ago, for instance, African-Americans almost unanimously supported the Republican Party.

    BTW, Charles Darwin was a product of his time and shared many of his contemporaries’ preconceptions about the superiority of Europeans, but he knew nothing of genetics, a term coined by William Bateson 40 years after his death. So quite where you got the notion of him predicting American exceptionalism based on “genetic endowments”, I don’t know.

  • Igor

    @28-Dr D:

    Igor, you’re reading something into Clavos’s #11 that isn’t there, unless the tendency of Americans to classify everybody by “race” is itself racist.

    Well, isn’t it?

  • Igor

    People are invited to watch the marvelous PBS documentary “What Darwin Didn’t Know” being reprised on PBS this week (IIRC it’s 2 hours). It describes the advent of DNA, etc., and other considerations, and is absolutely fascinating.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Sounds very interesting, Igor. I’ll set my DVR. Thanks.

  • http://www.squidoo.com/lensmasters/IanMayfield Dr Dreadful

    Hmm. Doesn’t seem to be on my local PBS station’s schedule. Unless it’s already aired.

  • Igor

    “What Darwin Didn’t Know” is a NOVA episode that first aired 3 years ago, so it comes around in the local rotation as your station sees fit. But you can Web Watch it at: PBS NOVA Darwin. I caught it in the primetime airing at 8PM then again at 4AM in the morning. You can also probably BT it at the MVGROUP file list.

    Science documentaries have become so good and so engaging that it’s a wonder that anyone watches fictional stories anymore.

    Frankly, commercial TV is so bad that IMO it should be revoked. All the commercial stations should have their licenses revoked (they are all in violation of the “public interest” clause of the FCC charter) and turned over to non-commercial subscription stations and colleges and high-schools. Then the airwaves would truly become the Public University Of the Air, as envisioned by Armstrong when he invented FM, and Philo Farnsworth when he invented TV. What a wonderful thing that would be. And then the population would not be endlessly trained to absorb advertisements and to watch fictional stories told by practised liars, both designed to make gullible fools of formerly free citizens.

  • Dan

    “Dan, you made it! Took you a while, but welcome. :-)”—Dreadful

    Thank you, I haven’t checked in for a while. Happy Thanksgiving to you and family.

    “The key is to sell the message to new demographics without compromising your basic principles. It can be done: up until not so very long ago, for instance, African-Americans almost unanimously supported the Republican Party.”—Dreadful

    True, but back then Democrats had been the party of segregation for several decades, and Jim Crow, so a Conservative message of limited government and equal rights appealed to them. Sadly, the great majority of blacks now favor racial discrimination from their politicians. As long as it is against whites.

    My point was a much larger one, and that is that there is very likely a genetic component to philosophical attitudes of governance that differs within races, but more substantially, between races.

    Simplified, it could be related to attitudes of individualism vs. socialism.

    One need only to look at the imminent financial collapse of some major, once thriving cities that through “white flight” fell into control by non-whites as examples. California’s fiscal difficulties since they have been “browned” serves as another. For a truly controlled experiment, the Country of Liberia comes to mind. Founded by freed American slaves, it has ostensibly the same representative republic government model as the US, but has had a tragic, but predictable history of corruption and misery. (predictable for those realists who abstain from the social fantasy of egalitarianism).

    “Charles Darwin was a product of his time and shared many of his contemporaries’ preconceptions about the superiority of Europeans, but he knew nothing of genetics…”—Dreadful

    The developmental theory of heredity that Darwin formulated he called “Pangenesis”.

  • Igor

    @50-Dan: your race-based cultural differentiation fails. Cities failed because of vicious exploitation by their rulers, who had too much power and were too crooked.

    Abuse of power and crookedness are not specific to any ‘race’, whatever a ‘race’ is.