10 Things I Hate About Liberals

Funny thing is, (6.00 / 1)

a lot of those are things I hate about conservatives!  ;-)

---

by: David @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 09:58:00 AM CST

hehe (0.00 / 0)

Yea probably valid for some of them, though some are clearly out.  Being a good libertarian-republican (like I try to be) would automatically rule out most of them though.

D

the government can give you nothing
that it doesn't take away, first

---

by: demolisher @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 10:00:35 AM CST

[ Parent ]

D, you describe Republicans to a T (6.00 / 3)

1.  Sarcasm. Remember Ari Fleischer?

2.  Mob mentality. Remember what happened to the Dixie Chicks?

3.  High earning people. How about those Kennedys.

4.  Juding what others need. Hard to find  more judgmental set than the Bush administration.

5.  Marxism. The Bush administration is as Marxist as they come insofar as they believe in centralization of power in the Chief Executive and a massive increase in state power to monitor and control the citizens.

6.  Change via judiciary. Bush repeatedly nominates judges who don't hesitate to use the judiciary to legislate on all kinds of issues.

7.  Numbers over principle. OK, you're right: regressive Republicans do favor religious zealoty over secular pragmatism. I'll give you that one. Bush sold his soul to the fanatics at Bob Jones University.

8.  Long term perspective. Shall we discuss the botched effort in Iraq; the willful blindness to climate change. The Democrats are the only ones looking more than two years into the future.

9.  Oppression. I'll grant that Republicans favor a narrow strategy based in part on racial intolerance. Trent Lott's recent election speaks volumes; Kerry Healey's campaign was cut from the same cloth.

10.  The triumph of communalism over human freedom. Tell it to the US citizen thrown in jail without trial or charge for more than two years, and consider the push for torture and the drive to suspend habeus corpus in some situations. No friends of freedom, the regressive Republicans.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 11:21:53 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Symptomatic (6.00 / 3)

I imagine you find this funny or somehow provocative.  Discerning, thoughtful, and erudite, this.

Perhaps on Red State or LGF this is the sort of thing that makes for gratifying and edifying discourse, but I'm only cautiously hopeful that BMG can avoid validating such lazy and sophomoric baiting. 

It's time spent thinking like this that sealed your electoral fate on November 7. 

 

---

by: lightiris @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 10:12:18 AM CST

chicken! (0.00 / 0)

I posted here instead of redstate because I'd rather get into a debate on at least some of it.  Some of it is style, ok - sarcasm, mob mentality, etc.  Other of it is for real difference in worldview - judging need, collectivism over individual freedom, classism.  No?

Demo


the government can give you nothing
that it doesn't take away, first

---

by: demolisher @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 10:37:44 AM CST

[ Parent ]

As I love to point out... (0.00 / 0)

If a liberal made similar, but idealogically opposite comments like yours on Redstate, they would be banned.  Just ask me.

So you must accept the fact that liberals are far more supportive of free speech than conseratives. 

Now I'm sure you'll rant about liberals trying to ban hate speech and the so-called PC police.  But folks at Redstate and their concerative types ban thoughts they simply disagree with--look how Cheney/Rumsfeld shut Colin Powell up.

---

by: FrankSkeffington @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 11:08:05 AM CST

[ Parent ]

not sure (0.00 / 0)

If what you say is true, then you have shown the the moderaters at bluemassgroup are more open and tolerant of free speech than the moderators at redstate.  I would agree with that assessment.

In my personal experience, it seems to me that liberals are much, much less tolerant of free speech than conservatives, although I'm sure there are plentiful examples on both sides.

Want a recent, local one?  Look what happened to Larry Summers.


the government can give you nothing
that it doesn't take away, first

---

by: demolisher @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 13:59:09 PM CST

[ Parent ]

If you agree with my assesment... (0.00 / 0)

...why just label liberals as intolerant?  As has been pointed out here and as you conceded to David, your exact criticism can be leveled at both spectrums--yet your original assertion is that it's only the liberals.

So what's the deal?  Are these "top 10" traits exclusive to liberals are some shared by conseratives?

---

by: FrankSkeffington @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 14:05:53 PM CST

[ Parent ]

you really want (0.00 / 0)

me to make a top 10 things I hate about conservatives list too?

#1 would be creationism, thats for sure.

Also in there would be the legislative manifestations of social conservatism, and of course, there would be some place for religion.

D


the government can give you nothing
that it doesn't take away, first

---

by: demolisher @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 15:20:38 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There's a typo in your title. (6.00 / 8)

I think you accidentally typed "Liberals" when you meant "Strawmen."  I mean, it's an understandable slip, happens all the time.  Just ask Dick Armey.

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.

---

by: smadin @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 10:24:59 AM CST

Scoreboard (6.00 / 7)

10 things I hate about the American Left:

1.  The widespread penchant for dripping sarcasm as a primary means of communication. 

This from the guy who just posted "Ten Totally Generic and Stereotypical Liberal Descriptions I Stole From Michael Graham's Show Last Night."  oops, was that sarcastic?

2.  The massive popularity and influence of forces such as daily kos and the spread of mob mentality, demonization, negativity and myopia.

As opposed to the massive popularity of Fox News and Matt Drudge and the spread of mob mentality, demonization, negativity and myopia.

3.  The frequent characterization of high earning people as undeserving of their wealth  (e.g.  money managers, sales slicksters, corrupt business men, inheritance).

...versus the frequent characterization of low earning people as being people completely deserving of their condition and status.

4.  The assumption that it is reasonable and proper to judge what other people do and do not need.

...as opposed to thinking its reasonable and proper to decide who people can and cannot have sex with.

5.  The blending together of progressivism, socialism and marxist theory into the Democratic party.

What's progressivism?  We just invented that word two years ago so you'd stop abusing the word "libeal".  Now its an "ism?"  And Marxist theory...?  Since when is Keynsian economics marxist theory?

6.  The widespread belief that it is OK to affect change - including constitutional change - via the judiciary.

Yeah, that zany widespread belief!  God damned Marbury v. Madison...

7.  The prominence of numbers, statistics and expected outcomes over principle.

Or, put another way, the prominence of reality over partisan philosophy.

8.  Principle notwithstanding, the inability to correctly judge expected outcomes in the long term  (e.g. creating a dependent class, poor incentivization through entitlements)

*cough*IRAQ*cough*....*cough*social security*cough*...ugh...ahem...Sorry, I have a cold...

9.  Continual division of people into various "oppressed" (to the left:  vaunted) classes based on factors such as skin color, gender, etc.

...versus the continual division of people into various "oppressed" (to the right) classes based upon christian, economic (working class) and social issues.

10.  The triumph of communalism over human freedom.

I have no idea what that's even supposed to mean.  But it seems to me that the Democratic party did pretty good for human freedom over the last century, what with the five day work week, reproducitve and civil rights and, you know, defeating facism in World War II.

So, all in all, I'd say you were right on #1, seeing as how this post was dripping with sarcasm.  But hey, 1 out of 10 ain't bad!  Actually, it really is.  Sorry.

There ya go.  Ducking and running for cover.

Ok, you go hide.  We'll come find you pretty soon.  We promise. 

No, no, keep hiding... we'll come looking soon, we swear...

---

by: Ed Prisby @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 11:12:14 AM CST

in general (0.00 / 0)

... I dont know if the "other side does it too!" argument really holds much water as a defense, but lets take a few of your responses:

2.  You are equating Fox News with Daily Kos?  You have to be kidding - at least go for Ann Coulter or maybe newsmax.com or something.  The difference is, Kos is the most widely trafficked blog on the planet and weird real, tangible influence on large sums of humans.  COulter is more of a sideshow...  you dont see her doing huge people powered funding drives to knock off leftists or for that matter, RINOs...  (right?)  And Drudge?  You must have got that from someone else's demonization of Drudge, and I can't imagine why - his website is pure scoop with some sensationalism thrown in.  He doesn't editorialize about politics.

4.  Perhaps you are conflating gay marriage with whom one can have sex with?  Or referring to old, largely discarded statutes about sodomy?  In all my travels in the conservative world, I really haven't noticed anyone discussing, debating or attempting to legislate who people have sex with.

5.  Sorry to tell you but you did not invent progressivism in either name or concept.  Its been around for over 100 years.  Marxist theory meaning:  from those according to their ability, to those according to their need.

7.  wow, you've reduced principle into "partisan philosophy"?

8.  true.  still no excuse for D's.

9.  what the? 

You've definitely done a good job of proving #1, I'll give ya that!

D

the government can give you nothing
that it doesn't take away, first

---

by: demolisher @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 14:10:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Me: 9. You:1 (5.50 / 6)

It's always fun to engage someone on low-level talking points like this.  And you've pretty much stuck to the conservative talk show host script.  "In my travels in the conservative world..."  What does that even mean?  Demagogues always love to invent the context of whatever argument they're.  Okay, so you alledge that YOU haven't had conversations with people about equal marriage and it's virtues?  I've had three this week, and that doesn't even count my istting through (admitted) homophobes like Howie Carr and Jerry Callahan on the radio. "Progressive" as a Marxist phrase? So, if I read the Communist Manifesto, I'll find the phrase "progressive" in there?  You conveniently equate Marxism with socialism with...*eye roll* "progressivism"...without any authority other than the standard "because I say so" neo-con response.

Where's Gary?  At least with Gary he brings it to the table with arguments about local entitlements, which are legitamate points.

This thread is just typical internet BS.

---

by: Ed Prisby @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 15:06:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

and when in doubt (0.00 / 0)

give the guy who disagrees with you a 3.

Now I really do feel like I'm on Dennis & Callahan.  I hang up and they bash me like little kids.

---

by: Ed Prisby @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 15:29:58 PM CST

[ Parent ]

you didnt disagree (4.00 / 1)

you just spewed insults.  I'll debate anyone, bring it on.


the government can give you nothing
that it doesn't take away, first

---

by: demolisher @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 16:07:56 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Debate you on what? (6.00 / 1)

Stereotypes about liberals?  No thanks...I mean, I could come up with a "list" of 10 things I can't stand about "conservatives" but it would be just as much a bunch of BS as your list was.  What's the point?

Tell you what, when you come up with a legitimate issue you feel like the "liberal" crowd is wrong about, log onto this site, or go to mine, and make your point. Then we'll talk.

Otherwise, I've got nothing intelligent to say to a guy who calls himself the "demolisher," presumably with a straight face.

---

by: Ed Prisby @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 16:19:20 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Awwww....you miss me (6.00 / 3)

The real 10 point list why I can't stand Liberals:

1:  Conservatives are prettier than liberals.

2:  Conservatives never elected Marion Barry to any office.

3:  Liberals are penney ante crooks.  Rostinkoski stole what? Stamps! Conservatives know that if you're going to steal, make it worthwhile.

4:  One word: Cambridge.

5:  Liberals are passive agressive while Conservatives, more straight up. Liberals bitch, complain, write Blogs, if wronged.  Conservatives, if wronged, just shoot you in the face. Point. Made.

6:  I swear to God, if I hear "think about the children" one more time....

7:  Or, "hope".

8:  Liberals are cheap...

9:  ...and, have cheap booze and munchies at parties.

10: Blue just doesn't become me.  I'm more of an 'autumn' guy.

---

by: gary @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 15:44:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Now that's a list (0.00 / 0)

But the Teddy/Coutler comparison was just completely unfair.  After all, we've got...we've got...wait...who do we have that's hot?

---

by: Ed Prisby @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 15:48:13 PM CST

[ Parent ]

There's (6.00 / 1)

Cynthia McKinney

---

by: gary @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 15:50:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Or (0.00 / 0)

Nancy Pelosi

grrrroowwl.

---

by: gary @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 15:53:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

To make fair comparisons... (0.00 / 0)

...we should be allowed to look beyond actual politicians -- after all, Gary put up a celebrity, not an elected official, for the conservative side, so we get to do the same.

Scarlett Johansson was a Dean supporter, so I think the argument might be over now. :-)

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.

---

by: smadin @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 16:00:45 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Al Franken (0.00 / 0)

hubba hubba

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 19:34:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Jen Granholm (0.00 / 0)

I also second the mention of Incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  Maria Cantwell has some decent days, too.  And there's nothing wrong with Kirsten Dunst.

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 10:00:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Whoa (0.00 / 0)

I think he was kidding about Pelosi.

---

by: Ed Prisby @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 10:05:40 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Hey (0.00 / 0)

I think the title is the sexiest part...

~~~~
Believe it or not, I have even more to say...

---

by: sabutai @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 12:21:00 PM CST

[ Parent ]

*shudders* (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Ed Prisby @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 12:32:43 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Kirstin Gillibrand (0.00 / 0)

Hello.

Beat the crap out of DeLay stooge John Sweeney in upstate NY. Even better.

---

Blue Mass. Group
So what politics do you deserve?

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 17:38:31 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Maureen Dowd? (0.00 / 0)

--
If you want to live like a Republican, you better vote like a Democrat. —Harry Truman

---

by: dcsohl @ Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 13:33:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

You're a Funny Republican (0.00 / 0)

1:  Conservatives are prettier than liberals.
---You haven't met me, sweety, nor my bevy of beautiful liberal friends. ;-)

2:  Conservatives never elected Marion Barry to any office.
--Neither did anyone at BMG. And we never voted for Ken Chase, the goofball who embarrassed himslef on Judge Mathis. At least he could have had the cojones to go in front of Judge Judy!

3:  Liberals are penney ante crooks.  Rostinkoski stole what? Stamps! Conservatives know that if you're going to steal, make it worthwhile.
--Agree with you on that one. If you're going to take the taxpayers to the cleaners, you should do it by cutting taxes for the wealthiest and make the middle class pay. Now THAT'S a heist.

4:  One word: Cambridge.
--Beacause you can't afford to live here, you whine!

5:  Liberals are passive agressive while Conservatives, more straight up. Liberals bitch, complain, write Blogs, if wronged.  Conservatives, if wronged, just shoot you in the face. Point. Made.
---As a pro-2nd amendment aggressive progressive, how do you know I won't react that way? Oh, yeah, I'm a responsible gun owner and an adult.

6:  I swear to God, if I hear "think about the children" one more time....

--I have to say I agree with you there. Oy.

7:  Or, "hope".
--??

8:  Liberals are cheap...
--Because we don't give to the local fundie church or white supremacist group?

9:  ...and, have cheap booze and munchies at parties.
--You obviously travel in the wrong circles. The best parties I've been to are liberal ones, as opposed to the velveeta-and-spam on Ritz crackers served at the home of my old money Republican neighbors.

10: Blue just doesn't become me.  I'm more of an 'autumn' guy.

---I guess you're some kind of metrosexual and had your colors analyzed. Obviously they were incompetent because blue is the one color that looks good on everyone!

"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. ...As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." Paul Weyrich, Republican Activist

---

by: Kathy @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 16:30:10 PM CST

[ Parent ]

are there funny Republicans? (0.00 / 0)

There has to be at least one.

Dennis Miller?  Nope. Well, not since he made "the switch."

Kelsey Grammer?  Tough call, but no.

Umm, gosh.

Laura Ingraham?  Not on purpose.

Dang.

---

by: huh @ Tue Nov 21, 2006 at 22:21:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Gary, Gary, Gary (0.00 / 0)

We'd have good liquor, too, but as you say we never think to steal anything but stamps! ;)  We haven't graduated to the Abramoff class yet.

A blogger no more.

---

by: Andy @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 14:12:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yet? (5.00 / 1)

Got plans?

---

by: gary @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 20:20:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Puzzled about point 6 (0.00 / 0)

If I understand libertarian orthodoxy, the judiciary system would be the strongest branch of government because...er?the legislative branch should be passing no laws and the executive would not be implementing laws--leaving it to the judiciary to resolve conflicts in society.

In the ideal libertarian world of "government", aside from funding a military and basic public safety, citizens are free interact as they like and when conflicts or disagreements occur, citizens bring their grievances to the courts for resolution, thereby creating a set of precedents that evolve into our set of laws

Given the strong focus the libertarian ideology gives the judiciary to set the rule of law, I find it puzzling that you complain that "liberals" think it's OK to affect change via the judiciary, when in fact it is a central tenet of the libertarian ideology.

But given that your last postings was an advocacy for going to war with Iran--and true libertarians are antiwar (believing the "live and let live" attitude should hold true in international affairs) I seriously question whether you are a libertarian, like you identify yourself, or whether you are just a run of the mill George Bush Republican who arbitrarily say things and thinks it makes up some kind of consistent belief system.

---

by: FrankSkeffington @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 11:40:41 AM CST

I'm no libertarian scholar, (0.00 / 0)

... but I think you've misread libertarianism pretty badly.  Limited government, yes.  Perhaps ideally controlled by a stricter constitution which limits the scope and influence of government?  (I conjecture)

But judiciary vs. legislative lawmaking I think you have backwards; 

Assuming that the laws coming from either judi or legi are roughly equal in terms of their acceptability in scope of government (probably a tall assumption, but hey) in a democracy, you have people electing a legislature which then creates laws according to the will of the people (* hopefully within the stricter bounds of the limits of government).  In a judicially ruled nation you've got nothing more than an unelected group of lawmakers who also have the last word.  A tyranny.

I dont think that matches libertarian principles or goals.

I don't know of any libertarian publication, website, leader, institute, etc which advocates for legislation from the judiciary.  To my knowlege, they all vehemently oppose it.

the government can give you nothing
that it doesn't take away, first

---

by: demolisher @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 14:27:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

here: (0.00 / 0)

Here's a libertarian take from Cato, circa 2001:

http://www.cato.org/...

...The lesson he and his fellow Democrats have drawn from it is wrong -- unless, of course, they like the picture. But we are today, in all candor, a very long way from living under constitutional principle.

The main origins of the problem are in the Progressive Era of a century ago, when the social engineers of the time sought to do through government what the Constitution left to be done in the private sector. Things came to a head during the New Deal when a frustrated Franklin Roosevelt attempted to pack the Supreme Court, an event Califano notes without comment. The scheme failed, but FDR won the day when a cowed Court began rethinking the Constitution, effectively eviscerating constitutional limits on federal power. Although the Court that emerged, by virtue of its deference to the political branches, was called "restrained," it was, in truth, "activist" -- finding congressional and executive powers nowhere granted, ignoring individual rights plainly in the Constitution. And the Court's rethinking led ineluctably to the shift of power to the judicial branch.

The shift had two aspects. First, with the political branches now free to rule almost every aspect of our lives, it was only a matter of time before their ever-expanding product ended up in the courts, with the courts asked to sort out the mess Congress was making of things. But second, those who had long pushed such programs didn't always win in the political branches. When that happened, they turned increasingly to the courts, trying to win there, from "sympathetic judges," what they had failed to win politically. Regrettably, the Warren and Burger Courts, already deferring to the political pursuit of "social justice," were too often only too willing to step into the fray, imagining themselves to be a legislature of nine.

the government can give you nothing
that it doesn't take away, first

---

by: demolisher @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 14:31:29 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Independent resposne (5.50 / 2)

1.  Limbaugh.  Hanity.  Savage.  O'Reilly. Coulter.  Locally, Carr. "Freedom Fries."  "Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys." This is a problem generally afflicting politics at the moment.  I believe it is a function of bandwith: there is a lot to fill, and it gets filled with bullsh*t.  In addition, I'm not so sure this is a new phenomenon; it is just different from what was experienced since WW II.  In any event, this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

2.  See response to #1.

3.  Agreed, generally.

4.  Agreed, generally.  I might note also a strong tendency on the right-- at least the present incarnation of the right-- of the presumption of the right to determine who, how, and when people choose to f&ck, and other seemingly private matters that are none of anyone's goddam business.

5.  I'm generally content with a Democratic party that's a bit pink.  In my opinion, marxism was long on problem-identification, and short on solutions.  I would call what you describe "social democratism," or perhaps New Dealism, and think it has been a generally successful soultion to the real problems identified by the marxists.  What makes it successful is the tempering of the pink with an opposing libertarian party, and the tempering of libertarianism by the left.  The yin and yang of the pendulum swing forces moderation over the long term, and has made us very successful.  This doesn't mean I vote pink every time.  Just when I discern a need to tack back to a moderate course.  And vice versa.

The problem with my above theory is that the right now appears to have abandoned libertarianism in favor of Jesus.  Time was, the Democrats had big, secular government.  The right had less government, and some Jesus.  Now, the right has more government and Jesus, and then some more Jesus.. And then some Jesus.  So, any hope that, with the Republicans in full control of the federal government, the 50 laboratories would be free to experiment has been in vain.

I hope the Republican party rediscovers the virtue of less government during its upcoming time out of power.  I wish their defeat would have been more total, so that they would would learn this better, rather than spending their time figuring out how to make it 2004 again.

6.  I absolutely agree, 100%.  I believe that I am generally characterized as a conservative on this board for this reason alone.  In my opinion, legislation by litigation undermines the institutions of the republic, regardless of the cause at issue.  Always.  Period.

7.  Huh?  This sounds like the other side of the coin of the most damning criticism of the Bush administration:  it is uniniterested in facts and/or reality, because it has beliefs.  Policymaking that is so divorced from reality is, as we have seen, disasterous. 

8.  Fair enough.  I would characterize this as a criticism of social engineering.  I do not get upset with the existence of unintended consequences per se; they will always exist for any policy-maker, even the one whose policy is to abolish all policy.

I do get upset with the tendency of the left to make a shibboleth of the thing creating the unintended consequences.  The support of a manifestly failed welfare system, for instance.  The continuing support of patent failure in urban schools.  Mostly, the anathema with which tinkering with these shibboleths is regarded.  This in spite of Brandeis' lesson of 50 states being 50 laboratories.  If Cleveland wants to try vouchers, good!  Let them.  See if it actually helps.  If it does, maybe somewone else will improve on their plan.

The problem for the Democrats in this regard is the influence of interest groups.  The teachers unions will oppose any solution for urban education that does not begin and end with "more resources, especially for teachers.  Oh, and life tenure."  The Democrats march accordingly, to the detriment of schoolchildren everywhere.

9.  You are referring, I think, to identity politics.  Identity politics is the source of "celebrating diversity" and the entire phenomenon of political correctness.  In my view, it has been intensely divisive and an unmitigated disaster in every respect.

10.  Communalsim vs human freedom.  Again, in my view these things exist on a spectrum, anarchy existing at the extreme of freedom, and Uncle Joe Stalin lurking at the opposite extreme.  Thus, the tension is a good thing, and the push and pull of the competing priorities in the two parties is beneficial over the long term.  You have a favorite, and the Democrats have a fvaorite.  Your arm-wrestling keeps the whole ship on an even keel.

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 11:44:14 AM CST

thoughtful post (0.00 / 0)

I object only to a few things in your post:

As I mentioned above, I just don't see anyone significant on the right talking about who can have sex with whom.  Where is this coming from?

In a similar vein, the whole jesus / religion thing - I think it is way overblown.  Sure you got some faith based initiatives and the pledge of allegiance and the republican base is some unrealistically huge percent evangelical, but almost none of the debate or discussion among leading conservatives, libertarians, neocons, etc is about Jesus.

The one infinitely annoying exception is creationism vs. Darwinism, which is about as foolish of a debate as conservatives could possibly take the wrong side in.  It really invites the sort of elitist derisive response to conservatives that is so prevalent in Mass.

And finally, on the marxist piece, I think we've let go of a vital component of our republic:  the preeminence of freedom.  Any old country can have socialism and communism, totalitarianism, utopia, whatever they want - but this here country was founded so that people could be *free* - not all chained together in some communal pool.

Thanks for the nice post.

D

the government can give you nothing
that it doesn't take away, first

---

by: demolisher @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 14:18:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

OK (0.00 / 0)

I was thinking of (i) the preference, politically, to  maintain the criminalization of sodomy (leaving aside the way that this issue actually arose); (ii) the attempt to amend the federal constitution to ban gay marriage; and (iii) attempts by the federal government to mess with useful public health initiatives in order to promote abstinence.

As foe Jesus, I was think of Terry Schiavo and the stem cell issue.

re: your response on the Marxist piece:  I take a little moderation in all things, including this.  Your mileage may vary, but the operation of the whole simple demonstrates the astute understanding of human nature possessed by James Madison et al.

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 14:31:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

re: #9 (6.00 / 1)

Isn't it fascinating how the Religious Right has adopted its own identity politics and persecution complex, seemingly lifted straight from early '90s political correctness?

And weren't the tactics of political correctness adopted from the right to begin with?

---

Blue Mass. Group
So what politics do you deserve?

---

by: Charley on the MTA @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 18:01:15 PM CST

[ Parent ]

yes, exactly (0.00 / 0)

Robert Hughes predicated this whole situation pretty accurately in 1993's "Culture of Complaint." Ronald Reagan perfected reducing complex issues to emotional sound bites, then both sides developed an "to argue with me is to damage me" mentality. 

The right has recently gone a step further with "I'm being discriminated against because I have to co-exist with homosexuals."

As you point out, the left stole political correctness from the right, then the right stole it back to flog them with.  I'd argue there is little in the world more politically correct than demolisher or an WRKO DJ, but that's a different discussion.

---

by: huh @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 15:48:40 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Here ya go. Number 11 (0.00 / 0)

They're not charitable.

---

by: gary @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 14:39:22 PM CST

that's because (0.00 / 0)

we're poor.

---

by: Ed Prisby @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 15:08:22 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Gary - can we tell him about the widow's mite? (6.00 / 1)

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 00:16:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I'm surprised you would bring that up (0.00 / 0)

...since it is the biblical foundation for progressive income taxes, a parable told by history's first Liberal.

Eschewing obfuscation since 1955.

---

by: shiltone @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 22:18:54 PM CST

[ Parent ]

And here I thought it was about how the efforts of all are valued! (0.00 / 0)

ONLY a Mass. Democrat would see it as a metaphor for progressive taxation!

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 17:41:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Couldn't find any numbers in that article (0.00 / 0)

But certainly if giving to religious institutions is included, evangelicals are going to come out way ahead because many of them tithe, whereas atheists and agnostics tend to not give anything to religious institutions. So, I think most of this can be explained by the religiosity gap between liberals and conservatives.

---

by: Alice in Florida @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 16:20:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

That was based on titheing to churches as well (0.00 / 0)

This came out recently when a study revealed that the blue states were less generous than red states, but this was because the red states were more likely to give money to churches than non-profit groups. When they took church donations out of the mix, blue states were more generous than the poor saps in the Bible belt who get taken to the cleaners by their ministers.

"I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people. ...As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down." Paul Weyrich, Republican Activist

---

by: Kathy @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 16:36:57 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Titheing should be taken out of the analysis? (0.00 / 0)

---

by: gary @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 19:49:30 PM CST

[ Parent ]

some of it (0.00 / 0)

Let me propose a test:

1. Tithing $ for church-based charity....delivering meals to the elderly, the recovery programs, soup kitchen, etc....that counts as "charitable giving."

2. Tithing $ for the direct self-benefit....the worship, the facility, the camraderie....I'm just not sure how that counts as charity. 

---

by: GoldsteinGoneWild @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 13:46:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Sarcasm and mob mentality (0.00 / 0)

are characteristics of blogs, whether left-wing, right-wing, or having nothing whatsoever to do with politics...it's just an  internet thing. Even blogs about favorite TV shows or movies have that tendency. Something about anonymously discussing hot topics with strangers...just tends to bring out the flamer in people.

One thing I agree with, though I am absolutely liberal--the left is way too dependent on the courts. The great tragedy of Brown v. Board, which was a necessary decision, is that too many on the left have decided that judicial intervention is the only way to move society forward. Rather than even trying to persuade the citizenry, we concentrate on persuading a few judges, because it's easier. The trouble is that by concentrating on the judiciary instead of elected officials, we lost control of Congress for 12 years and the Presidency for most of the last 40 years. In fact, Roe v Wade probably did more than anything to move the whole political spectrum in this country hard to the right.

---

by: Alice in Florida @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 16:42:00 PM CST

On reading your blog, I learn (0.00 / 0)

1. You posted it here because not even conservatives appear to comment on your blog.  That's why you hang around with those whom you hate.
2. Your there claim of reading liberal sites to try to "understand" them is wasted time.
   

A useful skill for keeping one's mind agile is being able to state an opposing opinion in its strongest form.  Your approach to reading liberals is more of an attempt at finding gotachas.  Our exchange on Iraq sounded as if you had never read talked with or read a liberal before in your life.

Lakoff has an excellent account of why you think

The prominence of numbers, statistics and expected outcomes over principle.

which, by the way, is not true of our governor-elect.

---

by: KBusch @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 20:10:00 PM CST

pfffft (0.00 / 0)

do you have a question?

or at least an assertion to counter my list?


the government can give you nothing
that it doesn't take away, first

---

by: demolisher @ Fri Nov 17, 2006 at 23:02:32 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Apologies (0.00 / 0)

for not giving you the attention you want. . .

---

by: KBusch @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 09:49:00 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Let's see (0.00 / 0)

That is one attempt at dismissal using the phrase "talking points" and one refernce to framining, albeit an indirect one , by George "membership fees" Lakoff, and, oh, a collection of the internet equivalent of hissing.

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 08:44:19 AM CST

Please (6.00 / 1)

Give me a break, CentralMass.  The guy comes on here, spews out this list of stereotypes that are supposed to be liberal characteristics, and you expect nothing but a high-minded exchange with this jerk?  Come on...

---

by: Ed Prisby @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 09:58:32 AM CST

[ Parent ]

talking points (0.00 / 0)

This phrase is a pet peeve of mine.  It is the equivalent of fingers in ears, saying "la la la la I can't hear you." Once you run to use it, you can't make the criticism you did without a pot and kettle problem.

Maybe my problem should be #12 (after Gary's Teddy photo):

Why can't democrats/liberals have a sense of humor?

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 10:56:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Hey! (0.00 / 0)

I've got a sense of humor!  Teddy's got man-boobs.  Point for those guys, I guess.

---

by: Ed Prisby @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 11:18:36 AM CST

[ Parent ]

He's not being a jerk (0.00 / 0)

You might not like what he writes, but he's not being rude.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 11:27:29 AM CST

[ Parent ]

That's where I differ (6.00 / 2)

Ten things I hate about liberals?  Is that supposed to apply to me?  All these characteristics? 

What I like about this site is that it raises the bar of discourse most of the time.  But are we really supposed to have a rational discussion about traits that are or are not common to all liberals?  Or was he really just trying to stick it to us and be come kind of internet tough guy?  I've got absolutely no respect for that sort of thing.

---

by: Ed Prisby @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 11:33:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Dude, you have to jujitsu it: roll it right back (6.00 / 1)

The thing that is so funny about the post is that Demolisher perfectly describes the cuurent Republican Party. Nothing is more effective that using someone's own words against them if you want to destroy their credibility (I'm talking about the Republicans in general here, not Demolisher in particular, who I actually think is pretty funny). Think Stephen Colbert, or even the Daily Show sometimes. Relax, and laugh at the absurdity of someone trying to claim that the Republican Party supports freedom when they're trying to ram through legislation to allow them to torture people, increase surveillance without warrants, and put people in jail without charge or trial.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 11:39:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

yeah, that's true (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Ed Prisby @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 11:48:39 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No, Ed, you don't understand (6.00 / 4)

Da Rulz.

Da Rulz say that Republicans and conservatives are welcome on the site irrespective of whether or not they post with substance (like PP for the most part) or in cliched one-liners designed to insult.  They are not required to measure their tone because, after all, they are Republicans/conservatives in a hostile environment and the bar, for some reason, for their welcomed participation seems quite a bit lower than the bar for the rest of us.  The landlords seem to think that a ratio of six insulting one-liners to one substantive post is good enough.  There's a certain self-loathing quality at work in this dynamic, but, hey, this must be the political equivalent of "new math." 

 

 

---

by: lightiris @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 12:00:18 PM CST

[ Parent ]

LOL (0.00 / 0)

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 14:37:11 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Appearing nightly. (0.00 / 0)

Thankyouverymuch. 

 

---

by: lightiris @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 20:29:34 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh no, we insist (6.00 / 1)

Thank you.

LOL for real. That new math ref was great. We're just starting down that road with a son in first grade BPS (who seems to love math, thank heavens).  Can I get you on Tivo?

---

by: AnnEM @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 14:53:33 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Oh, but we're sharpening our thinking by entertaining opposing viewpoints, don't you know (6.00 / 4)

..and if I get any more help from this a--hole, my thinking will be so sharp it will bore a hole in my head and poke somebody in the eye.

We were right about Vietnam, they were wrong.  We were right about Reagan, they were wrong.  We were right about Bush in 2000, they were wrong.  We were right about Iraq, they were wrong.  We were right about Bush in 2004, they were wrong.  We were right about everything in 2006, and finally, a moment of clarity came to the voters of America.

And all of a sudden, we need to listen to them.  Go figure.

Eschewing obfuscation since 1955.

---

by: shiltone @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 22:35:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

sorry but.. (0.00 / 0)

wasnt it a democrat who got us into vietnam and a republican who got us out?

the government can give you nothing
that it doesn't take away, first

---

by: demolisher @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:07:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No (0.00 / 0)

The first US troops went into Vietnam under Eisenhower. The first deaths of our troops occurred under him as well.

---

by: pucknomad @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 17:11:50 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Which ones don't then? (0.00 / 0)

specifically

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 16:00:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

"Liberal" is a radial category (0.00 / 0)

(to annoy you with more cognitive linguistics)

It does not have clear criteria that distinguish who is and is not a liberal.  Think of "mother".  There's birth mother, foster mother, biological mother, etc.  A central idea of "mother" stretches into other areas. 

One tends to think that definitions work as they do in mathematics where definitions for such things as
equilateral triangles and abelian groups have clear criteria.  Mathematics and technical jargon generally form a very special case. Most would view Forbes, Goldwater, and Dobson all as conservatives.  But there is no one rule that includes all of them and excludes Soros, Feingold, and Lerner.

---

by: KBusch @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 16:53:36 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I took it as ironic (6.00 / 1)

Have you read any of demolisher's posts on here? 

He's a Dick Cheney fan, for crying out loud. ;)

---

by: huh @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 12:43:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Yeah, I know (6.00 / 1)

And I watched Dick Cheney take apart John Edwards on national television in 2004. Made the man looking like a schoolboy crying in short pants and helped win the election for him and W. The way to deal with Cheney and his ilk is to (a) familiarize oneself with their arguments, and (b) show how hypocritical and out of touch they are, not react with surprise and lack of preparation, as Edwards did, when they make their blunt assertions.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 14:40:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

I never looked at Edwards the same way after that debate. (6.00 / 1)

One of the most effective Repblican techniques is misdirection, coupled with sarcasm and the BIG LIE.  Cheney is the master.  Edwards was left sitting there going, "but, but..."

Most of what Cheney said was refutable half-truths, especially the "You've got one of the worst attendance records in the United States Senate" bit. Heck, even Cheney's line about factcheck backing him was a lie, but Edwards let him get away with it.

The real trick was somehow coming off less believable and likable than a man with the personal charm of Darth Vader.

Here's the fact check article.  They also compiled Edwards' errors...

http://www.factcheck...

Cheney wrongly implied that FactCheck had defended his tenure as CEO of Halliburton Co., and the vice president even got our name wrong. He overstated matters when he said Edwards voted "for the war" and "to commit the troops, to send them to war." He exaggerated the number of times Kerry has voted to raise taxes, and puffed up the number of small business owners who would see a tax increase under Kerry's proposals.

Edwards  falsely claimed the administration "lobbied the Congress" to cut the combat pay of troops in Iraq, something the White House never supported, and he used misleading numbers about jobs.

---

by: huh @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 16:32:25 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Your response (0.00 / 0)

is somewhat devoid of content.  I'm not sure what the heck you  are saying.  Did you just say something?

And no, I was not referring to framing, either.  Have you read Moral Politics or have you just decided that Lakoff's "membership fees" comments disqualify him from your consideration?  Or that anything Lakoff says is ipso facto about framing?  (Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things for example is not about framing.)  Framing is not some special Lakoff invention.  Its earliest appearance is in Goffman's work.  People like Kahneman and Tversky use it a lot.  People involved with decision analysis use it a lot. Folks examining heuristics and stock market behavior use it a lot in their very interesting work. Anti-intellectual snobs and scoffers from Central Mass apparently don't use it all.

I presume that "talking points" was a reference to a post other than mine.  Let's be clear though.  The Republicans have worked very hard at coordinating their messages.  They really do have talking points.  Prominent Republicans really do try to repeat them a lot.  This has proven very effective for them over many election cycles and has given Jon Stewart hours of footage.

Take an example: "We'll fight them there so we don't have to fight them here." It is repeated constantly.  On a reality level, it somehow implies that there will be idle Iraqi jihadists who will enroll in English classes, buy airfare, acquire passports, and show up at Shopper's World with bombs. On a board game, of course, the logic is excellent and appealing.  In the real world, it is just stupid. Insurgents are interested in Iraq and not in Shopper's World.

---

by: KBusch @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 10:14:02 AM CST

[ Parent ]

just one thing (6.00 / 2)

This post is a good example of the kind of pointlessness people get stuck when they rely on idealized generalizations completely, to the exclusion of reality, introspection, facts, or practicality.  It is the epitome of "not reality based".  I'm puzzled to see it promoted here - it's not thought-provoking, it's not interesting.

---

by: Cos @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 13:10:20 PM CST

at some point (0.00 / 0)

and on some level, there may be beliefs, traits, attributes, etc which bring some people to discover that they are liberal, conservative, or perhaps some other label.  Sometimes these get organized into party platforms, which the group of people then goes out and actievly supports. 

Some of my points are stylistic (mob mentality, sarcasm) but others are belief based (judging need, marxist underpinning).

I don't think my generalizations are "idealized".  Many of them are worded specifically using terms like "prevalence" so as not to claim that all liberals are this or that.

It seems realistic to me that there may be a prevalence of certain beliefs and behaviors among a self selecting group which describes itself as liberal.

the government can give you nothing
that it doesn't take away, first

---

by: demolisher @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 13:32:28 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Marxist underpinning (0.00 / 0)

Okay, Massachusetts is a pretty liberal state.  Give us an example of a recent policy position of either our Governor-elect or the Massachusetts Legislature that is based firmly in Marxist philosophy.

---

by: Ed Prisby @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 13:34:42 PM CST

[ Parent ]

sure thing (0.00 / 0)

Good question - first order of business I suppose would be to throw some definition around Marxism.  I like to use the handy phrase:  "from those according to their ability to those according to their need" to more or less sum up the grand total of all marxist and communist utopian spirit.  Would you agree?

(Otherwise we'll be talking about the proletariat taking over the means of production, ick)

Anyway, certain marxist principles really took off in the US in the early and mid 20th century (progressive income tax, the entitlements explosion in the new deal) and many have survived splendidly to this day.  Basically its all about wealth redistribution: taking things from people who have too much and giving those things to people with too little, in a big, permanently recurring fashion.

Here in Mass I'd love to say the universal health push was the latest incarnation but Romney slapped the whole forced-pay angle in there and created some weird new class of program that hasn't really been seen before.  So, I guess I'd say the most compellingly marxist piece of "legislation" in recent MA history would probably be the current attempt to enshrine universal health coverage as a constitutional right. 

Putting aside the fact that rights don't seem to me to possibly include getting free things, especially when the procurement of those things necessarily tramples the more fundamental rights of others -

Health care as a right (or for that matter food, housing, etc) creates half the marxist picture:  the receivership side of the utopian ideal.  We've got this great health care, everyone must have it!  The other half of the picture is drawn when you need to pay for the entitlements, and inevitably go get the money from "the rich".  The very existence of a progressive tax (nationally) acheives this, although I dont have a great example offhand of the collection side of Marxism in MA itself.  Perhaps when the universal health burden gets shifted progressively more onto MA businesses...

Anyway you can see frequent examples on this very site of people touting the collectorship side - or at least deriding its alternative - just think "Tax cuts for the rich" and perhaps "Paid for by the middle class".

Will that suffice?

D

the government can give you nothing
that it doesn't take away, first

---

by: demolisher @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 14:38:12 PM CST

[ Parent ]

How about state power (0.00 / 0)

I often see Marxism used as a shorthand for an intrusive, overbearing state. That's one of my big complaints about the Bush administration: they want to use the state to control many aspects of people's lives, from surveying our private conversations without warrants to forcing pregnant women to bear children to term and forbidding them the choice of an abortion. In that sense, they are as devoted to vast state authority as Karl himself, or his acolyte Vladimir Ilych.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 14:46:41 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Red States Communist? (0.00 / 0)

You're describing some big majority positions there and the consistently red states are the biggest winners from wealth redistribution. 

My biggest peeve about the conservatives is the "reasonable social program" -> "socialist" -> "COMMUNIST" -> "stalinist!" thought process that seems to happen in the blink of an eye.  Hasn't the cold war been over for 17 years?

---

by: jaybooth @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 16:14:46 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Apparently, not everybody got the memo.... (0.00 / 0)

...here's a story from election season:

http://cbs4boston.co...

Was this guy part of the Dem sweep to victory?

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 00:38:15 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Hah, (0.00 / 0)

22yo kid calling himself a communist?  Yeah I've met a few of those, they're usually in the process of being put through school with money their parents made in the stock market.  Honestly, it beats the college republican.  "I'm here on my parents' dime and I think poor people should earn something for once!"

---

by: jaybooth @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 11:05:46 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Maybe you didn't read the whole article (0.00 / 0)

to which you linked?  He didn't get Democratic Party support.  Just like Duke didn't get the Republican Party support.

---

by: KBusch @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 11:07:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

KB - thank you for saying so! (0.00 / 0)

Too often Dems skip that part of the David Duke story!

I just thought the story was amusing, on top of the Uh, uh, no Marxism here! argument.

Socialist and Marxist are thrown around carelessly by people who haven't studied what those systems mean, the same way that Fascist and Nazi are.

Yr. Obedient Servant, Peter Porcupine, Republican

---

by: Peter Porcupine @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 15:44:14 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Defining Marxism (0.00 / 0)

I suppose would be to throw some definition around Marxism.  I like to use the handy phrase:  "from those according to their ability to those according to their need" to more or less sum up the grand total of all marxist and communist utopian spirit.  Would you agree?

No.  Have you read no Marx or Engels other than selected quotes? Historical materialism, the relationship between economics and ideology, and the notion of class struggle are central tenets of Marxism.

---

by: KBusch @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 00:09:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

KBusch is quite right (0.00 / 0)

If you don't talk about the proletariat taking over the means of production -- among some other things -- no matter how "ick" you find the topic, you aren't talking about Marxism.

Something there is that doesn't love a wall,
That wants it down.

---

by: smadin @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 08:10:07 AM CST

[ Parent ]

grr (0.00 / 0)

OK fine, lets go to the dictionary definition:

Main Entry: Marx·ism
Pronunciation: 'märk-"si-z&m
Function: noun
: the political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by Marx; especially : a theory and practice of socialism including the labor theory of value, dialectical materialism, the class struggle, and dictatorship of the proletariat until the establishment of a classless society
- Marx·ist  /-sist/ noun or adjective

socialism:  Bernie Sanders supported by Vermont D's, signficant sympathy for he and others of similar ilk on this board

Labor theory of value:  not really sure on this one

dialectical materialism:  how many of you read and agree with Howard Zinn?  Is he a big influence among liberals?  (I suggest yes)

class struggle:  Don't even deny that this is a frequent and central theme of the democrats...  tax the rich, richricher poorpoorer, etcetcetcetc

dictatorship of the proletariat:  economic populism?  Ok I admit that this one is probably not prevalent among D's*

classless society:  wealth redistribution, rights to goods and services

* although to some extent you've got unions and regulation, significantly less than a dictatorship yet exerting just enough infliuence over the means of production to pretty much kill the host.  This is 100 years stale now but then again who would have contemplated "means of production" in a predominantly service economy?  Ironically the old school means of production has all been squeezed out of our country by liberal efforts such as minimum wage, unions, etc and has now moved largely to communist China, where (who knows who) controls the means of production and laborers get $1/hr.


the government can give you nothing
that it doesn't take away, first

---

by: demolisher @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 09:56:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

smadin is quite right (6.00 / 2)

Your quotation from the dictionary proves two things: (1) smadin and I are right (Did you miss "dictatorship of the proletariat"?  I forgot "labor theory of value" which is also central.) (2) You have read nothing by Marx or Engels so you go to a dictionary.

The problem with your little quotation "from those according to their ability to those according to their need" is that it is meant to describe a state Marx & Engels foresee society attaining.  It is not a legislative program.  Did you read the book from which this is excerpted?  Do you know which book this is excerpted from?  Is the word "Marxist" just a fancy word with a negative connotation you like to use for welfare state policies within a capitalist economy?

CentralMassDad, with whom I rarely agree it seems, is quite correct that many people have taken some of Marx' and Engels' critiques of capitalism without adopting any of their political program.  That program was revolutionary. It was suspicious of a welfare state.

Did I mention that one of the things I dislike about conservatives is the tendency to make reckless accusations based on truthiness rather than evidence and understanding?

---

by: KBusch @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 11:19:41 AM CST

[ Parent ]

(blinks) (0.00 / 0)

Thanks.

---

by: CentralMassDad @ Mon Nov 20, 2006 at 09:33:38 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Marxism? (0.00 / 0)

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Anyway, certain marxist principles really took off in the US in the early and mid 20th century (progressive income tax, the entitlements explosion in the new deal) and many have survived splendidly to this day.  Basically its all about wealth redistribution: taking things from people who have too much and giving those things to people with too little, in a big, permanently recurring fashion.

Progressive taxation has nothing to do with Marxism.  Entitlements have nothing to do with Marxism.  The New Deal had nothing to do with Marxism.

'Marxists', strictly, are people who advocate violent revolution to overthrow the ruling classes, and seize all property and capital in order to establish a working-class dictatorship.  Eventually, mankind was supposed to "outgrow" the need for any rulers at all, and we were all supposed to end up living in perfect, rationally self-ordered harmony with tons of leisure time.

Well, as E. O. Wilson famously said (and the 20th century proved): "Wonderful theory. Wrong species."  Marxism isn't a viable way to run a government, and despite the use of the word by governments like those in Cuba or NK (which are really just old-school paternal dictatorships), there is no country on earth now that aspires to pure Marxism.  Marxism is essentially dead.

If you want to paint bread and butter issues like progressive taxation or Social Security (which is an insurance program btw, not an entitlement) as "Liberal causes", so be it-- but to refer to them as Marxist just makes you look as shallow and ignorant as anyone who would simplistically equate all of the GOP to the Nazis.

---

by: gaspacho @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 11:13:43 AM CST

[ Parent ]

reconsider (0.00 / 0)

I think some of your assertions are not totally accurate.  Lets look at the communist manifesto, bolding added:

The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with
traditional property relations; no wonder that its development
involves the most radical rupture with traditional ideas.

But let us have done with the bourgeois objections to Communism.

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the
working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of
ruling as to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by
degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all
instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the
proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the
total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by
means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on
the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures,
therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable,
but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves,
necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are
unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of
production.

These measures will of course be different in different
countries.

Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will
be pretty generally applicable.

1.  Abolition of property in land and application of all rents
  of land to public purposes.

2.  A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3.  Abolition of all right of inheritance.
...

I believe this refutes your assertion on progressive income tax and also speaks to a potentially non violent path to revolution.  I also find the inheritance point interesting, as the inheritance tax (or "death tax"), formerly at 55% (half way there!) is a national hot topic on which the democrats are on the side of Marx.

I'm also surprised to see such opposition to my characterization of the marxist goal in general.  Does no one agree?

I am however very pleased to see some of you forcefully disavowing the principles of marxism.  Despite the rather low signal to noise ratio in this thread, at the end of the day maybe my understanding of liberals' affinity to marxism will change, or I'll have to clarify my language, or something else positive will happen. 

the government can give you nothing
that it doesn't take away, first

---

by: demolisher @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 15:32:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Now you just hold on a minute there (0.00 / 0)

One of the main people promoting a right to health care on this site is me, who has never promoted a right to "free" health care ("rights don't seem to me to possibly include getting free things,...").

'Cuz nothing's really free, is it?  Dude, we're all paying in to the health care system big time, through the nose, already. Anyone who pays any kind of a tax pays into the HC system.  I mean, US taxpayer-funded public budgets pay the absolute largest health care bills on earth, and we're paying over and over agian with state and the federal budgets picking up the largest tabs.

What the health care amendment campaign does do is set some LONG OVERDUE standards for the health care system and to enshrine these in our constitution. The point of this is to make the system accountable to us, the folks who pay for it.  With permanence.  And yeah, most liberals do feel strongly that universal health care is a priority.  In fact, as poll after poll shows, others want quality universal coverage to be the standard too.

---

by: AnnEM @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 15:36:01 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Pre-trollish, too (6.00 / 2)

When raising a kitten, it is useful to remember that behaviors involving tooth and claw that are cute when the creature is small can become intolerable when the animal has grown larger.  Likewise diaries like this which seem more like pleas for attention than any sort of attempt to advance discussion, when fed with recommendations and comments, encourage a provocative, baiting style that can grow from cute, kittenish contrarianism to a full-fledged trollishness that doesn't use its litter box.

It would certainly be interesting to discuss any number of issues being raised here, but debate must follow debaiting.

---

by: KBusch @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 14:33:59 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Demolisher is being polite (0.00 / 0)

And is debating. Look at the Marxism post above. That's substantive and interesting.

BMG: Reality-based commentary.

---

by: Bob Neer @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 14:42:37 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Demolisher is being polite (0.00 / 0)

Reading the title "Demolisher is being polite" out of context does make it sound oxymoronic.

There might be a message in that.

---

by: KBusch @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 15:07:26 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Having examined it (6.00 / 1)

the debate on Marxism is not substantive either.

---

by: KBusch @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 11:20:33 AM CST

[ Parent ]

ROTFLMAO! (0.00 / 0)

 

---

by: lightiris @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 11:41:17 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I chuckle at some of the responses here (5.00 / 1)

Maybe I am a bad liberal but some of your points made some sense, others were painfully generic and stereotypical as mentioned, and other are just wrong.  I laugh though that some people seem to really try and debunk you.  As David and Bob mention waaaay upthread some of your points fit conservatives nearly as well as liberals.  But mostly what makes your list "wrong" is that it tries to cram everyone into these categories.  I know some liberals who are just so damn serious that can't find sarcasm or a sense of humor to save their life, so we aren't all sarcastic (plus who doesn't love the holier than thou tone of sarcasm).

The only substantive challenge I make is to point 6.  That is sticky stuff.  You can't say that there is constitutional change made if a judge deems the constitution to say something that no one thought of because all that the judge is doing is saying that the constitution said something all along.  That isn't effecting constitutional change at all.  Sort of a circular argument I know but it is still valid.  Goodridge didn't change the constitution, the judges merely held that this right was there all a long.

A blogger no more.

---

by: Andy @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 14:17:58 PM CST

interesting (0.00 / 0)

by your own standard, there are plentiful cases that you could look at and think:  did the founders intend to give us this right? (Roe?)  Or give this power to the government?  (unequal taxation?  anything stemming from the commerce clause?)

I kind of like that standard, actually.

Anyway, what does Mass Revolution Now mean?

D


the government can give you nothing
that it doesn't take away, first

---

by: demolisher @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 14:47:17 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Why should I care? n/t (0.00 / 0)

---

by: HR's Kevin @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 15:55:24 PM CST

I'll be damned, I'm a Republican (0.00 / 0)

You know, I wasn't quite sure if I was a true blue Democrat. I'm going to re-examine my positions base on your criteria.

1. I hate sarcasm/satire and the like.

2. I'm farsighted or so my optometrist tells me.

3. I can't believe we elected Deval Governor. Right on!

4. I believe cancer patients should decide for themselves if they need Marijuana.

5. Dude you forgot communism and I'm definitely not communist.

6.  I think we should allow Fox News to do that.

7. I don't believe in reason.

8.  I was one of those crazies against invading Iraq.

9.  I think we should divide the oppressed into those Starbuck categories, tall, grande and venti.

10. I'm definitely for human freedom - that's good stuff.

I'll be damned, I am a Republican!

Currently reading A Reliable Wife by Robert Goolrick

---

by: JimCaralis @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 20:48:19 PM CST

Progress (0.00 / 0)

For the purpose of progress (and avoiding a headache,) it's better to criticize your own party.

---

by: Bug @ Sat Nov 18, 2006 at 23:18:46 PM CST

What you hate (0.00 / 0)

about liberals is a stereotype of what you think of liberals.  This was relayed to you by a controlled "press" and even a "society" molded by social engineers.
Left and right use their very own and differing ways to exert control over the population.  The end result however will be global corporate fascism.  You have zero "rights".

---

by: Lasthorseman @ Sun Nov 19, 2006 at 12:54:55 PM CST