by Smitty
From a Freedom Works email:
We expect over ONE MILLION protesters across the country, and I hope you’ll be among them. But if you cannot, there are still plenty of ways for you to help out and make your voice heard for freedom.
It will take a lot of pictures to back up that prediction. Even so, we can expect the liberal media (you can’t spell ‘liberal’ without ‘libel’) to convert the attendance estimate to hexadecimal, and then take the logarithm, so that the final figure fits fingers. But they could well disprove my mockery by breaking with tradition and reporting honestly.
I do wonder if Conor Friedersdorf shall have recovered from the encounter with Valley of the Shadow on Twitter in time to meet some actual Americans. Come chill with the homies, Conor: we’re generally good folk, after all.
“I do wonder if Conor Friedersdorf shall have recovered from the encounter with Valley of the Shadow on Twitter in time to meet some actual Americans.”
Actual Americans?
Have Native Americans gone to the dark side that is Teabagging? Wow, you guys really are spreading the gospel…
“I do wonder if Conor Friedersdorf shall have recovered from the encounter with Valley of the Shadow on Twitter in time to meet some actual Americans.”
Actual Americans?
Have Native Americans gone to the dark side that is Teabagging? Wow, you guys really are spreading the gospel…
Any citizen of this country is an “actual” American.
This exclusionism is a frightening and unsavory tendency of the modern right: “You are American, you are not.”
Smacks of papist excommunication and Stalinist purging.
Phil
Any citizen of this country is an “actual” American.
This exclusionism is a frightening and unsavory tendency of the modern right: “You are American, you are not.”
Smacks of papist excommunication and Stalinist purging.
Phil
@Y4E,
Liberty is a fine gospel, indeed.
@Y4E,
Liberty is a fine gospel, indeed.
@Phil,
You’re welcome to join We The People in the struggle for liberty.
Progressivism must be opposed like a malignant cancer of the Constitution.
@Phil,
You’re welcome to join We The People in the struggle for liberty.
Progressivism must be opposed like a malignant cancer of the Constitution.
Our country has, for more than a century now, been what can crudely be called “Progressive.”
At this point, the Progressives are the conservatives, and those extreme right wingers who seek to destroy the paternal state are the radicals.
The revolution is over. “The Revolution Was.” Generations ago minimalist-decentralists fought and lost. Lost bad. Reagan nodded in their direction but achieved little more than turning a respectable philosophy into a rigid ideology.
I’m in the midst of writing an essay on this exact topic. Look for it soonish. Sure it’ll get you all hot and bothered.
For what it’s worth, I sympathize with the minimalist-decentralist position. It’s just that I realize that said inclination has never been as pronounced a feature of the American character as right wingers like to claim. Certainly, for all our superficial whining about “big government,” the vast majority of Americans remain fond of the major entitlements. “Keep your hands off my gun . . . and my dole!”
People — especially modern people — will most always trade autonomy for security. (Wasn’t that the whole premise of the Bush administration?) And they do so without considering themselves opposed to liberty, because security constitutes the very basis of modern liberty, which is thoroughly positive.
The right likes to accuse the left of living in a fantasy world, yet it is the latter who currently possess absurd faith in the individual. Liberals seem now to grasp the basic truth about men: That they are frail and weak and will eagerly trade rights for entitlements.
Phil
worththefighting.blogspot.com
Our country has, for more than a century now, been what can crudely be called “Progressive.”
At this point, the Progressives are the conservatives, and those extreme right wingers who seek to destroy the paternal state are the radicals.
The revolution is over. “The Revolution Was.” Generations ago minimalist-decentralists fought and lost. Lost bad. Reagan nodded in their direction but achieved little more than turning a respectable philosophy into a rigid ideology.
I’m in the midst of writing an essay on this exact topic. Look for it soonish. Sure it’ll get you all hot and bothered.
For what it’s worth, I sympathize with the minimalist-decentralist position. It’s just that I realize that said inclination has never been as pronounced a feature of the American character as right wingers like to claim. Certainly, for all our superficial whining about “big government,” the vast majority of Americans remain fond of the major entitlements. “Keep your hands off my gun . . . and my dole!”
People — especially modern people — will most always trade autonomy for security. (Wasn’t that the whole premise of the Bush administration?) And they do so without considering themselves opposed to liberty, because security constitutes the very basis of modern liberty, which is thoroughly positive.
The right likes to accuse the left of living in a fantasy world, yet it is the latter who currently possess absurd faith in the individual. Liberals seem now to grasp the basic truth about men: That they are frail and weak and will eagerly trade rights for entitlements.
Phil
worththefighting.blogspot.com
And once it’s over, there can be no going back. Just ask Brezhnev!
And once it’s over, there can be no going back. Just ask Brezhnev!
@ Phil:
“The socialists discovered that Americans understood how un-American their ideology was and renamed themselves progressives. Americans discovered the ruse so they renamed themselves liberals. They in turn became correctly branded tax and spend Liberals or “Radical Liberals” (Spiro was a blunt instrument but sure could turn a phrase). Now they are back to progressives.”
I wrote this here several weeks ago and repeat it here to refute your assertion that the so called current “Progressives” are somehow the new conservatives. Teddy Roosevelt was a conservationist not a conservative, these nit wits currently ruling our country are much more like Lenin than TR and are far left of center. That the left attempts to characterize and perhaps even believe themselves to be moderates or conservative (!!) is an indication of delusional thinking common among the left. I suspect in it’s yet another tired attempt create another alternative reality in order to reinforce the myth of inevitability the Social Democrats are so fond of lately.
As philosophers have little effect on policy it is to Reagan’s credit that conservativism became a rigid ideology. The conservative failure has been in allowing the cowardice of compromise to subvert that ideology by surrendering to the despicable notion that it was better to do something than prevent the enemy from doing anything. While it’s true the majority has been bought by entitlements and previously ignored the threat bigger government poses to their liberty many have come to realize that in the end they shall have neither. I agree that the revolution is indeed over it is the counter-revolution that begins now. While the return to founding principals of less government, personal liberty and independence may or not fail the left’s agenda must fail. While they may achieve their dream of totalitarian control of every aspect of public and personal life in the end they must destroy the economy. The left can’t not destroy the economy, their rigid ideology and believe in leftist mythology absolutely precludes any other out come. The notion that the vast majority have not yet recognized the danger posed by Social Democracy will be determined in the near future.
@ Phil:
“The socialists discovered that Americans understood how un-American their ideology was and renamed themselves progressives. Americans discovered the ruse so they renamed themselves liberals. They in turn became correctly branded tax and spend Liberals or “Radical Liberals” (Spiro was a blunt instrument but sure could turn a phrase). Now they are back to progressives.”
I wrote this here several weeks ago and repeat it here to refute your assertion that the so called current “Progressives” are somehow the new conservatives. Teddy Roosevelt was a conservationist not a conservative, these nit wits currently ruling our country are much more like Lenin than TR and are far left of center. That the left attempts to characterize and perhaps even believe themselves to be moderates or conservative (!!) is an indication of delusional thinking common among the left. I suspect in it’s yet another tired attempt create another alternative reality in order to reinforce the myth of inevitability the Social Democrats are so fond of lately.
As philosophers have little effect on policy it is to Reagan’s credit that conservativism became a rigid ideology. The conservative failure has been in allowing the cowardice of compromise to subvert that ideology by surrendering to the despicable notion that it was better to do something than prevent the enemy from doing anything. While it’s true the majority has been bought by entitlements and previously ignored the threat bigger government poses to their liberty many have come to realize that in the end they shall have neither. I agree that the revolution is indeed over it is the counter-revolution that begins now. While the return to founding principals of less government, personal liberty and independence may or not fail the left’s agenda must fail. While they may achieve their dream of totalitarian control of every aspect of public and personal life in the end they must destroy the economy. The left can’t not destroy the economy, their rigid ideology and believe in leftist mythology absolutely precludes any other out come. The notion that the vast majority have not yet recognized the danger posed by Social Democracy will be determined in the near future.
“And once it’s over, there can be no going back. Just ask Brezhnev!”
The Russians have always been subjected to the arbitrary power of autocrats. The name changes but the form stays roughly the same.
Try again.
“And once it’s over, there can be no going back. Just ask Brezhnev!”
The Russians have always been subjected to the arbitrary power of autocrats. The name changes but the form stays roughly the same.
Try again.
““The socialists discovered that Americans understood how un-American their ideology was and renamed themselves progressives. Americans discovered the ruse so they renamed themselves liberals. They in turn became correctly branded tax and spend Liberals or “Radical Liberals” (Spiro was a blunt instrument but sure could turn a phrase). Now they are back to progressives.”
That’s a laughable oversimplification.
Socialism, progressivism, liberalism: These are quite different philosophies in terms of their diagnoses and their prescriptions. If you think they are interchangeable then you need to hit the books. (You won’t be alone, don’t worry.)
““The socialists discovered that Americans understood how un-American their ideology was and renamed themselves progressives. Americans discovered the ruse so they renamed themselves liberals. They in turn became correctly branded tax and spend Liberals or “Radical Liberals” (Spiro was a blunt instrument but sure could turn a phrase). Now they are back to progressives.”
That’s a laughable oversimplification.
Socialism, progressivism, liberalism: These are quite different philosophies in terms of their diagnoses and their prescriptions. If you think they are interchangeable then you need to hit the books. (You won’t be alone, don’t worry.)
@ Phil:
I’ve had this argument numerous times once or twice on other site’s comments threads. Fortunately I never tire of it.
I maintain that the theoretical difference between Socialist, Liberal, Bolshevik, Progressive, Communist, Social Democrat, Democratic Socialist and the current American Democratic Party is merely that, theoretical, a distinction without a difference. In a practical sense philosophy becomes ideology when said tenets enter the realm of social and political struggle. All of the aforementioned ideological systems have catastrophic flaws in their basic premises. One they all share is a “utopian perfectibility of man” in order to work correctly. Once even a small segment of the people stop “giving their all” for the “greater good” the coercion starts and inevitably leads to the Soviet Union or Chinese systems. The most significant flaw in the thinking of 20th century liberal ideology is that they believe that inequality of results can only be caused by some form of discrimination. Once steps taken to eliminate actual discrimination if any, fail, the left starts implementing programs to eradicate imaginary discrimination thereby oppressing some one else. No amount of evidence demonstrates the potential of negative unintended consequences or the possibility that the underlying premise of their policies is flawed. Their narrow minded frames of reference preclude anything but somebody’s evil intentions as possible causes of their policy failures. The difference between Stalinism and Obamanism is merely one of degree and length of time in power. How far to the left, how totalitarian, how oppressive a leftist regime becomes is purely a function of how much of the “partial loaf” previously settled for has been squandered. As the lefts policies fail they are compelled to solve that outcome by becoming progressively more and more controlling. They can’t help it they are the left.
@ Phil:
I’ve had this argument numerous times once or twice on other site’s comments threads. Fortunately I never tire of it.
I maintain that the theoretical difference between Socialist, Liberal, Bolshevik, Progressive, Communist, Social Democrat, Democratic Socialist and the current American Democratic Party is merely that, theoretical, a distinction without a difference. In a practical sense philosophy becomes ideology when said tenets enter the realm of social and political struggle. All of the aforementioned ideological systems have catastrophic flaws in their basic premises. One they all share is a “utopian perfectibility of man” in order to work correctly. Once even a small segment of the people stop “giving their all” for the “greater good” the coercion starts and inevitably leads to the Soviet Union or Chinese systems. The most significant flaw in the thinking of 20th century liberal ideology is that they believe that inequality of results can only be caused by some form of discrimination. Once steps taken to eliminate actual discrimination if any, fail, the left starts implementing programs to eradicate imaginary discrimination thereby oppressing some one else. No amount of evidence demonstrates the potential of negative unintended consequences or the possibility that the underlying premise of their policies is flawed. Their narrow minded frames of reference preclude anything but somebody’s evil intentions as possible causes of their policy failures. The difference between Stalinism and Obamanism is merely one of degree and length of time in power. How far to the left, how totalitarian, how oppressive a leftist regime becomes is purely a function of how much of the “partial loaf” previously settled for has been squandered. As the lefts policies fail they are compelled to solve that outcome by becoming progressively more and more controlling. They can’t help it they are the left.
Phil, my comment wasn’t about Russia. Try again.
Phil, my comment wasn’t about Russia. Try again.