Progressivism vs. Conservatism What About This Statement

Jump to Last Post 1-15 of 15 discussions (148 posts)
  1. GA Anderson profile image92
    GA Andersonposted 5 weeks ago

    I hope that this does not turn into another Trump thread, but, since his name is mentioned I hold no illusions that it will not.

    The quote is relative to an article about changing eras between traditional conservatism and political correctness and progressivism.

    Progressive columnist William Galston wrote this in the Wall Street Journal:

    "We had assumed that some beliefs had moved so far beyond the pale that those who continued to hold them would not dare to say so publicly. Mr. Trump has proved us wrong. His critique of political correctness has destroyed many taboos and has given his followers license to say what they really think. Beliefs we mocked now command a majority in one of the world’s oldest political parties, and sometimes in the electorate as a whole. Nowhere is that truer than in gender relations."
    Source: Impeachment, the End of an Era, and the Conservative Challenge *for good context, you should check out the linked article

    The gist of the article is that after Bush, (43), Pres. Obama had brought us to an era where so many traditional conservative views were believed to be accepted as so politically incorrect that no sensible person would publically espouse them.

    In other words, Obama's era made it so uncool to be conservative that most folks decided to stay in the closet.

    Check out the quote, what do you think?

    GA

    1. Ken Burgess profile image91
      Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Hi GA,

      Well, I feel that is what was believed by the "ruling elite class" the MSM millionaire cable news personalities, the DC crowd, the intellectuals and the Hollywood liberals.

      They also believed early on during Obama's Administration that it was the end of Republicans ever regaining control of any part of government, they would be in control of DC for generations to come.

      In short, their beliefs were based on delusions and desires and the detached viewpoints of those who are not connected to the daily struggles and routines of "Average" Americans.

      America is a big place, and there is a growing diversity of opinions and beliefs within it.  Despite the changes in demographics however, it is human nature to resist change (such as going from a "Freedom & Liberty for All" "God Bless America" nation to a "Open Borders" "America is racist, patriarchal and evil and must be undone" swing in beliefs).

      The push to fundamentally change what America stands for, as well as the push on sensible beliefs regarding gender roles, gender identification, etc, compounded by the millions of jobs lost and Americas declining presence in the global marketplace and technological advancements has made for huge push back on "progressive" fronts, which includes the "PC".

      That the MSM, and by extension google/youtube/facebook, and Democrats within DC have doubled down on their efforts to stomp out what is now considered "Deplorable" beliefs and ideals (which only 20 years ago would have been considered patriotic or plain common sense) will only infuriate those determined to stave off the tidal wave of change even more, and get them to support with even more effort Trump, and those like him.

      I have always said, and still believe, that had the opposition just left Trump to do his thing, and not dragged out a two year balony Russia Conspiracy, and then this Impeachment over essentially asking about Biden's corruption, Trump would have worn on the majority of Americans.

      Instead, the MSM and Democrats in Congress have done more to rally Americans to his support than anything the man could have done by his own deeds.

      This part of the article sums it up nicely:
      "Sometimes people can convince themselves that what they’re doing is in the higher interest, the better good. They don’t realize that what they’re doing is really antithetical to the democratic system.” They “start viewing themselves as the guardians of the people,” guardians who are more informed and sensitive than everybody else but who actually “look at evidence and facts through a biased prism that they themselves don’t realize.”

      1. GA Anderson profile image92
        GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        Ken, your closing quote does sum up the article's point. I was also prodded to consider it more deeply by its Praetorian Guard references.

        I think that reference could easily be seen as a chance to cite history as a wise teacher. But that lesson goes both ways. It has also shown that change is going to happen. It cannot be stopped. And too many times societies have to be prodded into accepting that.

        Remember that ruler's request for a motto that would stay true for all times; "And this too will pass"?

        For folks that think the 'Deep State' is just a conspiracist's myth, your closing quote and a read into Rome's Praetorian Guards might offer some food for thought.

        GA

        1. Ken Burgess profile image91
          Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          Change is always going to occur, but it is not so clear how it will unravel.

          Is something between Brzezinski's Between two Ages and Orwell's 1984 in our immediate future?

          Is the chaos we are seeing be sewn in society by divisive media factions and countless agenda driven groups just the premise to enacting America's version of the 'Social Credit System' (SCS)?

          China's stated goal for the SCS  is to help Chinese people trust each other again.

          Will America require the same top-down aid to sooth and calm our differences?

          I don't believe we can continue down this road where our media and our leaders keep on pushing divisive conflicts between 'groups' be they race, sex or agenda and expect America to be a society and civilization in common in the future.

          Unless ultimately, the goal is to create such a chaotic atmosphere that people accept an ever increasing intrusion into their privacy and loss of freedoms for the 'public good' so that 'American people trust each other again'.

        2. hard sun profile image90
          hard sunposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          As to your "Deep State" comment. If you actually define the "Deep State" narrowly, as in ONE department or a handful of people, then okay, maybe it's relevant. But, the mythical American Deep State is ANY and EVERY person and department that Hannity or Trump says it is. So, no, I'm not falling for the whole government by the people is the enemy shtick. It's how dictators or formed all over the world.

          1. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            I am not falling for that "shtick" either hard sun. I was not referring to Hannity's version of Deep State. My idea was more to your "ONE department or a handful of people" idea.

            GA

            1. hard sun profile image90
              hard sunposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              I wish a few more Americans could wake up and see the "shtick."

    2. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Reading the article, here is my response, GA


      (But emotionally progressives sense great danger, and they do not like it one bit, expressed by their extreme passion for impeachment, from the very day Mr. Trump was sworn in as president.)[1]


      Extreme passion for impeachment? 'This course was resisted by Palosi in the beginning. This idea of a plan to impeach Trump from the beginning of his Presidency is unsubstantiated. If so passionate, why wait 3 years into Trumps term to carry it out?
      ------------
      (At the Constitutional Convention James Madison specifically excluded “maladministration” (407) as a proper cause for impeachment since the use of “so vague a term” would make the President not head of a co-equal branch but have him merely serving at “the pleasure of the Senate.”[2] Now, with the Democratic House’s impeachment of President Trump on those grounds, they have perversely decapitated the principal instrument of their own progressive ideology—the expert-based Chief Executive driving national policy from the center to build a Great Society.)

      Does the author have the same attitude regarding the concept of impeachment during the Clinton impeachment, or the impending impeachment of Nixon, or even that of Andrew Johnson, 150 years ago?
      -----------------
      (If you had told me a year ago that a hateful brat would be the presidential nominee of a major political party, I would have scoffed. Someone who denigrated women? Not possible. Someone who insulted Mexicans? No way. Someone who mocked the physically disabled? Not in America. Not in my America)

      Is it so much to ask that the expert based Chief Executive in charge of driving national policy from the center avoid race baiting references inconsistent with a leader that is supposed to bring people together?

      Trump comes off as an ignorant, arrogant and needlessly abrasive clown. Why else did he find little support among thoughtful, educated and experienced federal employees? So, this is the "deep state" he always rants about?
      -----------
      (leaders throwing off the last vestiges of old traditional America)

      The idea of "old traditional America" basically worked to my disadvantage. Why would I lament in its passing?
      --------
      (On the other hand, with increased spending and a commitment not to touch entitlements and even adding more government employees, there seemed no commitment to the central conservative ideal of limited government.)

      Fiscal responsibility from the conservatives is just another red herring. They are just as profligate with the Treasury as the progressives that they complain about. It just comes down to differing priorities as to how the money is spent.
      ------
      Conservative belief in limited government should have much to say about this progressive reliance upon deep state experts to overrule elected presidents.

      This author fellow is basically partisan. This was a nonsensical statement. This pits those as part of the Executive Branch, that the President controls in direct opposition to him. In the past 2 centuries, I have not heard of such problems regarding the President and his Executive Branch. Is all this being created as a cover for Trump's glaring shortcomings and inadequacies?

      1. GA Anderson profile image92
        GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        yeah, yeah, Trump, Trump, Trump.

        Come on bud, the topic was traditional values and the effects of modern progressivism.

        GA

        1. PrettyPanther profile image82
          PrettyPantherposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          I'm not sure this is fair, given that the article referenced Trump throughout, basically using his election as a harbinger of the backslash against progressivism. I don't completely buy that premise, but in my response above I tried to comply with your wish to not bring Trump into the discussion. ;-)

          1. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            And you did a fine job of it too. I understand that Pres. Trump was repeatedly referenced, but it was my take they were used as illustrations, not supportive comparisons.

            GA

        2. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          So, GA, you present a "sound bite" not considering that I am going to read the entire article to understand what you are talking about within the context of the entirety?

          The author used Trump as an example, what makes you think that my reply is going to not take a reference to him? This (no disparaging word) about  Trump thing is a bugaboo of yours and you need to get over it.

          The topic is already quite vague as to what are "old traditional values"
          And if you took the time to read what I wrote about what is traditional and comforting to some may not well be in an universe sense, you may well expand your horizons.

          "Old Traditonal values" is a rightwing buzzword reflecting a resistance to change and a return to a society that is much more advantageous to some over others, know what I mean?

          To be honest, I too, am taken aback with cultural change thing: the bathroom thing, men kissing on TV, and many more. But, if the alternative is nostalgia and an embrace of the past which was totally unsatisfactory from my perspective, I will take my chances with the current course.

          Any more clarification needed, just let me know.

          1. GA Anderson profile image92
            GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            It looks like I am the one that needs to offer some clarification bud.

            But first, it wasn't "old traditional values," it was "traditional conservative values." Although, I can see where they may mean the same to you. ;-)

            I don't have a "bugaboo" about disparaging Pres. Trump. I may have one about presumptive, hypocritical, or incorrect disparaging, but I don't have a problem with truthful disparagement. I was only trying to have a discussion that wasn't just another Trump thread.

            Now about those multiple Trump references that triggered your response . . .  I saw them as illustrations of points being made, and those points weren't simply Trump points.

            The actual topic of the thread was the provided quote:

            "We had assumed that some beliefs had moved so far beyond the pale that those who continued to hold them would not dare to say so publicly. Mr. Trump has proved us wrong. His critique of political correctness has destroyed many taboos and has given his followers license to say what they really think. Beliefs we mocked now command a majority in one of the world’s oldest political parties, and sometimes in the electorate as a whole. Nowhere is that truer than in gender relations."

            I saw the Trump references as illustrations of that quote's point.

            I admit that there was plenty of Trump fodder in the article, but I only offered the article as a context for the provided quote.

            But to the point of the quote, if you were in a mixed-company group of strangers or just associates and the topic was about a movie with a men's kissing scene, would you express your distaste or just remain quiet?

            In that same setting, would you express your frustration with "the whole bathroom thing'?

            My answers would be that I would probably just remain quiet. Who needs the grief. (in the setting of an honest discussion I would have no problem piping in)

            And this thought;

            "Old Traditonal values" is a rightwing buzzword reflecting a resistance to change and a return to a society that is much more advantageous to some over others, know what I mean?"

            . . . is one of the reasons I offered the topic. I think you are wrong. I do not see TCVs, (traditional conservative values), as resisting any change, but just rapid forced change. I also think that your thought of "advantageous to some over others" is a shoe that fits both feet.

            GA

            1. Credence2 profile image80
              Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              GA, the answer the question as to whether I would remain silent on the kissing scene or bathroom follies, I personally do not have to approve of everything to acknowledge that it is legal and allowable. So, I live and let live, minding my own business.

              The problem with your last paragraph is that the very definition of conservatism is a resistance to change. What may be considered as "rapid" to you may be long overdue from the perspective of others often depending on if you are directly affected

              History has often times shown that those vested in maintaining the Status Quo telling the disaffected to be patient and that "their time will come" has too often meant unacceptably slow or not at all. If you are the one on the hot seat, there is that fierce urgency of now...

              1. GA Anderson profile image92
                GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                In answer to those questions say say 'live and let live' it isn't up to you to personally approve or acknowledge any behavior, yet in this conversation, you volunteered just such an opinion.

                Conservatism may well be defined as resistance to change, but if that change is defined. I don't think conservative means resistance to all change, just to too-quick and forced change. Since that definition works for you to support your view of conservatism, should a similar use of definition work for explaining my view of radicalism?

                However, I do agree with you that sometimes that demand for measured change has turned into resistance to any change. Even the long-overdue change that all can recognize.

                You closed with a very valid point. When I discuss and define Conservatism, I am not talking about the conservatism of your final paragraph, just as when I talk of Progressivism, I am not talking of the AOC-type progressives. Extremes have to be discounted or no conversation could venture beyond specific individual instances.

                GA

                1. Credence2 profile image80
                  Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  "In answer to those questions say say 'live and let live' it isn't up to you to personally approve or acknowledge any behavior, yet in this conversation, you volunteered just such an opinion."

                  I missing your point. I don't smoke cigarettes, but I neither judge nor castigate those that choose to do so. We all have own personal tastes, preferences and opinions. It is just that in the public sphere, civility demands that one respects the right of others to cling to their own viewpoints and opinions.

                  History has shown through the Supreme Courts rulings that some necessary "changes" had to be "forced" or they would have never seen the light of day as true justice would be delayed just that much longer.

                  The only problem with your final paragraph is that society is so politically and ideologically polarized that one man's extremist is another persons just right or left of center. So, it is relative, it depends on where you are as to whether we can call out radical or not

                  For example, Conservatives tell me that Obama was a leftist radical, well I thought that he was well within the Clinton type of being center left and almost too moderate for my tastes. What do you and conservatives say?

                  1. GA Anderson profile image92
                    GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I will take the easy one first Cred. I saw Clinton as barely center-left. Or, more categorically, a left-leaning Centrist. So maybe we agree on this point.

                    As for the point you 'might' be missing, it is this; you had no problem, in the environment of our familiarity and a political discussion forum, of volunteering that you find men kissing to be of-putting. Yet, also noted you would not make that same observation in a less familiar mixed-company setting. My point is, why is that so?

                    As for your point about positions being relative, I would offer that the 'sweet spot' of understanding what is conservative and what is radical isn't really that hard to find, or define. But, that point does pertain directly to the topic of the thread: Things that used to be just relative differences of opinion have now graduated to be things that are detrimental to expressing an opinion for fear of backlash and criticism.

                    I have already given examples of this, (traditional families, gender and bathrooms, etc.), so the point should be easy to understand.

                    I won't speak for Conservatives but for myself Pres. Obama was left of center. More Leftist than Clinton. But not radical Left.

                    GA

                  2. Ken Burgess profile image91
                    Ken Burgessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                    You are making too much sense Credence,  I can't argue your positions when they are so sensible. 

                    Lets get you back to talking about Trump, at least then your reason gives way to rants and emotional tirades I can pick apart.

    3. Tim Truzy info4u profile image97
      Tim Truzy info4uposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      Hi, GA. great job. I've haven't read as many"thank you's" and "your welcomes" on the forum in a long time. It shows you hit a topic which made us as Americans really think deeply about in a positive way. P.P., Cred., even you LTl, and ABwilliams--and the rest--much better material than we would ever get from the media. Real discussions with respect. Thanks, and Happy 2020.

      1. GA Anderson profile image92
        GA Andersonposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Happy New Year to you also Tim.

        GA

      2. abwilliams profile image55
        abwilliamsposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        It does get heated at times Tim (as you know) but we are all adults here and bottom line...we all love this Country! Happy 2020 to you and yours!

      3. Credence2 profile image80
        Credence2posted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        Thanks, Tim, now its back to the trenches....

  2. abwilliams profile image55
    abwilliamsposted 5 weeks ago

    Good morning GA, Ken has covered this quite sufficiently, but this is where my mind goes....went! wink

    I often speak of the core of our being; our beliefs, our values, etc., those things that aren’t fly by night, but rather, are an intricate part of us. In our DNA, one might say.
    Which means, they don’t change like the weather, they don’t cease to exist, simply because a charismatic individual or a great cause might come along.
    If they do, then they were never established at one’s core.

    Who we are, why we are here, what we believe, what sustains us....should be established and a part of us, long before we make major decisions, such as; marriage, choosing a career, becoming a parent...voting, etc.

    If a person is easily swayed by every charismatic individual or every cause which happens to come along or cross their path, they have a lot of work to do on themselves...they needn’t be trying so hard to change people’s minds on things they themselves may not believe tomorrow.

    1. GA Anderson profile image92
      GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      I agree with your thought ABWilliams. I often speak of one's core values as the foundation of the house that is your life. A weak foundation leads to a weak and unstable house.

      GA

      1. abwilliams profile image55
        abwilliamsposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        Exactly and rather than work to build up and strengthen the weaknesses in the foundation; it's blamed on this, it's blamed on that, it's neglected, abused, and in its "weakened and unstable" condition, it falls.

  3. PrettyPanther profile image82
    PrettyPantherposted 5 weeks ago

    I have a question. The quote you reference states "We had assumed that some beliefs had moved so far beyond the pale that those who continued to hold them would not dare to say so publicly."

    You then seem to summarize the gist of the article with "The gist of the article is that after Bush, (43), Pres. Obama had brought us to an era where so many traditional conservative views were believed to be accepted as so politically incorrect that no sensible person would publically espouse them."

    Are you saying that those beliefs that had moved so beyond the pale that conservatives were afraid to espouse them publicly are also traditional conservative views?

    1. GA Anderson profile image92
      GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      I should have expected this from you. You force me onto a tightrope. ;-)

      But I will give it a shot. In the context you offered, (and it was the correct context), I can understand your question. If all traditional conservative views were in a basket, then I say no, that is not what I meant. But if we look at them specifically, then I must admit that it is mostly traditional conservative views that are subject to that "beyond the pale" description.

      For instance; the traditional conservative value , (TCV), of a heterosexual family, a male and a female, procreate and become a family. There is good reason that became a TCV—it was the only way for our species to continue.

      The basis of that TCV is still true. Regardless of modern family compositions a hetrosexual relationship is still required, even if that relationship is only the combination of a male sperm and a female egg.

      It is my opinion that folks that hold that TCV must allow their value to accept that there are other possible just-as-emotionally-valid nurturing combinations. But that acceptance doesn't have to mean they must hide that value in a closet.

      I would say that nowadays if someone spoke forcefully of their belief in the traditional family they would be roundly criticized as being homophobic dinosaurs. If they can accept there are other non-traditional family compositions, then why should they be criticized or considered wrong for that TCV belief?

      Further, and still in the vein of a hetero theme of TCVs, consider the recently current gender controversies. Obviously it is a TCV that a biological male is a boy and a biological female is a girl. Some may argue that is not a true biological fact, but I think, (putting aside rare biological anomalies), it is.

      Once again, if one can accept that there are folks that 'feel' they are a different gender, or even that there may be folks that are biologically-inclined to a different gender, then why must they hide their value?

      I think the 'which bathroom' controversy proves a "beyond the pale" illustration. It is not traditional conservative values that have moved beyond the pale, it is the progressive's demands that have made holding them to be beyond the pale.

      We could hunt for other examples, but I hope you can see the direction of the point I am trying to make. Some 'modern values' have been pushed to such extremes by extreme progressivism that holding almost any TCV is now considered such a warty negative that too many folks censor their public persona just to avoid criticisms and condemnations.

      GA

      1. PrettyPanther profile image82
        PrettyPantherposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        Okay, I just wanted to be sure you said what I thought you said before I make this point.

        I believe what you are describing as "traditional conservative values" were at one time, and not that long ago, merely human values, neither conservative nor progressive. As humans explore their world through science and rational examination of what science reveals, some of our once widely held tenets have fallen by the wayside. The concept that men and women cannot be equally competent in the workplace, for example.  What happens is that those who hold on most tightly and for the longest time to the old values that are being revealed to be not based on rational evidence are, by definition, conservatives. And those who are more willing to discard widely held beliefs that have been proven wrong or based on something other than rational thought are, by definition, progressives.

        So, I guess what I'm saying is that the current backlash against progressivism is nothing new and has been played out over and over again throughout history. In the end, some current progressive thought will prove to be wrong and fall by the wayside, but some basic values that are changing due to science revealing the error and/or irrationality of certain beliefs will, over time, become basic human values,neither conservative not progressive.

        1. GA Anderson profile image92
          GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          I was going to quote what I thought to be  a couple of your points that I completely agree with, but I will just use two:

          "The concept that men and women cannot be equally competent in the workplace, for example."

          Whether I am right or wrong, this is not what I think of as an example of traditional conservative values. I just see it as an issue that needs fixing.

          Then, "What happens is that those who hold on most tightly and for the longest time to the old values that are being revealed to be not based on rational evidence are, by definition, conservatives."

          In the context of this discussion, I think you are right. But, I have to add the caveat that I think, in general, it is conservatives that place more value on traditional values—of any kind, (not core values, progressives are just as likely as conservatives to have those), than progressives. So it seems only natural that I think your statement is true.

          However, I think that even my agreement with your comment doesn't negate my agreement with the article's contention that things, (Progressivism and PC), have done just what it said, pushed too many TCVs to be "beyond the pale" relative to normal discussion.

          GA

          1. PrettyPanther profile image82
            PrettyPantherposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            "I think that even my agreement with your comment doesn't negate my agreement with the article's contention that things, (Progressivism and PC), have done just what it said, pushed too many TCVs to be "beyond the pale" relative to normal discussion "

            "pushed too many TCVs"

            I would say that is true. However, I would also say that many of these TCVs were initially troubled by the nature of some of the backlash, i.e., the unnecessarily racist  rhetoric surrounding the immigration issue and the rise in visibility of white supremacists, but have chosen to remain silent. This is the source of the "fear" described in the quote livetolearn referenced. Here is the quote:

            Donald Trump has taught me to fear my fellow Americans. I don’t mean the occasional yahoo who turns a Trump rally into a hate fest. I mean the ones who do nothing. Who are silent. Who look the other way.

            1. GA Anderson profile image92
              GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              We are starting to part ways. While I agree that some White Supremacist folks have felt emboldened, (rightly or wrongly), I don't automatically see racism in the conservative views on immigration issues. I think I would be more inclined to see signs of xenophobia than I would racism.

              GA

              1. Credence2 profile image80
                Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                Do you think any of this "xenophobia" would be heard about if the immigration were from Sweden or Norway?

                1. abwilliams profile image55
                  abwilliamsposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  If Swedes or anyone else  sneaks in some U.S. back door, cheating in order to gain access before those waiting patiently, those who respect our Nation and our laws, that is criminal intent, whatever their Nationality, whatever their skin color, yes.

                  Not sure why this is so hard to understand. If someone breaks into my home, I am not going to take the time to ask them where they are from, I am going to shoot them.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image82
                    PrettyPantherposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Well, not everyone views the world in such stark, black and white terms, and thankfully so. My husband caught an intruder in his home back when he was a young man in the military. And instead of shooting him he fed him. The man was hungry. He was also a family man desperate to feed his family so my husband invited this family into his home and fed them.

                    There are compassionate ways to deal with desperate people.

                2. Ken Burgess profile image91
                  Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Fair point, and probably some truth to it. 

                  Less about race than about cultural similarities and assimilation I imagine.

                  An immigrant from Peru who believes in hard work and has christian values is easier for a typical American to accept than the immigrant from Saudi Arabia who has Muslim values and dresses in full burqa or hijab when in public.

                  Especially when one assimilates to your culture whereas the other expects you to conform to their own when they are the majority in a region within the country.

                  1. Credence2 profile image80
                    Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    "An immigrant from Peru who believes in hard work and has christian values is easier for a typical American to accept than the immigrant from Saudi Arabia who has Muslim values and dresses in full burqa or hijab when in public."

                    But , as Trump once alluded to in one of his comments it appears that the immigrant from Norway would be more acceptable than either of your examples.

                    Why can't people be acceptable for being different rather than have to conform to an imaginary archaic standard that changes daily? People don't have to be "like me", but I, being a strident leftist, am going to tend to reason this way.

                3. GA Anderson profile image92
                  GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Why did you exclude the Irish and Italians in that question? Could it be because it is more about culture and numbers than skin color?

                  GA

                  1. Credence2 profile image80
                    Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I have to wonder why Trump referred to a Scandinavian nation for his example of the ideal immigrant? Norway does, like most Western European democracies, enjoys a greater level of Social welfare as the norm in its society than the U.S.

                    What is the potential that such an individual comes to the US looking for a feather bed that does not exist?

                    Today, since Italians and the Irish have been assimilated as Anglos in this country today, Trump could have referred to them in not any different way from Norway.

              2. PrettyPanther profile image82
                PrettyPantherposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                That is a fair perception regarding the immigration reform issue which is all I mentioned in my comment. I don't automatically see racism in the conservative view on immigration, either. That is not what I said or what I meant. My point is that a considerable number of Americans have been willing to look the other way in the face of scare tactics, lies, and racist rhetoric, some of it directed at their fellow Americans. (The immigration issue was just one examole). So, while I understand that some of the backlash is due to conservatives balking at their traditional values being attacked in their view, I also see something much more sinister at play and it sincerely scares me that so many Americans are willing to either embrace it or look the other way.

                1. GA Anderson profile image92
                  GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I think you are right PrettyPanther, but I don't think that is only a conservative thing. It is painful to see any group of folks ignore reality because something fits their bias.

                  As for what you see as sinister, that same "behavior" might just be seen as a price'. Some are willing to pay it for the perceived return value, and others aren't. And that too is not just a conservative or Trump thing.

                  GA

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image82
                    PrettyPantherposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I'm going to refrain from a real response unless I can figure out a way to phrase it inoffensively. I'm trying to be nice today. :-)

          2. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            How do you define "core values" re: "traditional values"?  How do "traditional values" like the 10 commandments, a hard work ethic or the sexual mores of the past fit in?  Hard to see them as anything but "core values" to those that supported them.

            1. PrettyPanther profile image82
              PrettyPantherposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              Not speaking for GA, but I see core values as things like honesty, kindness, the Golden Rule, etc. I see traditional values as things like heterosexual marriage, having kids, worshipping God, etc.

              Two people could have the same core values but not share traditional values.

              1. GA Anderson profile image92
                GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                Damn PrettyPanther, you must be psychic. I just responded to Wilderness before I scrolled down and saw your comment. Check it out if you are up to a bit of deja vu. ;-)

                GA

                1. PrettyPanther profile image82
                  PrettyPantherposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Yes, but you were much more thorough, as usual. :-)

              2. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                Not debating whether these things are "good" (I find all of them to be good), just trying to understand this conversation.  Truly, I don't find but precious few such values as being common to all, or nearly all, people throughout time, and a couple of examples does not give the description I need to understand.

                I would say, for instance, that heterosexual marriage and worshiping God are so "core" to millions of people that to be otherwise is simply unthinkable.  They may realize that others disagree, but for themselves such a thought would never enter their head.  Core to what makes them what they are, then, and absolutely unchangeable.

                Traditional, though - dresses for women, short hair for men.  Children quiet at the table.  Many of the gender specific things we've left behind, such as women in the workplace or men teaching elementary school.  Even heterosexual marriage only, for some people while recognizing that for others it is still, and shall remain, a core part of who they are.

                Not an argument, just an honest attempt at understanding.

            2. GA Anderson profile image92
              GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              I would define core values as things like; honesty, integrity, and a life guide of the Golden Rule.

              I see traditional values such as those examples already mentioned. The traditional family is a heterosexual marriage, a biological male is a boy, regardless of what he feels he is. A person's value is their word. Those are the type of basics I see as traditional values.

              Of course, there are more topical traditional values too. Like the old concept of paying your own way. The concept of the value of a work ethic.   The old concept of being responsible for your debts. And of course the most debated of old values; that respect must be earned and not demanded. Nowadays folks feel entitled to demand respect just because they are able to draw a breath.

              Specifically, regarding the Ten Commandments, I could see 5-10 as core values, but I think 1-4 are definitely traditional values. I also think sexual mores are so time and culturally specific that I would see them as traditional values.

              It is my opinion that core values are universal and timeless. The good ones would work for everyone from a Hindu to an atheist, a beggar to a rich man, and all degrees of humanity—from savage to enlightened sage.

              Traditional values, on the other hand, could be different for all of those and still be a good thing.

              GA

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                I dunno, GA.  Certainly the Golden Rule is very nearly universal, but I can't think of much else.  Of the ten commandments, for instance, I wouldn't argue #5 but certainly #6 and 8 typically apply only to those of your own tribe, while #7 has been known in more than one culture to be not recognized at all.

                Bottom line, as I see it, is that there is precious little that is universal OR timeless, for our morals (or "values" if you will) have changed and will do so again.

                Of course if one is to speak of only a few decades and a limited geographical area it is different.  As long as it isn't the US, anyway; we are too much of a melting pot to have much that is universal even within the country.

                1. GA Anderson profile image92
                  GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  You got me bud, I was presumptuous. I agree that the Golden Rule may be the only value that might be truly a universal core value. All others, as you said, can and have been culturally redefined at one time or another.

                  However, even with redefinition, the concepts of honesty and integrity may also qualify as universal core values. I think all good people would hold them to be core values, it is just their interpretations of what that means that would be different.

                  Consider the mental loops of irrational rationalization, (to us and our times of course), in a society where to be honest was considered to be dependably dishonest. I think such rationalization of possible possibilities it too much of a stretch. I think that both honesty and integrity have probably had a common and universal understanding of meaning since the caveman.  I think a fair argument can be made that honesty and integrity are also universal core values regardless of their cultural or period meaning.

                  Speaking to the Ten Commandments, I think you are right, they are culturally rather than universally defined.

                  GA

        2. Ken Burgess profile image91
          Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          Quite right, it is human nature to resist change.  At least for the majority.

          But I think the "backlash" is rooted in far more than that.

          When I was growing up there was Liberace, it was clear he was gay and no one cared. 

          What we had recently is more than just an effort to cultivate acceptance, it is an attack on the fundamental foundations of family, its not just a celebration of diversity, it has to be at the expense of men.

          For instance its not enough to have a strong woman or gay character in the new Star Wars series that has been roundly criticized in recent years, they had to denigrate the heroes of the original series (Solo and Luke) and make simpletons or incompetents of the male characters in that series, the lead female being the hero, surrounded by grumpy old men or incompetent young ones.

          Or so many people who review these movies claim, I took the kids to watch the first in the series, they didn't like it, they didn't buy into the new Star Wars, so I haven't had to go back and watch the rest... but then, boys are known to identify with the heroes in movies... and when the movie doesn't have a male hero, they don't seem to have much interest.

          And as you say about backlash and history... the pendulum swings one way then the other... there have been countless civilizations that have gone through an 'enlightenment' only to fall back into barbarism. 

          Hopefully we can avoid that type of decline, but I doubt it, you can already see all the signs that our 'Western Civilization' is nearing the precipice of its demise... what is to follow remains to be seen.

          1. PrettyPanther profile image82
            PrettyPantherposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            "When I was growing up there was Liberace, it was clear he was gay and no one cared."

            That's not how I remember it. I would say no one cared as long as he didn't openly discuss it or, as I often heard from those who thought gay people should remain in the closet, "shove it in my face."

            I can agree with much of what you say. It sometimes happens, when society corrects itself, that the formerly oppressed and marginalized, when finally given a mainstream voice, use it to denigrate the oppressor. This is, in my opinuon, human nature and, in some measure, deserved. But, it is no more "right" than the original denigration that occurred at the hands of the original  oppressor.

            As for the decline you see happening, I don't feel qualified to comment on that. It is beyond my level of knowledge.

  4. Live to Learn profile image81
    Live to Learnposted 5 weeks ago

    I found this part of the article the most troubling was this Donald Trump has taught me to fear my fellow Americans. I don’t mean the occasional yahoo who turns a Trump rally into a hate fest. I mean the ones who do nothing. Who are silent. Who look the other way.

    This is untenable. To have people so entrenched in their beliefs that they cannot consider an alternative view as anything other than something to be feared indicates how far we have slipped as a nation.

  5. Onusonus profile image78
    Onusonusposted 5 weeks ago

    Today's rally in Virginia reflects the stark contrast between the civilized manner of protest that is typical of people on the right versus the unhinged mob mentality of the left.
    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/s960x960/82472829_503557133913344_3074851345874812928_o.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ohc=nV80-UsPw2MAX-kDn-W&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&_nc_tp=1002&oh=e309ab828e8eedf3e3447a3e54a340e2&oe=5ED779CB

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Or perhaps indicative of the values of the typical gun owning citizen that lives outside the criminal world.  I cannot believe that there are no gun owners among the "left", meaning that some of them were likely at that rally.  And behaved themselves just as the "right" did.

      1. Onusonus profile image78
        Onusonusposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        I can.

  6. abwilliams profile image55
    abwilliamsposted 5 weeks ago

    Yes I am sure you are right, that's all it was.
    I certainly celebrated my Aunt not dying that day.

    1. PrettyPanther profile image82
      PrettyPantherposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      I'm glad she is safe, too.

      1. abwilliams profile image55
        abwilliamsposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        Thank you.

  7. Bill Spickerman profile image60
    Bill Spickermanposted 5 weeks ago

    I just came across this site, and signed up today.  I Read your post, GA Anderson, as well as the AB Williams writing you quoted.  I agree with most of what was said with exception to AB's comment about President Trump not supporting smaller government.

    "President Donald Trump’s White House payroll has 418 employees, that's 36 fewer staffers than Barack Obama at the same point in their presidencies.
    There was 26-percent turnover in the key, top-paid “assistants to the president” from last year.  Across the entire staff, there was 36-percent turn-over, as of June 30, 2019.  During the president’s first three-years, Trump spent $19.8 million less on White House payroll costs than Obama, adjusted for inflation. Comparing First Lady staff headcount: Melania Trump (12 staffers) versus Michelle Obama (24 staffers).  From Forbes in 2019  "

    As a 71 year Old 24+ Year air force Veteran of two wars, I was brought up in a small north Jersey town of 5000.  I was a Boy Scout and believe in this quote by Robert Massey, a Psychologist of years ago:  "Who we are, is where we were when."  I see the sharp contrast between what I learned growing up (values), and what I see and hear from the Democrats and especially the progressives who are campaigning for president, and I am disturbed by how it is transforming the America that I love,  and how it is affecting the children of today including our own Grandkids.  Two decades ago in the year 2000, this book, a best seller described in detail what was and is happening in America :  "Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community
    Book by Robert D. Putnam"  Anyone that has not read it, should do so.

    I look forward to reading more of the ideas and comments of this group

    1. abwilliams profile image55
      abwilliamsposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Hi Bill,
      While I have commented on this particular topic numerous times and as flattered as I'd be to be quoted...it was not me GA was quoting.
      Welcome to HP, good luck!
      AB Williams

    2. GA Anderson profile image92
      GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Welcome to the forums Bill. I hope you stick around, this forum can be very invigorating—if you have thick skin and a high level of tolerance. ;-)

      It can get heated, but it is still better than many other forums I have visited. So buckle-up.

      GA

  8. GA Anderson profile image92
    GA Andersonposted 4 weeks ago

    Yes, Obamacare was a far-left effort, but I don't see the rest of his administration in that vein.

    For instance, there is nothing "Left" about his drone policy. Without looking for other specific examples, my recollected perception is that nothing else I remember from his administration stands out as as far-left as Obamacare.

    There were several issues with his administration that I disagreed with, but I don't remember them as radical-Left disagreements. Maybe I should give that a little more thought, but I am sure if I have forgotten something major, folks here will remind me. ;-)

    GA

  9. Onusonus profile image78
    Onusonusposted 4 weeks ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/82862259_504658737136517_1521217935241117696_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&_nc_ohc=WIQbK6aGfywAX8uLEB1&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=b30789950df760f356816c4d68070dd2&oe=5E8FD1C6

  10. Onusonus profile image78
    Onusonusposted 4 weeks ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/82790248_504801123788945_1973673854903517184_o.jpg?_nc_cat=110&_nc_ohc=3zBjI6BeWq0AX-W2e20&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=42f407b2f924aa8fbbfe452683d50fe1&oe=5E92DB76

  11. hard sun profile image90
    hard sunposted 4 weeks ago

    Like you never throw an insult..I'm wear of all the feigned indignation and people getting their feelings hurt. I thought liberals were the snowflakes.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      It is true that there are some on these forums I figure deserve and insult, mostly due to their constant insults of everyone not agreeing with them.

      I hadn't put you in that bracket, preferring an honest discussion rather than just an exchange of insults, exaggerations and outright lies.  Was I wrong?

  12. hard sun profile image90
    hard sunposted 4 weeks ago

    You were wrong for taking me stating that some Rs seem to be okay with child abuse as an insult. It's getting deep around here.

  13. hard sun profile image90
    hard sunposted 4 weeks ago

    You state ALL libs want to take our guns, etc. than turn around and get offended about my bringing up Roy Moore in a conversation that included family values. Why?? It seems you can dish it out but cannot take even the slightest knock on the Republican party today. There's no room for debate when people act this way.

    Where did I personally insult you? I think you just took ABWilliams' lead., lol. I also think you know very well that conservatives, as a whole, abandoned their values, and that's why so much offense here from a couple of Trump supporters. I hit a nerve..I did not personally insult.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

      OK - I'll restate.  The general philosophy of most liberals is to reduce gun ownership as much as possible.  And with more than a handful, to reduce it to zero (except for those protecting that same liberal, such as security forces).

      Yes, conservatives have abandoned (some) of their values...if you go back far enough and look at what they were then compared to now.  As have liberals.

      Cultures, societies and morals evolve, after all.  This is what I keep repeating; that conservatives and liberals alike have moved to the left, with liberals moving considerably further from their starting point.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image92
        Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

        All the liberals I know don't want their guns taken away. I've heard this BS so many times it's ridiculous, along with "liberals want open borders," and "Liberals hate America and want it to fail."

        More Trump and Fox News nonsense!

        1. hard sun profile image90
          hard sunposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

          That's two of us  "liberals" who don't know any other liberals who want to take anyone's guns away or "reduce gun ownership as much as possible." I'm sure these liberals exist, but, it's that NRA scare tactic working.

          Trumpers have nothing fight with when it comes to family values. They know they threw in the towel on a moral nation in exchange for taking on the socialists and the pro-choicers.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

            "That's two of us  "liberals" who don't know any other liberals who want to take anyone's guns away or "reduce gun ownership as much as possible."

            Are you not on record as wanting those terrible, black, scary "assault weapons" removed from society?  Or do I have you confused with someone else?

            It doesn't take much research to find multiple congress people on record as want a gun free society.  Nor does it take much to find whole cities that have tried to do just that.  Check it out.

            On a side note, have you eve considered just why semi-automatic guns were labeled "assault weapons", turning them into military grade weapons in the minds of millions?  Think about that and then state again that the ultimate goal is not to reduce gun ownership to a minimum.

            1. hard sun profile image90
              hard sunposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              No ...you have me confused with someone else. Also, there is a distinction between banning future sale of assault weapons and taking someones weapon away. I don't think either will solve much, but the second is a ridiculous notion in America. I do think there is reasonable gun legislation that could reduce gun violence, that even R's support, but their politicians cannot because their support will be twisted by the NRA into wanting to take your guns.

              I never said that some liberals don't have the ultimate goal of reducing gun ownership. You are moving the bar now. All I said was it's disingenuous and reflective of NRA scare tactics, to say that all liberals want to take your guns.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                If I have you confused with someone else, I apologize.  I was in error.

                On the other hand, taking away the dreaded "assault rifles" seems pretty well spread over the liberal camp - I doubt there is a state in the union that hasn't tried to do just that. My error seems understandable, does it not?

                Yes, there is a difference between confiscation and refusal to sell.  One takes what we own, the other prevents us from having what others do.  And when it comes not being able to have what millions of others do, there is something wrong.  There is also the hidden expectation that if we can prevent Joe from having such a terrible thing, then maybe next year we can take Bob's away from him - if Joe can't have one then neither should Bob!

                And this leads us to perhaps the biggest hurdle of all; that liberals are never satisfied with additional gun laws; after they get them they want more.  Yes, it's a generalization, but I do think it's a fair one; there seems no end to the controls that liberals would put on us.  No assault rifles.  No semi-automatic guns of any kind.  No large magazines, not even the 10 round tubular in a .22 caliber.  Must have gun locks and safes.  No large purchases of ammunition, no ownership of large amounts of the same.  Must pay large fees and wait long periods to purchase a gun and sometimes ammunition.  Must tell government what we own, in order to make confiscation easier.  Must prove sanity before exercising our rights.  The list just goes on and on and on, growing every year of methods to limit ownership; how can the goal NOT be total confiscation under those circumstances?  NRA be hanged; it is liberals themselves that come up with more ways to limit our rights, and they do it without help from the NRA.

                And at the end of it all is the assumption that limiting ownership will limit gun violence.  I'm so tired of seeing that little phrase: gun violence.  The pretense and assumption of course is that if we limit gun violence then violence will be limited; an absolutely false premise that has been debunked over and over but is still given as a reason to limit ownership.

                1. hard sun profile image90
                  hard sunposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I don't have a great deal to debate with you here as you make a good argument. I agree that the "list goes on and on." I already cannot personally own a gun due to something that happened 15 years ago. Something that involved no weapon whatsoever. The thing is, from my understanding, most of the random mass shootings aren't even done by criminals at all. I mean drug dealers and such aren't out doing these mass shootings that have everyone so disturbed--not wrongfully so--they are out dealing drugs and shooting anyone who gets in the way, using illegally obtained weapons. Of course, that's not a good thing, but denying the right, forever, to someone for a non-gun related felony doesn't seem to make the general public much more safe . I digress a bit though.

                  Basically, I don't like the NRA, which may be one reason why you thought i was for banning all automatic weapons. I think I did agree at one time that bump stocks should be banned. But, after learning of ways to alter guns to do basically the same thing anyway, I don't see that doing much good either. This is not a simple issue. But, agreeing with what you write here, it leaves me with wanting leaders to address the underlying issues that lead to gun violence--in particular random mass shootings. Of course, this isn't easy. Something needs to change though, and I'm sure that, if Americans could get around the basic ban guns don't ban guns argument, we could make progress on this front.

  14. abwilliams profile image55
    abwilliamsposted 4 weeks ago

    It's nice to know that you too were a Virginian a few days ago hard sun...
    when 'we were all Virginians'.

  15. Onusonus profile image78
    Onusonusposted 4 weeks ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/83007224_1309794359226596_7956037310766645248_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&_nc_ohc=d0FYwitLGBsAX9WoBN8&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=02a6bf8082ebb985287d48c0d15e41c7&oe=5E93CA91

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://maven.io/company/pages/privacy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)