Progressivism vs. Conservatism What About This Statement
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?
GAHi 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.”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.
GAChange 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'.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.
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
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?yeah, yeah, Trump, Trump, Trump.
Come on bud, the topic was traditional values and the effects of modern progressivism.
GAI'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. ;-)
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
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.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.
GAGA, 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...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"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?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.
GAHard to see Obama - the man that instituted the single biggest give away program in the history of the planet (ObamaCare) - as anything but pretty far left. Perhaps not radical, but hardly centrist, either.
I believe I know what you are trying to say Wilderness, but I would not say the ACA was in anyway "the single biggest give away".
It could be considered the biggest fraud & tax act to ever be passed perhaps.
The ACA did little to provide working Americans with anything, and not getting the insurance to save those thousands of dollars to put towards real bills (including medical bills the ACA insurance would not cover) meant you had to pay a tax for not having insurance.
Social Security at least gave you something if you lived long enough to use it.
The ACA was a prime example of what you get from unchecked corporate greed being married to overreaching government control.
GA, As for your second paragraph, yes, I gave a view of my opinion and preferences. If anyone asks me point blank about those I would be as candid, otherwise, being honest and forthright so that our debates have meaning.
But, I would not volunteer my own hangups making others uncomfortable needlessly.
it can be acknowledged that the extreme poles at either end of the ideological divide is widening within, say, the last 50 years. We on the left, see the right as strident, operating at its extreme. The Right is saying the same about the left, radicalizing. But, like I told you long ago, there are no more moderate Republicans and conservatives in Washington, for the most part. You are either radicalized behind Trump (there's that word again) or go to political oblivion. At least the Dems have their moderate milk toasts in the form of Biden, Bloomberg to temper the desires of the mad, fire bombing leftist radicals....I must be seeing things, not enough coffee perhaps! Cred, did you just describe ALL Trump supporters and Republicans as the equivalent of the radicalized far left fringe?
Indeed, AB, you not seeing things, from mine and the perspective from the left, "right" in the political arena and agenda under Trump is seen as extreme and radical. What ever happened to the Rockefeller Republicans?
Depending on what side you are on, the other side appears menacing. That is why we have so much gridlock in Washington today.
I am comfortable with the approach of either Warren or Sanders, does that make me a radical?If there was an ounce of truth in this, the world would be ablaze.
I am not sure what that makes you.Cred is certainly not the only one in the US who sees that the Republicans have gone as far right, if not further, than the left has gone left. It takes two. I actually long for the days of the "Rockefeller Republicans" so at least I could have another choice to consider in national elections.
I am not sure what that makes you. What kind of statement is that anyway?I don't see it that way. Certainly government has grown in size far beyond what it was 50 years ago, and certainly our welfare state has grown enormously as well. These things were not accomplished solely by the left - the huge changes have required Republican agreement much of the time.
No, what we are seeing is that the left has moved 10 notches to the left while the right has moved left only 2 (and they have moved left from what they were) - the result is that the gap has widened, and that from the viewpoint of those that moved so far left the right is so far away they are nothing but radicals now. And, of course, the same viewpoint in reverse from the right - the left has gone so far left that they are nothing but radicals.Well, Wilderness, we will have to agree to disagree. Fifty years ago, during the Nixon Administration with the noted exception of Vietnam, that both parties signed into and prosecuted, the difference between the parties were like tweedle dum and tweedle dee. Nixon was always on board with the basic premises of the "New Deal".
Yes, from the Right we all appear as radicals but just as Panther and Hard Sun mentioned it is just as valid to to see that in the reverse and there are plenty of Americans that agree...
Today, We continue in a state of endless war and intervention without purpose with an ever increasing price tag. Conservatives got into the morality and culture wars mode since then. The Right is not less Right from the past, but the concept of conservatism and how it plays into the political realm is different today than in 1970. And, yes, I find it more menancing. Now, I got Republicans wanting to water down Social Security and Medicare (Paul Ryan). If Nixon even dared to have touched on these he would have had more problems than Watergate.And yet most political pundits will tell us that JFK (poster boy of the liberals) could never be elected as a Democrat today, for he was far too conservative for today's liberal.
And yet both SS and Medicare, as well as medicaid, are liberal type programs (regardless of which party began them) - is it any surprise that conservatives want to "water them down" as they have grown unsustainable?
We used to give out small quantities of free food; now we give out enough to feed entire families, and on cards that are regularly traded for drugs, alcohol, etc.
We used to provide school lunches to kids that would not eat without it, now we provide free lunches to anyone that can get to it, and all year round.
We provide free or highly subsidized housing for tens of thousands of people - people that would have been on the streets 50 years ago.
We used to leave it to adults to provide their own education, now we are seeing more and more cries that the tax base must supply that.
We used to say the pledge of allegiance in schools on a daily basis, now it is virtually forbidden.
From the early 1900's to around 1970 we had 4 major wars, with tens of thousands of American troops dying in every one of them. Now we have a series of small "wars" with (comparatively) few American deaths. In other words, we used to wield Roosevelts "big stick" freely but today it is only a small twig in comparison.
Health care used to be the responsibility of every adult; now it is the responsibility of government and the tax base.
We used to separate male and female sports competitions for very good reasons (that still apply); now we applaud males competing in female sports and taking all the gold.
I could go on and on, but you get the point. Our country is moving left and has been for a long time. It's just that conservatives are unwilling to move with the speed that liberals want to see.I hear you, Wilderness, conservatives always like to compare the Era of Kennedy and Johnson as examples of acceptable liberalism. But, it is not 1961. Kennedy was a progressive relative to the times and issues that he faced during his term. Civil Rights was a case in point. The opposition, the Goldwater people referred to Kennedy as a Socialist or Communist for taking a stand of in regard to moving things forward on this important matter. There were many nasty comments reflecting that his untimely passing was unlamented by many. Lincoln was a progressive in relation to "conservatives" during the issues that defined his era.
Much of the reason these programs, particularely SS needed to watered down is that both parties borrowed from the funds and did not return them, am I right?
There is a difference between use of the programs as designed and those that abuse them. I am not supportive of waste and abuse from any portion of Government administration of funds. That goes for DOD as well as Social programs, but that does not say I am against the concepts of defense or social programs in principle.
The big stick is meaningless in today's world, it is not 1910. Because of nuclear weapons, wars tend to stay smaller and limited. Besides all this our defense budget grows larger than ever. I find that problematic, conservatives just say we should spend more and ask fewer question.
We once thought that providing retirement was the exclusive purview of each adult. But the New Deal and Social Security changed all that and did it 80 years ago.
As for the sporting competitions, I don't know as much about the gender trends to comment on the trend that you mention.
Cities and urban with dominate rural and country, it is inevitable. What can be done? The Conservatives will have greater difficulty putting the monkey wrench in the machinery of change as we progress forward in time.Credence, everything you say here is supporting my comment that the country is shifting left. No, it's not 1961; what was liberal then is now conservative because liberals moved left.
Yes, SS is in trouble because the money was "invested" at the lowest possible interest rate in order to keep taxes lower while spending more.
Yes, our defense budget grows larger...but not in relation to inflation and GDP. It is less today, as a percentage of GDP, than it was in the past.
You're saying the same thing I did; that times have changed but not fast enough for you. You have moved further left than the conservatives have, and as a result they are all "far right" even though they are left of what they used to be.Wilderness, the "future" is LEft and Progressive, hasn't that really been the direction since the founding of the Republic? Progressive is a natural as a clock moving forward rather than standing still, or worse, moving backward.
Viva the difference, we have different expectations as to too fast verses going too slow, full stop, or moving backward.Yes, if current trends are to continue then the future is liberalism and socialism...with the end coming as the country falls to ruin like every other nation that has has embraced that path has. That's the picture of the future if we don't recognize the danger and stop that progression to ruin. We can only hope that liberals will recognize that throttling the human spirit with a tremendous nanny state is not desirable and halt the progression to such a sad state.
All of which has zero to do with the observation that the left has moved far more "leftwise" than the right has, with the viewpoints being that both are at the radical ends of the spectrum rather than being closer together as they used to be.Can you address the concerns that the left has with the right's radicalization? There has been several brought up, but this seems like a counseling session where one individual just ignores the questions and his or her participation in the topic altogether. I know it's easier to attack what you see as the other side than to take responsibility for one's own conduct
I did. The right has not "radicalized", period. It has shifted left over the years, not right. https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/346 … ost4117169
And while that has happened, the far radical right has existed; that it has recently become more vocal as the left moves further and further away from them does not mean that they were not there nor that they moved further right.
Credence turned it into something I never addressed; whether the right or the left was "right", and the post you replied to gave a (very) short reply to that concept, but the original intent was to discuss whether the right has moved further away from the left, and I do not believe that they have. Rather, both right and left have moved left (compared to what they were 50-75 years ago) with the left moving considerably further and giving the impression that the right moved further right.Specifics were provided to you regarding how I see the right as radicalized. You haven't addressed any of the specifics at all. You just say. "No, they aren't radical." As if that makes it so.
It's as if you have a mental block that stops you from criticizing anyone with an R after their name.Apologies; I appear to have missed your post. Assuming you're referring to https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/346 … ost4117213 as examples of radicalized conservatives, all of the things you list are liberal goals and yes, conservatives have embraced them to a greater or lesser extent. Which is what I said; the right has moved left.
Specifically:
"I mean the Republicans went from the party of family values to the party of anything goes."
I don't know what that means, so cannot reply.
"Also, what happened to Republicans giving a about the national debt?"
They've joined the left in not caring. Which is what I said.
"Pro-gun Reagan signed a bill that banned the ownership of any fully automatic firearms not registered by May 19, 1986."
Not sure of your point, except that conservatives are becoming more accepting of the liberal goal of gun controls and gun confiscation. Which is what I said.
Not a part of the question of left shifting rightists, but I'll also respond to "However, since the left is progressive, shifting to the left, at all. means we are progressing and changing with the times and updated knowledge...". The question is "progressing to what"? And the answer is "progressing to a nanny state where citizens bear virtually no responsibility for themselves, their support or their children". It is a progression towards modern socialism, wherein government owns all wealth (or takes it at will) and controls virtually everything it's citizens do.That's some twisting and turning to blame Regan's assault rifle ban on liberals wanting to take your guns. The only liberal who really wanted to take anyone's guns left the race a long time ago...soon after he stated he wanted to take OUR guns. I'd say the NRA's fear campaign drove the right further right on that one. Or, are you saying the right began moving left under Reagan? If so, I think that's just the way the country is rolling, and the way the cookie crumbles.
Oh and you don't know what the party of family values is, and you cannot see how the Republicans left that all behind. Either you haven't been paying attention to politics long, or those Trump blinders are at it again. Now we have Trump family values. Not good.
Uh oh..I introduced Trump again. As if he's the President or something. I just some of you would come join the rest of us in the middle instead of blaming the right's supposed movement to the left on the left. What matters if Americans don't fall for the from either extreme?Won't argue whether the far left wants to completely disarm the country - we both know they do even if it is unacceptable to say so.
Second, what Reagan did or didn't do does not change that it is a liberal goal to disarm America, not a conservative one even though conservatives have become far more accepting of it. But yes, Reagan, and other conservatives, are slowly coming to the liberal view that guns are the cause of violent death in our country and should be taken away from the people.
"If so, I think that's just the way the country is rolling, and the way the cookie crumbles." No, it didn't start with Reagan, but long before, but yes, that's the way the country is rolling. You begin to understand: that was my point from the very first.
"Oh and you don't know what the party of family values is,"
I have my own opinion of what "family values" are; what I didn't get was the "anything goes". Certainly murder is unacceptable, rape is forbidden, child abuse unacceptable, etc. So "anything goes" goes alright - right over my head.
"What matters if Americans don't fall for the from either extreme?"
What matters is that what used to be radical left is now mainstream left, even as what was moderate left is now moderate right. As we move left it is the left that becomes more radicalized (by the definitions of the past), not the right. And the left does not appear capable of understanding where their increasingly socialistic and leftists programs lead to even with multiple examples of ruined economies and countries worldwide."Second, what Reagan did or didn't do does not change that it is a liberal goal to disarm America, not a conservative one even though conservatives have become far more accepting of it. "
I was with you when you stated the "far left." However, I don't personally know ANY liberals who want to disarm Americans. In fact, the liberals I know all have weapons themselves...and some of them automatic weapons, bump stocks, etc. I just watched my my nine-year old be taught to shoot a Russian automatic weapon, I believe an A 545. If any liberal politicians go too far, they will have real electoral consequences just as Biden did.
The degree, and manner of social programs is debatable. I'm a fan of the Yang dividend fund as I think it is less costly for the govt and brings more personal responsibility and more equity than the current t programs.
I think family values include not name calling, bullying, etc...just about everything that one guy does every day. Considering Roy Moore, is child abuse really unacceptable to a good number of today's R's?Are you still at it hard sun, after coming to the defense of Cred, whom compared the worst radical fringe of the left, (going as far as to include the words, "mad, fire-bombing") to ALL Republicans and Trump supporters, doubling down with a "that's exactly what I meant" when I gave him the opportunity to back off a bit. Oh but he's just kidding?!? I'm sorry I have a very hard time....hard sun....with everything you lefties have to say. Obviously, there are those much more tolerant of this bs, than I. I've always said, I'd make a lousy diplomat.
Yeah. Lousy diplomat...I've no idea what you're talking about to be honest. I'm making an attempt at a reasonable discussion here with Wilderness. I think we were having one.
You may not personally know any liberals that wish to disarm America, but you and I both know there are politicians out there, powerful ones, that do And we both know that whole cities have, and will continue to, make the effort. It is obvious to anyone that does simply throw up their hands in horror at the idea their own party would do such a thing that it is the ultimate goal of more than a handful of liberals. Years of propaganda have convinced far too many people that our violence problem is rooted in the availability of guns rather than the human mind; the result is an irrational fear that fits very will into the disarm goal.
Nor is there any doubt at all that it is primarily (not 100%) liberals that are pushing for gun control/confiscation. Give it another 20-50 years and the program will be successful, with the citizenry completely disarmed. My personal prediction.
Personally I find the Yang dividend insanity, for there isn't enough money to do that while maintaining current giveaways plus the beautiful predictions of growth are total nonsense. You don't create wealth by moving money around between the owner and someone else.
But be that as it may, there can be no debate that the right is moving left, into the field of wealth redistribution and wealth equality. It just hasn't moved as far as the left has, that's all.
Yeah, it all has to contain a dig at Trump, doesn't it? Don't know anything about Roy Moore, and am not interested, particularly after the dig about child abuse. You are not stupid enough to believe that, so why the intentional insult? It adds nothing to debate - is it just to give you a little thrill at insulting someone that doesn't agree with all your opinions?
I see both sides moving further away from each other. I mean the Republicans went from the party of family values to the party of anything goes. Unless you consider family values to be Roy Moore type values.Also, what happened to Republicans giving a about the national debt? Pro-gun Reagan signed a bill that banned the ownership of any fully automatic firearms not registered by May 19, 1986.
I could go on and on, but it's clear that, if we are going to be honest with ourselves the right has gone radical to the point where it's difficult to tell what it stands for. However, since the left is progressive, shifting to the left, at all. means we are progressing and changing with the times and updated knowledge...something that I think every nation must do to in order to be great.After following your responses regarding this point, I had to come back to the start to comment.
"No, what we are seeing is that the left has moved 10 notches to the left while the right has moved left only 2 (and they have moved left from what they were) - the result is that the gap has widened, and that from the viewpoint of those that moved so far left the right is so far away they are nothing but radicals now. And, of course, the same viewpoint in reverse from the right - the left has gone so far left that they are nothing but radicals."
That is an angle I had not thought of. And the more I think about it the more sense it makes. I think you are right. I also think this would make a good thread topic. You start it and I will join in.
GASo both of you agree the Right has moved two notches to the left?
Do you attribute this to Trump? Inquiring minds and all that shit...Since it has been happening from before he was born, I doubt that you can blame it on Trump.
I agree with the observation that the Right has moved Left. As for your "inquiring minds," you will have to look to that checkout-line tabloid for your answer.
GA
I have seen plenty of graphs such as the one above, where the largest amount of shifting occurs is on the Left, moving further away from center.
The Right has held closer to the Center, of course, what was considered Center Left 20 years ago may be considered Center Right today, but still the Right has consolidated its majority closer to the 'norm' or Center than away from it.
Trump has/is in the process of redefining what the Right is in America.
The Democrats abandoned the 'Working class' the 'American citizen', and common themes like 'fair pay for a hard days work', 'Christian values', and basically all the things that made up the 'American dream' from the previous Century.
The Democrats have become the Party of Universal Healthcare for all, Open Borders, Diversity (and the continuing evolution of what constitutes diversity and the ever growing number newly identified sexes, races, etc.), Globalism, Socialism, etc.
What the Democrats have abandoned, the Republicans through Trump, have brought into the fold.
The realignment may or may not stick, depending on what occurs in the 2020 elections, but these points appear to be hardening into what the Parties stand for... whether older voters recognize these shifts or not."...but still the Right has consolidated its majority closer to the 'norm' or Center than away from it."
Not if the 'norm' is the center between the two marker lines. That was my original point on this topic; the left has moved far left even as the right has moved a little left. The result is that the "median" point, if you will, has also moved a goodly distance left, making the right look far right when it has actually moved left.
Looking at your graphs, the first one shows less than half of conservatives to the left of the "consistently conservative line, while the lower graph shows well over half to the left of it.Well if the lines represent Center Mass for the entire group, then what we see is the political values have not shifted much to the right for the entire body of Conservatives
But for the Left, the shift has been substantial, and their center mass is well away from anything resembling what was considered 'Center' back in 1994.
I'm with you and credence. Republicans used to be legitimately conservative with ideas I didn't necessarily agree with but could see as a genuine alternative to progressive ideas. Now, they just follow Trump around with their noses in his @$$.
I don't know hard sun, the term Socialist is so last year...maybe you or Cred can tell me what the left is going for/working toward?
He {Cred} throws out "mad, fire-bombing" and you find offense in my comment?
I think you have everyone's attention now. Let's hear it.
"If there was an ounce of truth in this, the world would be ablaze."
Quite, frankly, AB, it already is....
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.
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.
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!
Thanks, Tim, now its back to the trenches....
Good morning GA, Ken has covered this quite sufficiently, but this is where my mind goes....went!
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.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.
GAExactly 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.
- PrettyPantherposted 4 years ago
0I 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?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.
GAOkay, 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.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"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.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.
GADo you think any of this "xenophobia" would be heard about if the immigration were from Sweden or Norway?
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.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.And apparently you didn't understand mine.
No, I understand completely.
You have no response to the case I am making, so instead...
I'm made out to be the perpetrator...for defending my family and the trespasser, who has unlawfully entered into my home, is the victim.
Pp you do others a disservice for calling them out as lacking compassion. The conservative mind follows an idea to its logical conclusion. The liberal mind rarely does.
Compassion is one thing. Everyone possesses it, to some extent. However, the liberal wants the equivalent of porous borders, free medical and free education. Government subsidies for any and all who seek them. You can't have it all or it will bankrupt is. Conservatives need controllable and sustainable compassionate government.My former green beret step dad had the same typed of thing happen. It turned out the guy was blasted out of his mind on something and thought he was in a friends house. He was drinking a glass of milk at the kitchen table. It ended peacefully. It takes courage to assess the situation as your husband did and certainly compassion to follow through with the help. Thanks for the story. Sometimes it's nice to read more positiveness.
You're welcome. My husband is an exceptionally good man with excellent judgment that he obviously possessed from a very young age. :-)
My Aunt was home alone, heard a noise on her back porch, she started to go investigate. In the meantime, she had called her husband, to see if he was back home (making noise) he wasn't. He told her to grab the shotgun before she investigated. She caught a man breaking into her home. He saw her, he saw the gun and he ran, no shot was necessary. Turned out this guy had been breaking and entering all over their area for weeks. While people were at work, they were getting robbed blind. He was caught that day.
There may be a few exceptions, but most people that break glass or locks to get into a home, are up to no good.
I live out in the country, we are pretty isolated, so my situation isn't like most. If someone lives in an apartment, duplex, a street of beige houses, I can see mistakes being made. Give me a break with the holier-than-thou!
Again, my initial point....there is a right way and a wrong way, a legal way and an illegal way to enter into this Country or any other.I don't think anyone was trying to be "holier than thou." It came off to me as though PP was simply pointing out that there are varying circumstances. Why can't someone share a story about something good that someone else did without being attacked as "holier than thou" anyway? Shouldn't this be celebrated?
I am not being holier than thou. I said you have a right to defend your home as you see fit. Your original comment on this subject was that you would shoot an inruder, and that is what I responded to. Scaring an intruder is different from shooting.
In any event, you were using it as an analogy for what is happening at the southern border, were you not? I responded in kind with my husband 's reaction to an intruder to demonstrate that compassion could also be an option.No PP, your initial response was, "not everyone views the world in such stark, black and white terms thankfully..."
Sigh....yes, I don't see how that contradicts anything else I said. You stated flatly you would shoot an intruder. You did not include any qualifiers or exigent circumstances so, in my mind,that qualifies as a stark, black and white position. If you would like to amend it now, do so. Otherwise, I stand by my characterization.
No need to amend. You've continued to ignore my point, so we are where I'd expect we'd be either way
He was a Republican for 45+ years. The GOP used to represent conservative views mostly based on rational thought and with at least a modicum of respect for other ideas. That changed gradually over the last 40 years or so culminating in its acquiescence to Trump.
That, he could not abide.It was a joke, and now you go and open the door wider. But I will let it go, mmphff, mmphff.
*(that's me clapping a hand over my mouth to stop anything from coming out ) ;-)
GA
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."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.The reasons behind the immigrant from Norway have nothing to do with being different - it has to do with potential contribution to America. Giving something to the country rather than simply taking from it. In many ways the culture of Norway is as foreign to America as that of Peru is - it is that potential contribution that makes it "more acceptable".
We only make assumptions about "potential contribution" of people based solely on their point of origin? That is how we part ways from the start, Wilderness.
Now where did you get the "only"? You know better than that, just as you know that the average (education, health, knowledge, skills, etc.) resident of Norway is more likely to provide something to our country than the average resident of Peru. There is absolutely zero doubt that you can find a resident of Peru an done of Norway that are the opposite, but that says nothing when discussing reasonable expectations.
It is my opinion that this position, in essence, favors wealth. Basing immigration policy on who is perceived to be more likely to contribute runs counter to America's foundation of opportunity for all regardless of status or station in life.
While it is the liberal philosophy that America must support the world, and all it's poor, it is not mine. I do not see that as "counter to America's foundation" - we are the most generous nation on earth, giving more to other countries and their people, than any other nation. That does not mean we have any kind of obligation to provide support to all.
So you are correct; it does favor wealth.So true wilderness, even when 'our generosity' is hidden away in warehouses, kept from the very people we've sought to help, that does not discourage us from giving, when their next hour of need comes.
No, it is not the liberal philosophy that America must support the world and all its poor, nor did I say that. Here is what I said: "Basing immigration policy on who is perceived to be more likely to contribute runs counter to America's foundation of opportunity for all regardless of status or station in life."
Many of is have ancestors who were pretty much penniless and/or uneducated when they arrived here. They were of no less value than the wealthy and we'll educated who settled here. A nation needs all kinds of people to perform all kinds of tasks, from menial to highly specialized.
I think you are wrong and your argument is simply a convenient one that fits your desire to keep out certain types of immigrants.
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?
GAI 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.I don't think you have to wonder Cred. But I will leave it there so as not to tempt you into more Trump stuff. ;-)
GA
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.
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.
GAI'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. :-)
Well. okay. But I am pretty hard to non-personally offend.
GA
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.
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.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. ;-)
GANot 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.
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.
GAI 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.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
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."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.
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.- Onusonusposted 4 years ago0
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.
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.
Yes I am sure you are right, that's all it was.
I certainly celebrated my Aunt not dying that day.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 groupHi 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 WilliamsWelcome 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
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. ;-)
GALike 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.
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?
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.
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.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.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!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."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.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.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.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.
It's nice to know that you too were a Virginian a few days ago hard sun...
when 'we were all Virginians'.
Related Discussions
- 67
Progressives: Don't be fooled, the GOP wants a national abortion ban
by Credence2 73 minutes ago
Republicans always want to take a mile when they are given an inch. Conservatives cheer with the overturn of Roe vs Wade, saying it was a victory for States Rights. So the Red States double down creating a Handsmaiden's Tale environment for its residents. But that has not been enough. Trump remains...
- 5
Progressivism vs Marxism
by Glenn S. 14 years ago
I'm out shopping the other day and I overheard someone say "The only difference between progressivism and marxism is that marxism has a peasant revolt".I thought this over for a while and tried to put it into perspective. I guess a good way to explain it would be comparing these terms in...
- 86
Conservatives, Round 2
by Grace Marguerite Williams 4 years ago
In the midst of the American sociopolitical discussions, what do Conservatives, Traditionalists, Reactionaries, Retrogressives, & Rightists want for American society? What are the specifics goals that Conservatives, Traditionalists, Reactionaries, Retrogressives, & Rightists...
- 129
Private Interests vs Public Rights
by Kathryn L Hill 5 years ago
In the name of justice, the founding fathers of this nation's constitution encouraged the formation of a democratic republic for the establishment of a self-governing nation. They distrusted pure democracy and this distrust is reflected in The Constitution. It was a basic premise of the founders...
- 9
Conservatism is......Being Discombobulated...Slowly but S-U-R-E-L-Y
by Grace Marguerite Williams 6 years ago
As we all know, Trump made derogatory, inflammatory statements about Haiti & some African countries. He further stated that immigrants should come from so-called desirable nations instead of so-called undesirable nations. Even though Trump was talking in so-called code, the racial...
- 116
Healthy diversity in civilization = Orders & Classes & Inequality
by Scott Belford 6 years ago
Because it is so controversial throughout American history it might be useful to discuss what makes a TRUE conservative. Among many others, the philosophical pillars of conservatism are Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797), Russell Kirk (1918 - 1994), and William F. Buckley Jr. (1925 - 2008)Russell Kirk in...