Why is the Radical Right so COMPLETELY out of touch?

[GoodSpeak]

I honestly wonder.


These guys were supposed to be the Conscience of America....our Moral Compass.




Wha- happen...?

The radical right was supposed to be the conscience of America?


No biggie, Brother Goodz. I've been known to drink my share of bong water in the past. My results weren't much better.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

The radical right was supposed to be the conscience of America?


No biggie, Brother Goodz. I've been known to drink my share of bong water in the past. My results weren't much better.

see also;

Newt Gingrich
Contract [on] America
Selective amnesia
Can't see, don't want too

[Monte Smith]

Goody, the way you understand issues, and the way you argue, if I was a Democrat, I would want you to be the spokesperson for the "radical Right." As it is, stay out there, man. Represent! Shine on, you crazy diamond. Be the face of the "with it" and completely-in-touch brigade. You deserve a microphone. A megaphone! Plaudits!

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Goody, the way you understand issues, and the way you argue, if I was a Democrat, I would want you to be the spokesperson for the "radical Right." As it is, stay out there, man. Represent! Shine on, you crazy diamond. Be the face of the "with it" and completely-in-touch brigade. You deserve a microphone. A megaphone! Plaudits!

Yee-ah.


And you were ready to rubberstamp the Bushies admonition of Newsweek, too.






Credibility, anyone?

Originally Posted by Satanic Nerd

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

First Star Wars and now this??!!

Oy..........

Wish you were here, Monte. That's really all I can say.

[tristano's ghost]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

The radical right was supposed to be the conscience of America?

I think he was being a bit sarcastic there.

They're completely out of touch, but they're completely in power. Myself, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the electoral system grows more rigged every day, but I still hope the moderates and the Sensible Conservatives will help run this lot out in '06.

[clinthopson]

All the above. We can only hope that the voters wake up in '06 and kick the whackos out.

[graypencil]

in the words of another republican president:


"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you
would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible..and they are stupid."
--President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952


this was also the guy ( a former general ) who warned us about the "military /industrial complex"

When did the elephant get pilloried by the tall hat neo-puritan fascists ?

[tristano's ghost]

Good thing ol' Ike didn't try to run in the modern GOP primaries... Rove & crew would have cast aspersions on his military record & had him tarred as a murderous nut & whacked-out liberal who could never be trusted with the presidency.

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by Monte Smith

Goody, the way you understand issues, and the way you argue, if I was a Democrat, I would want you to be the spokesperson for the "radical Right." As it is, stay out there, man. Represent! Shine on, you crazy diamond. Be the face of the "with it" and completely-in-touch brigade. You deserve a microphone. A megaphone! Plaudits!

Ha ha ah ah aha h ah ahha

Monte, you hit the nail on the head.

[sonic1]

Originally Posted by graypencil

in the words of another republican president:


"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you
would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible..and they are stupid."
--President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952


this was also the guy ( a former general ) who warned us about the "military /industrial complex"

When did the elephant get pilloried by the tall hat neo-puritan fascists ?

Incredibly revealing quote. Of course, Eisenhower is partly to blame for the military-industrial complex, as I believe it was him that signed it away to them-later regretting it.


I am learning to watch the stories unravel without trying to get myself all emotionally involved, but it is hard when the story is your own country going to shit.

If the republicans blame the democrats for the results of the last 5 and next 3 years, then they will have to admit they are pussies. I mean even if it were true, letting the few little wimpy ass lapdog demos ruin all their fun is surely a sign they are a big bunch of pussies.

Originally Posted by TG

I think he was being a bit sarcastic there.

Brother Goodz has little patience for traditional sarcasm.

But I'm sure he'll be quite pleased that you gave him an out.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Brother Goodz has little patience for traditional sarcasm.

But I'm sure he'll be quite pleased that you gave him an out.

Psssh.

Sarcasm is my canvas.


I am a consumate smartass.

[GoodSpeak]

....and I'm gonna stay on the Bushies until the end.






You can bet the ranch on it.













Grrrrr

And when will this "end" be?

[Coda]

Let's see. We still have 3+ more with my man GWB. Then it's a toss up between Newt and Cheney (now that would be an awsome team), say only 4 years as the country will begin to tire of Cheney, then 4-8 years of Condi, then 4 more with Mitt Romney.


Ah, Goodspeak will be busy for quite some time.

[Slurpy]

Originally Posted by Coda

then 4-8 years of Condi,

Snicker.

Them thar red states'll turn white quicker'n y'all can shit, whistle and wind yer watch.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

And when will this "end" be?

Soon....for God's sake.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by Coda

Let's see. We still have 3+ more with my man GWB. Then it's a toss up between Newt and Cheney (now that would be an awsome team), say only 4 years as the country will begin to tire of Cheney, then 4-8 years of Condi, then 4 more with Mitt Romney.

Assuming, of course, we still have a country by then.

[RedJazz]

It doesn't strike me that the right is any more out of touch than the left, which barely exists in the US and to the extent that it does is utterly disorganized. I say this as a former member of the Socialist Party, the Young People's Socialist League, the Congress of Racial Equality, the Student Peace Union, the United Hat Cap and Millenary Workers, Students for a Democratic Society, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, the Office and Professional Employees International Union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, the International Union of Electrical Workers, the United Automobile Workers, the United Steel Workers, District 65, 1199, UNITE-HERE, the American Socialist Organizing Committee, the Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee, the Peace and Freedom Party, the Citizens Party, the New American Movement, Democratic Socialists of America, as a founding Member of the Independent Socialist Clubs of America and the International Socialists, as a current member of the Green Party and several times candidate for public office under the banner of the Green Party and as a member of a local peace and justice group.

I have spent a lifetime as a committed leftist. I expect to die a committed leftist. But I have to say that to the extent that an American Left exists (which is to say barely) it's track record and its successes (especially since the McCarthy period) hasn't been all that impressive.

[GoodSpeak]

So Socialism/Communism would be your replacement?



I see.




Perhaps you would be so kind as to list the successful Communist states in our world today.

[RedJazz]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

So Socialism/Communism would be your replacement?



I see.




Perhaps you would be so kind as to list the successful Communist states in our world today.

Historically socialism and Communism are not the same thing at all but were constantly at odds with each other. Democratic socialists attempted to function politically within Communist societies at considerable personal risk.

Right wing radio commentators tend to conflate, not only socialism and Communism, but also both with liberalism and progressivism, as though they were all the same thing. Frankly, I think this is the Achilles Heel of conservative analysis. That is, in failing to distinguish between its various enemies is ultimately ill equipped to deal with all of them.

[GoodSpeak]

Yeah....well good luck with that one, RedJ.


Now, can you answer my question?

[RedJazz]

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Yeah....well good luck with that one, RedJ.


Now, can you answer my question?

OK, or at least I'll try. (Actually, I thought I did, though it was perhaps rather obtuse). Personally, I don't think labels and abstractions are all that useful in political discourse. I think they tend to obfuscate more than they enlighten. Of course, it's impossible to entirely dispense with abstractions. But what we can do is define our terms so at least people know what we mean when we are using a particular abstractions. I'm certainly for democracy, by which I mean the ability of people to control the decisions that affect their own lives. But of course it's more than that. It's also repect for minority rights, for the right of political minorities to organize an opposition that wouldn't necessarily be "loyal," but which would respect the rules of civil society. I also think it has an international component, which is very troublesome for a superpower. Frankly, I think the only way around that is to stop being a superpower. The United States of America has considerable resources which are not military. So it is perfectly within the capacity of the government of the United States of America to completely dismantle all of its military bases outside the continental United States, and to dismantle all its strategic weaponry without at the sametime either incapacitating its tactical strength or becoming isolationist in an economic or political sense.

[GoodSpeak]

Originally Posted by RedJazz

OK, or at least I'll try. (Actually, I thought I did, though it was perhaps rather obtuse). Personally, I don't think labels and abstractions are all that useful in political discourse. I think they tend to obfuscate more than they enlighten. Of course, it's impossible to entirely dispense with abstractions. But what we can do is define our terms so at least people know what we mean when we are using a particular abstractions. I'm certainly for democracy, by which I mean the ability of people to control the decisions that affect their own lives. But of course it's more than that. It's also repect for minority rights, for the right of political minorities to organize an opposition that wouldn't necessarily be "loyal," but which would respect the rules of civil society. I also think it has an international component, which is very troublesome for a superpower. Frankly, I think the only way around that is to stop being a superpower. The United States of America has considerable resources which are not military. So it is perfectly within the capacity of the government of the United States of America to completely dismantle all of its military bases outside the continental United States, and to dismantle all its strategic weaponry without at the sametime either incapacitating its tactical strength or becoming isolationist in an economic or political sense.

Hm.

Interesting Civics lesson.

Now then.....once again for clarity:

Originally Posted by GoodSpeak

Perhaps you would be so kind as to list the successful Communist states in our world today.

[RedJazz]

With regard to "successful" Communist states in the world today, I'm not sure what constitutes "success." In terms of my personal life, I consider my greatest success simple survival, so I dunno. If I were being asked what Communist states that ever existed that I support or that I would consider as models of the kind of society I would like to live in, I'd say none, and I think you'd get pretty much the same response from any democratic leftist. Among the largest group of victims of Stalin, Mao, Ho, Kim, Tito, Castro, or any other Stalinist head of state you'd care to mention are legions of democratic socialists who gave their lives struggling against Communism and for the kind of democratic society which they envisioned (which ain't western capitalism either).

If you want to know what that looks like, a start would be, not what exists. If that sounds utopian, I would ask, why is it then that Communist states have found it necessary to vilify these utopians and hound them to death, and why western capitalist states seek to marginalize them.

There are dozens of examples of the kind of democratic leftists to which I am referring. Often western culture mongers attempt to coopt their vision or trivialize their opposition to capitialism. A good example of this would be George Orwell, who was most certainly antiStalinist, but who also was the literary editor of the British socialist journal, the Tribune, and whose novel 1984 was as much an attack on bureaucratic and imperialist western capitalism as it was on Stalinism.

Originally Posted by RedJazz

If you want to know what that looks like, a start would be, not what exists.

You haven't been listening to Yanni lately, have you?

[RedJazz]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

You haven't been listening to Yanni lately, have you?

I'm not sure what your point is, but taken literally, I find Yanni and that whole cultural phenomenon pretty dreadful stuff and a good example of the decline of western culture, if not capitialism specifically.

Ok.


Just thought you were sounding awful new age-ish there.