"1960's radicals. The same types who now control Congress and the state-run media." --- Can you name a single member of Congress or media executive who was a 60's radical?
James, your constant questioning of the obvious is getting embarrassing and boring. Its getting more and more difficult for me to suffer. You really are in denial, aren't you? My next post really will be a challenge for you.Again, where does one start . . .? Hmmm . . . how about Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to begin with? Embracing the ideology, specifically, was my intent - disarmament, radical environmentalism, embracing of socialist economic models, etc, etc, etc - good Lord James, are you paying attention?
GREAT STUFF! Thanks for sharing that Richard.
I would not consider either Clinton or Kerry as "1960s radicals." Clinton's early career included working on the legal staff for one of the Congressional committees investigating Watergate. I guess that makes her a radical. Kerry was serving in Vietnam. He joined, and became a leader of, the Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Again, I wouldn't call this "1960's radical," although it is more in that direction than anything Clinton did. Just protesting something doesn't make one a radical. Out of idle curiosity, can you identify any protests that Hilary Rodham participated in? I'm simply curious how much you know about her collegiate years.
Michael - pretty cool, huh? I think that deserves a chapter in your next book!
Right James. They both embrace 1960's style radicalism. Once again James, I don't have the time to argue the obvious. It wouldn't matter, you wouldn't accept it anyway.
"They both embrace 1960's style radicalism." --- What does this mean? To me, "1960's radicalism" means tearing down society in pursuit of some radical goal. I don't see either of Rodham or Kerry in this light. Running for elective office or working for a Congressional committee is one of the last things a "1960's radical" would do.In any event, you have tossed out two names; the Democrats hold some 290 (not sure of the House numbers) seats in Congress. You are a little short of convincing evidence regarding "control."
James - you illustrate my point perfectly: "It wouldn't matter, you wouldn't accept it anyway." You originally asked if I could name one member of Congress, I named two, twice what you requested, and then you state that isn't enough. So you prove my point - you won't be convinced. You are committed to your political alliances and won't think outside the box, regardless of the subject or the evidence.You offer up nothing but distractions: "They both embrace 1960's style radicalism." --- What does this mean? You know exactly what it means and so does anyone else who is informed. I'm bored.
OK, my short-term memory is sufficiently shaky these days that I had forgotten the precise phrasing of my original question. I'll drop the issue of numbers. But I still don't see either Clinton or Kerry as qualifying. A "1960's radical" would not embrace the political process enough to run for office or work for the government. That kind of thing was anathema to the radicals. Certainly both opposed the Vietnam War. Is that your definition of "1960's radical"? It isn't very radical, IMO.
James - I already answered."Embracing the ideology, specifically, was my intent - disarmament, radical environmentalism, embracing of socialist economic models, etc, etc, etc"You once admitted you were a liberal - what does that mean if not embracing leftist ideology? If you can deny that the current Congress is the most radical leftist in recent memory (ever?) then we have no basis for further discussion. We're so far apart we may as well stop here. The current ruling party, at least the ones who are in leadership positions, are ultra-radical leftists.
Didn't Kerry "negotiate" with the North Vietnamese? He certainly slandered our troops.
I don't know. He's a typical statist politician.
"disarmament, radical environmentalism, embracing of socialist economic models" --- OK, let's go through these: I don't recall either Kerry or Clinton "embracing...socialist economic models." You will disagree, but both IMO support capitalism and free enterprise, with reasonable regulation. The argument will be over "reasonable regulation." I'm not sure what "radical environmentalism" means here. To me, it means the kind of nut-cases who destroy labs doing animal testing. I'm unaware of either Kerry or Clinton supporting this kind of thing. Lots of mainstream folks support a reduction in nuclear arms; that is hardly a "radical" idea.Am I a liberal? Of course I am; it is hardly an "admission" on my part, it is an attitude I am quite proud of. Is the current Congress the most liberal ever? I'm honestly not sure. A small boatload of very liberal folk got elected in 1974 in the wake of Watergate and Vietnam. But certainly this crew is very liberal, at least on one side of the aisle. I think that's a good thing. "Liberalism" is *not* equivalent to "leftism." Certainly liberals are more open to some leftist ideas than conservatives, but "liberal" means what the word means: generous and tolerant. Liberals want a government that is tolerant of other nations and ideas and is willing to be generous to the less fortunate segments of society. The "generosity" part costs money, which is why liberals are more tolerant of taxes. To say that "liberals are leftists" is no more fair than it is to say "conservatives are fascists."
Fascism is more closely related with socialism and leftist ideology James, i.e. more government control, speech control, etc.You could have better stated the comment as: liberals are leftists, conservatives are right wing.So you're a classic liberal?Generosity is fine - with your own money. It's quite easy to be generous with the money of others through government coercion. If you feel the need to pay more taxes, no one is stopping you - go ahead. Just send a donation to the US Treasury - I'm sure they will be happy to accept it. Thanks, but I give at church and to the charities of my choice.
Richard:As a lifelong Dodger fan, I remember 1976 well. The flag burners were a man who called himself William Errol Morris (or Thomas) and his eleven year old son. Morris was no 1960's radical, just a crazy drifter from Missouri. He claimed his wife was being held falsely in a mental institution back home and he wanted to draw attention to it. Instead, all he did was make Monday such a hero that the Dodgers traded one of my favorites, Bill Buckner, for him.Ken
Thanks Ken. Ah the tragedy of unintended consequences! My comment was simply a tongue-in-cheek poke at lefties. No offense meant toward Mr. Morris for associating him with radical leftists, though I can think of better ways to make your point.
"Just protesting something doesn't make one a radical."If you believe that then why dont you correct the media? They have labeled anyone attending a "tea party" as a right wing radical.
BR:The Founders are spinning in their graves.
"Fascism is more closely related with socialism and leftist ideology James, i.e. more government control, speech control, etc." --- Mussolini would disagree with you:http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/mussolini-fascism.htmlFor example:"Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism..."Also, if you read the Sinclair Lewis novel, "It Can't Happen Here," in which a fascist government arises in the US after FDR's first term, it is clear that it is more right-wing than left-wing. You are reading far too much into Hitler's use of the word "Socialist" in his party's name. Remember, he took over an extant party, so of course he kept (most of) the party's name.
James:I base my opinion on the fact Hitler was anti-capitalist, favored gun control, and opposed personal liberty. This is hard leftist/socialist ideology.The "right" as I define it, i.e. Burkean Conservatism, favors free-markets and personal liberty."We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler
If we consider capitalism as the center of the political spectrum, it can be opposed from the right and from the left. For Hitler to call himself a socialist (Mussolini did as well) is only so much political window-dressing. Hitler's opposition to the left is obvious from his rhetoric about Bolshevism and his taking on of Russia in 1941, and his regime's attitude toward the Russian enemy.
You are forgetting that both Mussolini and Hitler came to power in large part from a *fear* of left-wing or Bolshevist parties.
Richard,whatever the political rhetoric, one of the fundamental features of German fascism was an alliance between government and big business. Read Franz Neumann's _Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism_.Marc
Marc:I agree 100%. Very similar to what we've seen here in recent months with the auto and banking industries. The next nationalization could be healthcare. Excellent point.
James:No, I realize that. Tricky rascal, that Hitler.
"Most cruel joke of all, however, has been played by Hitler & Co. on those German capitalists and small businessmen who once backed National Socialism as a means of saving Germany's bourgeois economic structure from radicalism. The Nazi credo that the individual belongs to the state also applies to business. Some businesses have been confiscated outright, on other what amounts to a capital tax has been levied. Profits have been strictly controlled. Some idea of the increasing Governmental control and interference in business could be deduced from the fact that 80% of all building and 50% of all industrial orders in Germany originated last year with the Government. Hard-pressed for food- stuffs as well as funds, the Nazi regime has taken over large estates and in many instances collectivized agriculture, a procedure fundamentally similar to Russian Communism." ~ Time Magazine; Jaunuary 2, 1939.James, Marc: Sound familiar?
No, it doesn't sound at all familiar. And under Hitler, Daimler and Porsche continued to build cars, Krupp built cannon, IG Farben made chemicals. The great German industrial giants *prospered*. And you didn't read Marc's comment close enough. He wrote of an *alliance* between government and big business, which is very different from classic socialist *control* of business, and also different from what has happened here.Fascism is to conservatism what communism is to liberalism. This is Political Science 101
Let's be honest, the current administration and many Democrats are pushing for a more socialist government, which is radical compared to America's past.We see it in their views on the Second Amendment, healthcare, spending, labor, corruption, free markets, private ownership, and taxation to name a few.Look at some healthcare systems Obama is planning on modeling the US after:http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/06/canadian.health.care.system/index.htmlhttp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/04/AR2009070401458.html
"Fascism is to conservatism what communism is to liberalism. This is Political Science 101"It is if you accept certain premises, which you should know by now, I do not. Fascism and communism both favor more government control and less personal liberty.Sorry, but the facts do not support your statement.
That truly was the greatest play in baseball!
Post a Comment