14 May 2011

You Gotta Be Kiddin' Me


*Update: After a reader pointed out that Michael had misspelled "Voltaire" as "Votlair", while he simultaneously mocked a Tea Party protester for misspelling "Benjamin" as "Benjamine", Michael edited his post and corrected his spelling error. However, he kept his mocking comment of the TP protester.

"The Founding Fathers could only be defined today as being 'progressives.'" ~ Michael Aubrecht

Actually, "radical" would be more accurate. Michael Aubrecht seems to be attempting to use the word "progressive" in a general or generic way here while simultaneously insunuating some philosophical kinship to the modern progressive movement. 

Talk about twisting history. Good Lord. And, though the person holding the sign may have misspelled Franklin's name, he's right - if you apply the Founder's writings, political philosophies, etc in today's political environment, they most certainly would be labeled right wing extremists. That is the point of the sign, and it is spot on. As Professor Gordon Wood has noted

"The Tea Partiers are certainly not scholars, but their emotional instincts about the Revolution they are trying to remember on behalf of their cause may be more accurate than [Jill] Lepore is willing to grant."

And I would add, more accurate than Michael is willing to grant.

20 comments:

Michael Aubrecht said...

Richard you continue to be blinded by your own partisanship. For you to believe that The Founders would agree with or support a cultist movement of ill informed right wing Tea Party zombies like this continues to puzzle me. You're too smart for that. Don't let these mentally challenged "patriots" bring you down too.

Michael Aubrecht said...

pro·gres·sive
   [pruh-gres-iv] Show IPA
–adjective
1.
favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, especially in political matters: a progressive mayor.
2.
making progress toward better conditions; employing or advocating more enlightened or liberal ideas, new or experimental methods, etc.: a progressive community.
3.
characterized by such progress, or by continuous improvement.

Is that not what the Founders did?

Chaps said...

The Left knows that if most Americans understood our history, they would laugh the Left off the planet. That's why they twist, make up, and rewrite history.... academic elites, don't ya know.

13thBama said...

Michael is right on script. It seems we are to the "Name Calling" portion of our show now. Lets sit back and watch the rest.

Why do "progressives" always seem to "regress" to name calling?

Chaps said...

Michael-

This mentally challenged patriot (w/o the scare quotes), combat vet with a BS in Engineering(Georgia Tech) and Masters in Theolgy(Emory), Mensa member whole heartedly supports the TEA party. I taught my kids growing up that, when debating a leftist, if the lefty start calling them names,like "zombie" or "mentally challenged," then the debate is over and they win. Elitist disdain is not an argument.

Chaps said...

And Michael(after reading your screed), I'm sure you are smart enough to know that the Liberalism of John Locke is a whole lot different from the Liberalism of Harry Reid.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Michael - but you're not, right? "Cultist movement?" I continue to find it telling that you don't level these same criticisms at the left. Could that be *your* partisanship?

You need to understand something. Though I've never attended a TP rally and am not a member, I've supported the basic principles embraced by the TP since I first became politically aware. That was 1980. 31 years ago. I'm no Johnny-come-lately. I guess what I'd say to the Tea Party folks is, "welcome to the party."

The Founders would (and did) most certainly support limited government & individual liberty, which is the fundamental message of the TP. Apparently Michael, you're the one who's ill-informed.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Chaps - you are so right, no pun intended.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Michael - your posting suggesting the Founders were "progressives" and suggesting that John Locke was "the father of liberalism" is pure sophistry. We both know that no one used the label "Right-wing extremists" during the Founding era. The point of the TP sign was that if the Founders were espousing today what they espoused in 1776, the left would most certainly label them "Right-wing extremists."

We also know that the term "progressive" was not a political label during the Founding era either. Being "progressive" (adjective) for one's times in advancing liberty when monarchies were the norm, can in no way be compared to what "progressives" (noun, and as a political movement) are trying to do today. You are confusing the adjective with the noun. That is an extremely easy claim to refute. Certainly you grasp (or perhaps you don't) a fundamental understanding of political philosophy and history in the United States. Locke was a *classical" liberal. That position is a far cry from modern liberalism which is statist and promotes a strong centralized government. Locke believed no such thing. As a matter of fact, he believed the exact opposite. Classical liberalism, which is what most of the Founders embraced, is a political philosophy which embraces limited government, individual liberty and includes the fundamental freedoms of religion, speech, and free markets.

As one scholar has pointed out:

"It is important not to confuse this classical liberalism with the political ideology known as 'liberalism' in the United States in the 20th century. In fact, the ideology of classical liberalism is closer to what today is a current of conservatism in the United States."

See:
http://www.google.com/books?id=sq-1z8VMhDEC&lpg=PP1&dq=Modern%20Political%20Philosophy&pg=PA37#v=onepage&q&f=false

I must confess I am taken aback by your position and ongoing misrepresentation of not only the positions of the TP, but that of the Founders as well. You could not be more wrong.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

13B - As pointed as my remarks may be, nothing personal here. I'm addressing only what Michael has posted.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Chaps - "the Liberalism of John Locke is a whole lot different from the Liberalism of Harry Reid."

See my last previous comment. Harry Reid would be better described as a statist.

13thBama said...

Sorry Richard, I did not intend for you to think that I meant the name calling would be a back and forth. I knew it would have a back flow valve on it. :)

Michael Aubrecht said...

Gentlemen, I want to respectfully retract my posts for this topic and apologize for taking this to a level of disrespect. Despite the fact that we disagree on this political-historical matter I should have conducted myself with a lot more class. Frustration that has nothing to do with this discussion has got the better of me in recent days. I will endeavor avoid this level of imaturity in the future. I enjoy our debates and meant nothing personal by them.

Chaps said...

Michael-

Spoken like a gentleman. Thank you. May your days be better.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

No problem Michael. Thanks.

13thBama said...

Michael,

I appreciate the humility and manliness it took to say that. I pray that your source of stress will be resolved soon.

Anonymous said...

Define irony: mocking a tea partier for an extra "e" on Benjamin Franklin while leaving your own off of Voltaire.

What's good for the goose...

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Anon - good one. I should have caught that.

Michael Aubrecht said...

Touché ;)

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Michael - you're a good sport! Enjoy your weekend.

RGW