what do i see when i visit the blogosphere or tool the internet- or read the news? the repubs jumping on the anti-brown people crusade- anti- arab and anti-latin american. why? the dems feed right in on the gay marriage amendment proposal, the immigration issue, the abortion/contraception issue. now, i will make it clear that all of these issues are important- but not immediate. the conservatives would have you believe that these are imminent and need to be dealt with now.
the reason that we are so easily manipulated is because we are so busy yelling at and about each other, calling each other names, ripping each other apart- the divide and conquer theory well at work. i am as guilty as anyone and i know that on more than one occasion- beth- has called me on stereotyping. so- my thought is we need to stop the madness and refocus people. the repubs need to take back their party from the religious right and the conservatives. the left needs to take a moment and stop being so shrill. focus on the real issues and stop reacting to absolutely everything.
in the spirit of education- here's some links to info on what each section means in the political world:
republicans: according to wikipedia, "Historically, Republicans have had a strong belief in individualism, limited government, and business entrepreneurship. In broad terms, Republicans believe the private sector is better suited than the government to make most decisions."
conservatism: according to wikipedia, "Defining "American conservatism" requires a definition of conservatism in general, and the term is applied to a number of ideas and ideologies, some more closely related to core conservative beliefs than others.
1. Classical or institutional conservatism - Opposition to rapid change in governmental and societal institutions. This kind of conservatism is anti-ideological insofar as it emphasizes process (slow change) over product (any particular form of government). To the classical conservative, whether one arrives at a right- or left-leaning government is less important than whether change is effected through rule of law rather than through revolution and sudden innovation.
2. Ideological conservatism or right-wing conservatism -- In contrast to the anti-ideological classical conservatism, right-wing conservatism is, as its name implies, ideological. It is typified by three distinct subideologies: social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, and economic liberalism. Together, these subideologies comprise the conservative ideology of people in some English-speaking countries: separately, these subideologies are incorporated into other political positions.
3. Neoconservatism, in its United States usage, has come to refer to the views of a subclass of conservatives who support a more assertive foreign policy coupled with one or more other facets of social conservatism, in contrast to the typically isolationist views of early- and mid-20th Century conservatives. Neoconservatism was first described by a group of disaffected liberals, and thus Irving Kristol, usually credited as its intellectual progenitor, defined a "neoconservative" as "a liberal who was mugged by reality." Although originally regarded as an approach to domestic policy (the founding instrument of the movement, Kristol's The Public Interest periodical, did not even cover foreign affairs), through the influence of figures like Dick Cheney, Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Ken Adelman and (Irving's son) William Kristol, it has become more famous for its association with the foreign policy of the George W. Bush Administration.
4. Small government conservatism -- In contrast to cultural conservatism, which in recent years has greatly increased the power of the federal government over the states, and more than doubled federal spending, small government conservatives look for a decreased role of the federal government, a return to the states of the power to set educational standards, to legalize or prohibit drugs, abortion, welfare, gun ownership, pornography, marriage, and religion. Small government conservatives agree with cultural conservatives on the strict interpretation of the constitution, but rather than focusing of the strict interpretation of the bill of rights, they focus on the strict interpretation of the clause that reserves to the states all powers not specifically granted to the federal government. The framers of the constitution were suspicious of a centralized, unitary state like the United Kingdom, from which they had just won their freedom."
democrat: according to wikipedia,"The Party advocates civil liberties, social freedoms, equal rights, equal opportunity, and a free enterprise system tempered by government intervention. The Party believes that government should play a role in alleviating poverty and social injustice, even if that means progressive taxation and a larger role for government to pay for and develop social services."
progressive: according to wikipedia, "Some argue that Progressivism in the United States can best be differentiated from liberalism in two major ways. One, progressivism is more political in nature, while liberalism is more of an ideology. And two, American Progressives tend to be more socially conservative or hold "working class" values on issues like crime and gun control."my thought is we need to focus on getting back to the checks and balances that we have always had in this country. we need to listen to each other and comprimise. if we don't, america will cease to exist forever as we knew it. we must not let fear and distrust of each other drive a wedge between us. we must fight together to restore our civil liberties; put together a legitamate security plan for america; and fix our economic, educational and health care issues. we cannot and must not rely on the government to do this. "absolute power corrupts absolutely." lord acton
15 comments:
let me start by saying "wow"...I just got here and after finding this suculent morsel of a posting I am running for the microwave popcorn... this on is going to keep me up all night replying... dammit! :)
I'll be back....
I read this posting a few times, fully. The flaw in reading individual definitions of any discipline or topic is that most real-life definitions are morphings that fuse the classical meaning with whatever the individual has experienced that is in accordance or contrarian to said definition.
Betmo and I have been bantering back and forth at my blog about this topic in heavy dosis. I was going to do a posting about this,... but I think i will espouse this as a complimentary view to the main thesis of her posting.
I was a Reagan Republican from the onset. Young, anti-communist, free marketeer, trickle-down kool aid drinker, and dis-daining the "malaise" culture Jimmy Carter had lamented on America. Why was I a Republican? A backlash against Democrats. Almost a visceral reaction to what a saw as America being held hostage for 444 days by some guy with a turbin in Iran... I was pissed. Who are these rag-heads keeping my American brethren hostages?, I yelled to nobody in particular.... those were the beginnings of a nationalistic and isolationist way that I still harbor and have to check at times so that it does not overwhelm my pragmatism.
Most political inclinations start by as simple an emotion as that. The simplistic thought that this had occured under a Democrat's watch was a life changing moment for me,.. "Democrats are weak, Republicans are stong? (you don't think THAT saying is still in the subcon of most Americans even today?) As time went on, I dug the fiscal mantra of the party, but the religion angle began to piss me off even more. My father's family are evangelicals,.. I was damned if I was going to let that crap infect my party. I tried REAL hard. Grass roots, volunteered as much as I could,... but the more I tried to stem the tide of the religious right's influence the worse I felt my battle was.
In 1988 I voted for Bush 41.... The sucker had a 90% approval rating 7 months before the general elections due to a very succesful Gulf War I,... and LOST... to a newby like Clinton, and let 19% of the votes go to Herr Perot. I was pissed. That was the day I started looking for something else, something that would not let me down, something that would let me put the good of the country first and allowed me to tell the majors to F**k-off withough guilt. And I guess I still am looking for the right conbination that makes me happy and "centered" to myself.
I feel Betmo. I really do. I rant agaist the "ranters" day and night,.. anybody bored enough with their life to have read any of my postings knows that I am all over the freakin' map as to my beliefs. It is the eternal search. But one silver lining has come from my political weening of both parties. I can see the best and the worst of both. I can see and say, if Bush has done something of note without a raised eyebrow in my heart, and I can admit when a Democrat or liberal are doing something for the greater good, without getting the shakes from my late 70's Democratic trauma.
dammit.. i knew i should have bought the edit button here... ok, im almost done...
To follow the platform of a party, blindly and not have the fortitude to question things of your own parisans, regardless of the backlash is our sin, our citizen sin. One of my trui-isms is ......if you cant find ONE thing good about the opposition, you are a party hack and not a good citizen.
The yelling, the vitriol, the rants, the blogs, the bull-hornus maximus is not -as much- because we don't like what the opposition stands for, but mostly because we are deathly afraid to give-in a little on our own end and reach a hand to a side that is foreign and unknown.
I first came into politics in the antiwar movement against the Vietnamese War. That was a Democratic/Republican War. That made me leftist.
the Dems/Republicans are two sides of the same coin. Both are to preserve the system.
Well, you mentioned my name in your rant, so I had to comment..just remember Republicans were against slavery and Democrats were pro-slavery way back then...can't stereotype there either.
Wow, heavy shit for 4:30AM. But I like your style Betmo.
thank you everyone for reading and writing here. i do appreciate the feedback.
tp- your 'flashpoint' was the iran-hostage crisis and i do remember back then watching the nightly liberal news putting the nuber of days up every night. i realize that you try to espouse both views now but you still lean right- and you still have a tendency to go with the 'let's hate them because they are muslim' bent- at least with publius.
i will never be right and i doubt that i can see good things from that side- simply because they don't see people as people. i put the categories up as an understanding of where the parties came from. yes, beth lincoln is held as a model for the repubs- but they don't trylu believe that all people are equal. the repub party has been hijacked by bigots, christians, and soul-less corportations. feelings are negligible unless you are immediate family- and then- well if you don't do as you're told- out you go.
yes, i realize that i am stereotyping but i am hoping that someone out there will prove me wrong. bring me an instance of a republican reaching out- truly reaching out for more than votes and i will give it it's own post. the very fact that the right blames people doesn't make them strong. we can bomb the shit out of everyone on the planet and that doesn't make us strong. the repubs are nostalgic for ww2- well guess what yahoos? we worked together with other countries around the world and it was still tough to defeat the true 'axis of evil.'
the left isn't weak and we aren't stupid. changing your mind and thinking to fit new info is the right way to lead and govern. it isn't flip flopping and it isn't wishy washy. i am going to go out on a limb here and say any field commander or ceo or lawyer or teacher or doctor, etc. will tell you so.
i am just tired of the simplistic mindset of those who subscribe to the right- and especially the current regime. these people think nothing of letting our civil liberties be taken away in the name of safety and don't bother to look at the bigger picture. they would rather let someone else deal because it is too difficult to think about and they are too afraid.
as for the religious aspect- you can thank reagan for that. he went and met personally with paul crouch at trinity broadcast network to draw them in. not to mention falwell and robertson.
Although I concede that I still lean right, as you say... I have a very hard aversion towards hating anybody or anything, I hope my cooments at Publius' site or otherwise don't convey that. My "who are these ragheads..." commnents was a verbatim mental quote from the vestiges of my idyotic youth,.. certainly not language of rhetoric I use today. I don't think I've ever written the work "hate" in any of my postings or implied such thought,... but maybe you can guide me to something you may have interpreted as such.... i would love to clarify my intent for you.
One of the stereotypical results I get when i say I am a conservative (albeit a mostly independent one) is that I am narrow-minded, simplistic in thought, ... that I don't pain as much for the human condition. That my vews arent "diversified" enough. And of course one gets defensive of such verbiage and feels the need to justify one's life and or retort in kind.
Here's how "conservative" I am:
I volunteer for a liberal non-profit here in the Bay Area. They help rehabilitate ex-felons (mostly Black mind you...) I go there once a month for a full Saturday and help them learn to type, use computer programs, teach cursory spelling and diction and give speeches and pep-talks on how to get from under the Goverment's umbrella of welfare. At my contruction work I spend most of my hour-long lunches with my mostly mostly un-documented workers teaching them the advantages of learning English to push their sights higher than just manual labor forever. I spend copious amounts of hours in right-wing bomb-thrower sites begging that they put the bull horn down and start "listening" to why the left is so pissed at them. My 5 year-old daughter learns from her Daddy the virtues of helping the elderly cross the street, the acceptance of everyone, and why God (yes God) made us different so that we could appreciate his many variation of creation.
If this makes me a right-wing nut, if this is something still diametrically opposite liberal mantra then I am surely going to hell because I no of no other way to do things.
To paint anybody with a broad stroke, no matter who does it defeats what one tries to do in winning hearts and minds of others in the first place.
i agree- but you are a self avowed libertarian- who leans right- not a full fledged conservative or repub. i didn't think that you were prejudiced or racist per se- i just took the opportunity to expound on what i see is the right's inability to think in abstract terms. things are black or white- but to see in terms of gray is weak.
my biggest problem with the dems is that they take on every issue without seeing what's important- another knee jerk reaction- and try to appeal to everyone. the issues that all americans should focus on is corruption, lies, and erosion of civil liberties. instead, we are focusing on hating brown people- arabs and latin americans- as the 'bad guys.' focusing on the gay battle- for the umpteenth time. as long as we have someone to hate and defend- we won't focus on the real issues.
i am not saying that there aren't exceptions to the right- there are many 'faith based' organizations that i am sure are doing good things. i am overgeneralizing on purpose to make a bigger point.
Sorry, I had a typo in the first post. (I hate it when that happens) ACK! Here is a corrected re-post.
Wonderful post, betmo. It is very thoughtful and complete. I have noted myself that some definitions seem to be changing.
Conservatives do not always stand for less government. I mention this in one of my posts this morning. I guess we will continue to see the evolving of sub-groups such as neo-cons, etc. The Dems have changed as well. I very rarely hear the term 'conservative' Democrat anymore, although it will be interesting to follow the Senate race in PA that pits a Republican pro-life against a Democrat pro-life candidate.
To Beth, not all Democrats supported slavery before the Civil War. The issue pretty much broke the Democratic Party apart at the time, but yes most supporters were Dems. This is indeed a low point in the history of our party.
Some studies out recently show that our minds are somewhat 'pre-wired' to reject ideas and opinions of those we deem to be different from us and accept info from those we deem to be like us. Perhaps this is a contributing factor to the continuing polarization of our country. It does seem that many of the 'true' independents are shifting (not necessarily far to the left, but) away from the right.
But it may not matter in 2008. If we Dems cannot come up with a ticket that will carry FL and/or OH we may be suffering through 4 more years of Republican administrative rule. Let's do away with the Electoral College already.
Keep up the good work, betmo. I love your stuff and thanks for the link.
Betmo,
I agree with your last post. Republicans tend to be more absolute-ist than Demos
(I have a posting at my blog on this subject,...shameless plug there..). Democrats are more idealistic-Utopians... they tend to dream further and imagine the world in formats that may or may not twine with existing pragmatic realities. Democrats see gray areas are flex-thought. As you so very well put it, Democrats tend to want to juggle a myriad of issues and want to fix every single one, whereas the GOP sticks to a few issues and hammers away until it morphs into the sub-conscious of their base. Republicans are very black and white with few rooms for interpration. They don't do well with change and evolving morality.
Good points.
Still, in spite of these differences, I think there is roughly 40 to 50% of issues that an amiable concensus can be reached. It is the other half that are the deal-breakers.
doesn't have to be with compromise and consensus. compromise is not a dirty word. absolutism in the 21st century technological and global world is ridiculous. it evolves from the religious mindset and needs to be rebuffed.
great post :)
I wrote a long comment before but my stupid computer crashed and deleted it. :(
I gotta run right now, I'll come back later and try to remember what I wrote.
okay, I'm back and with more time. I'll try to remember whati wrote, but I'll probably end up going off on a totally different rant. :)
all of us are being used by this administration in order to maintain their power.
I definately agree. The Republicans are using all of us for their own schemes and plans. When I first read that I was inclined to say, NO! they're not using me. Then I thought back. At times, I have found myself saying something that sounds like something from the Bush rhetoric. It's on the news so much that it becomes ingrained in your head and you don't look for an alternative because of course you think that's the right thing. After all, would they lie constantly to you? Answer: YES. So, when I find myself saying something that sounds like the Bush rhetoric I immediately look it up and realize that it's not true.
The Democrats are presented as being either crazy, hating America, or just plain weak. Which they pretty much are weak. They play into each one of the Republican's ploys and they constantly find themselves on the defensive, replying to the repubs, rather than on the offensive, making the repubs own up to what they've done in Iraq, the disasterous state of the economy, etc.
We spend too much time ripping each other up then actually taking action and accomplishing something. We definately need to keep the Republicans out of the White House in '08. 4 more years of them will cripple our country forever. I'm afraid that our country has already suffered heavily from Bush and it will take decades to repair the damage from his administration. Hopefully it won't affect our status in teh world, but I'm afraid it will.
i want to clarify what i meant about the administration using us- the left jumps on everything and i mean everything- that this admin puts out. we need to stop being so reactive and get proactive. that means focus on the big picture- regaining seats in congress to counteract the executive and judicial branches. that means focusing on civil liberties, war in iraq and homeland security. period.
Post a Comment