Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

It is the conservatism, stupid ...

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-13-06 09:40 PM
Original message
It is the conservatism, stupid ...
Paul Waldman, from mediamatters for America, has a slogan that I like.

It is the conservatism, stupid.



Ask a conservative what the biggest problem in America is today, and you’ll get answers like overtaxation, a sexualized culture, lack of respect for authority, insufficient church-going or big government running amok. But if you then asked the conservative what the real source of the problem was—the beating heart pumping blood to each and all of these socio-politico-cultural wounds—you’d get the same answer: liberalism.

On the other hand, you could ask a liberal a hundred questions about the problems facing our country before you’d get to an answer that placed conservatism at the heart of the nation’s ills.

This didn’t happen by accident. It is the result of a relentless campaign against liberalism by conservatives. And liberals need to do the same thing to conservatism.
...
So allow me to offer a few points of attack on conservatism, ones that will resonate with the public and accrue both short-term and long-term gains to the liberals who use them.

1. Conservatism has failed. ... Liberals need to argue that it wasn’t a product of incompetence, it was a failure of conservative governance. As Alan Wolfe put it in a recent Washington Monthly article, “Conservatives cannot govern well for the same reason that vegetarians cannot prepare a world-class boeuf bourguignon: If you believe that what you are called upon to do is wrong, you are not likely to do it very well.” .

2. Conservatism is the ideology of the past—a past we don’t want to return to. ...

3. Conservatives are cowards, and they hope you are, too. ...


Full article here: http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?t=ozem9wbab.0.lnno9wbab.tiniiyn6.35034&p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tompaine.com%2Farticles%2F2006%2F07%2F12%2Fits_the_conservatism_stupid.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-13-06 09:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. Excellent article
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
wisteria Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-14-06 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
2. This is really, really good. it is a keeper. I printed it and I am going
to pass it around. Thanks for posting it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-14-06 10:00 AM
Response to Original message
3. Sometimes it's the incompetence, stupid.
Edited on Fri Jul-14-06 10:00 AM by ProSense
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=1632090&mesg_id=1632090

The article Mass posted is similar to one Lakoff wrote, and I agree with the assessment of conservatisim. In Bush's case, however, there is a real level of incompetence at work here.


Bush Is Not Incompetent

by George Lakoff, Sam Ferguson, Marc Ettlinger

Progressives have fallen into a trap. Emboldened by President Bush’s plummeting approval ratings, progressives increasingly point to Bush’s “failures” and label him and his administration as incompetent. Self-satisfying as this criticism may be, it misses the bigger point. Bush’s disasters — Katrina, the Iraq War, the budget deficit — are not so much a testament to his incompetence or a failure of execution. Rather, they are the natural, even inevitable result of his conservative governing philosophy. It is conservatism itself, carried out according to plan, that is at fault.

http://www.rockridgeinstitute.org/research/lakoff/incompetent



That section in bold attest to some level of incompetence. I much prefer the OP article. Conservatism may be a flawed ideology, but it isn't synonymous with incompetence. Bush is a conservative incompetent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mass Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-14-06 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. There is incompetence, of course. But, if you dont think the govt has a
Edited on Fri Jul-14-06 10:19 AM by Mass
role to play, you dont care if your candidate is competent or not, and conservatives think the government should be small enough so that you can drown it in a glass of water.

Democrats should not dismiss the competency factor, but the question is: "competent to do what?". I think McCain is competent; I think that nearly all Republicans are more competent than the team in power", but what is it they want to accomplish..

This is also why all these bloggers revering people like Kevin Phillips, John Dean, or Ron Paul worry me. They may be fed up with Bush and be temporary allies, but they do not want the same thing we want. They are not progressive.

Actually, it is amusing to see how some bloggers get "in love" with people just to discover these people do not believe in the same thing they do. The latest example is Obama : not a Republican, barely a conservative, but many on the blogosphere had made him their ultra-liberal idole. Today, they discover he is no such thing. He is a solid moderate Democrat, and it was easy to see if you were listening to him (to his Convention speech) rather than fawning at his delivery skills (that are excellent). His speech was not red meat, it was about family values, religion to some extent, and poverty, all that said in a fairly progressive way, but not that far from what he is saying today. So why are mydd.com and digby.com that surprised. I disagree with Obama on these issues (religion in the political discourse), but I am not surprised. He said as much during the 2004 campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-14-06 10:31 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Eaxctly!
Edited on Fri Jul-14-06 11:20 AM by ProSense
Take the Bush team out of the equation and the Republicans are still champions of conservatism.

I agree about the anti-Bush folks. They certainly help to expose Bush's failures, but there should be no illusion that they are allies on the issues.

I'm cool with Obama and other Democrats who are not ultra-liberal, but the way they are propped up as model Democrats by many, especially progressive is silly. I completely disagree with Obama's emphasis on religion. When he called out liberals for being critical of evangelicals, he knows that these criticisms are leveled against the religious right. I don't buy the excuse that the evangelicals he was addressing were on the left. So what? Address them and educate people that they exists, but don't mischaracterize the criticisms coming from liberals as being directed at this group.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TayTay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-14-06 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Exactly. That's why we was the keynoter at the '04 convention
Sen. Obama is not a flaming liberal. He is a moderate voice. He got that plum assignment at the convention because he is a wonderful speaker and because he was advocating the middle line on a lot of issues. (No one complained when he uttered that line, "We worship and awesome God in the blue states." )
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-14-06 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
7. Very interesting!
Is the American culture superior to that as is found in the Middle East and other sub-cultures found around the world as we see in North Korea, Mexico, China and perhaps even Russia? That is certainly true. Because our culture is superior, because we value a single human life far more than others, especially in the Middle East, we must maintain our higher standards by pursuing these charges to the bitter end and let the pieces fall where they may.

What me must not do is taint the uniform of every American in uniform as some, including John Kerry, did during the Vietnam War when he addressed Congress, admitted to war atrocities himself and intimated that most of the other Americans over there did the same.

Kerry's shameful testimony, tapes of which were used against him in the 2004 Presidential campaign, did as much to dishonor Vietnam veterans as any of those who were guilty and served time in prison for their evil deeds.

http://www.recordgazette.net/articles/2006/07/13/opinion/01opinion.txt




Stabbed in the Back!
The past and future of a right-wing myth
Posted on Friday, July 14, 2006. Originally from June 2006. By Kevin Baker.

Every state must have its enemies. Great powers must have especially monstrous foes. Above all, these foes must arise from within, for national pride does not admit that a great nation can be defeated by any outside force. That is why, though its origins are elsewhere, the stab in the back has become the sustaining myth of modern American nationalism. Since the end of World War II it has been the device by which the American right wing has both revitalized itself and repeatedly avoided responsibility for its own worst blunders. Indeed, the right has distilled its tale of betrayal into a formula: Advocate some momentarily popular but reckless policy. Deny culpability when that policy is exposed as disastrous. Blame the disaster on internal enemies who hate America. Repeat, always making sure to increase the number of internal enemies.

As the United States staggers past the third anniversary of its misadventure in Iraq, the dagger is already poised, the myth is already being perpetuated. To understand just how this strategy is likely to unfold—and why this time it may well fail—we must return to the birth of a legend.

Snip...

It was an iconography easily transferable to Germany’s new, postwar republic. Hitler himself would claim that while recuperating behind the lines from a leg wound, he found Jewish “slackers” dominating the war-production bureaucracy and that “the Jew robbed the whole nation and pressed it beneath his domination.” The rape imagery is revolting but vivid; Hitler was already attuned to the zeitgeist of his adopted country. Even before the war had been decided, a soldier in his company recalled how Corporal Hitler would “leap up and, running about excitedly, say that in spite of our big guns, victory would be denied us, for the invisible foes of the German people were a greater danger than the biggest cannon of the enemy.”

Yet it was necessary, for the purging that the Nazis had in mind, to believe that the national degeneration went even further. Jerry Lembcke, in his brilliant work, The Spitting Image: Myth, Memory and the Legacy of Vietnam, writes of how the Nazis fostered the dolchstosslegende in ways that eerily foreshadowed returning veteran mythologies in the United States. Hermann Göring, the most charismatic of the Nazi leaders after Hitler, liked to speak of how “very young boys, degenerate deserters, and prostitutes tore the insignia off our best front line soldiers and spat on their field gray uniforms.” As Lembcke points out, any insignia ripping had actually been done by the mutinous soldiers and sailors who would launch a socialist uprising shortly after the war, tearing them off their own shoulders or those of their officers. Göring’s instant revisionism both covered up this embarrassing reality and created a whole new class of villains who were—in his barely coded language—homosexuals, sexually threatening women, and other “deviants.” All such individuals would be dealt with in the new, Nazi order.

http://www.harpers.org/StabbedInTheBack.html



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri May 03rd 2024, 12:30 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Democrats » John Kerry Group Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC