Party Dysfunction - Printable Version
+- AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums (http://ai-jane.org)
+-- Forum: Discussion (http://ai-jane.org/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: Jane's Essays (http://ai-jane.org/forum-18.html)
+--- Thread: Party Dysfunction (/thread-10388.html)
Party Dysfunction - WmLambert - 06-24-2010
There is unanimity of opinion from either camp. The other side is EVIL. Perhaps there is a solution wherein objectivity and truth can reign and both sides can agree on simple truths.
On the Left, Republicans are evil incarnate and feed dogfood to their aged parents. All GOP interests lie with the rich and powerful. They make the poor worse off. Because they are evil, they fall into the same category as do Infidels for Islamacists: Rules need not apply when opposing evil. All options are available. The end justifies the means. Their final comeuppance is all that matters.
On the Right, Democrats are the cause of all problems. FDR's "New Deal" prolonged the Great Depression and sanctified oppresive taxation. LBJ's "Great Society" exploited the poor and minorities, and the current Liberals purposefully hold minorities down to maintain voting bondage. The Left believes the vast majority of people are stupid and needful of Liberal reeducation. They know they are the natural elite and that they deserve to lead. They Right sees them as "useful idiots" causing the very problems they claim to fight.
James Carville and Paul Begala spell out chapter and verse to the "Culture of Corruption" in their book, Take It Back: Our Party, Our Country, Our Future. They blame their own party as too weak in attacking the bad guys. According to them, a President Gore would have prevented 9/11. All the problems from Katarina came from the Federal government. Karl Rove is a spider spinning a web of manipulation and propaganda. They claim the Right wages a war of semantics: "The War on Terror"... "No Child Left Behind"... "Death Tax"... are all emotionally-laden metaphors that resonate with the great unwashed. They paint with a broad brush. Everything Red is evil. Corrupt. ...And the poor little Dems are afraid of their shadows, left behind by the media and popular opinion, and in need of some backbone. If only they would stand and confront the evil red meanies, then the innate truth behind the goodness of their cause would solve all the problems of the world. The Carville-Begala fix is not bipartisanship and consensus but a further annunciation of differences.
Yet, no matter how hard they try, they can't seem to win. The Right's electoral success keeps growing. At the same time, their failures are a badge of honor. That they can't convince the great unwashed is both a source of pride and frustration. They are the elite and deserve to lead, remember. Since Democracy is not working for them, they've chosen an alternative path, using elitist structures, both at home and abroad.
The Republicans see an elitist party of revisionists who lie through their teeth to curry popular opinion and win polling points in a continual and amoral pragmatic tendency to side with whatever contemporary viewpoint holds sway. The GOP see the attack coming from like-minded Leftists in the Main Stream Media and the Hollywood entertainment crowd. A small, but powerful minority. The Left voted overwhelmingly to launch the war into Iraq - yet now it's Bush's war. The Left wrote the Education bill that gave us No Child Left Behind - but it's a failure because it is unfunded - yet the funding went up 150% and the General Accounting Office ruled that NCLB could never be unfunded, because the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requirements were met. The basic supposition behind their most important beliefs are unarguably wrong - yet they still persist. Why?
I stand apart from these viewpoints a bit and suggest a slightly different thought. I do agree the divisiveness and confrontational politics is primarily generated from the Left - Bush is and has always been a moderate. He has offered bipartisanship and it was rejected for purely political ends. But this distancing is not a byproduct of evil and moral turpitude. The Left is genuinely pure in their motives. They believe what they stand for. They believe the Right is wrong. My assessment is that if both sides worked from the same set of facts they would hold the same beliefs and work for the same successes. What I see is that the foundational elements are easily put straight, and both sides could work together with a little patience and courage to rethink incorrect preconceived notions. The Right needs a dose of reality as well - but the largest change needs to come from the Left, because the Left owned the schools where the revisionist doctrine was taught. It is also the Left playing class warfare and the racism card. Agreeing on the same starting points would greatly reduce the contention.
What went wrong? When did East become West, and apples be compared to cinder blocks? The Left's sensibilities are rooted in three main "truths"; uncompromisable certainties that rationalize all else.
One: that the religious believers are vapid dupes wrapped up in magical preachments that allow bigotry, bias, and hatred to flourish in the name of Church and God. After all, hasn't religion been the root cause of all wars throughout history, and the cause of the Dark ages that destroyed civilization, until Liberal elites appeared, giving birth to the Rennaissance?
Two: that money is the root of all evil; that evil Republican tycoons did and do extort and prey upon the poor to enrich themselves, and only a strong and benevolent central government run by the true elite can hold these Robber Barons in check.
Three: that popular patriotism separates nations and creates the divisiveness that allows wars to be waged. A proper global atheist central world government, run by the intellectual elite, could eliminate all conflict and make Paradise on Earth.
Is this correct or just more bias from the Right? Surely most Liberal minds do embrace these as foundational issues. Individuals may hold slightly divergent views on each one of these points, but they appear to fairly summarize the basis of the Liberal mindset. It is easy to attack each plank - but my focus is on where these ideas originally came from, where and by whom did the Liberals become educated by them, and if the history of the foundational premises is true or provable falsehood.
The problem isn't that contemporaneous Democrats are confrontational for lust of lost power, but because they honestly believe their way is the only way.
D. H. Lawrence, Aldous Huxley, H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, and Virginia Woolf, are bright lights amongst the Liberals, unarguably successful talents and admired thinkers. What they were taught as children is what caused their beliefs they have published. But since they were bright lights in an earlier era, they spoke plainly and honestly. Their words are more blunt than present day cebrity pols, but more clearly define what the present day Liberal/atheistic movement is all about.
These spotlighted intellectuals were ultra-elite Liberals who made no bones about their innate superiority over the intellectually turgid who can't handle knowledge even when it is spoonfed them in Liberal schools. Lawrence proposed, "all schools should be closed at once. The great mass of humanity should never learn to read and write." The hatred and disgust for the intellectually vapid underclass was spelled out by Huxley and Wells. Huxley said "about 95.5 percent of the entire population of the planet are stupid and philistine." Woolf described others as social inferiors. Her diary mentioned self-taught working class men. "We know how distressing they are." Other women using public lavatory were "common little tarts." Middle-class working women in a restaraunt eating cakes were "scented, shoddy, parasitic. Where does the money come [from] to feed these fat white slugs?" Wells fought for an atheist world government, because he said all wars are caused by popular patriotism and religious belief. His burning anti-Semistism was so pronounced that Eleanor Roosevelt asked Wells to leave the country. Shaw joins Wells in the idea that global domination must be brought about by genocide. In a time before Hitler, they wanted the mentally and physically unfit to be exterminated. According to Wells, "the swarms of black, brown, dirty-white, and yellow people in Africa and Asia will have to go." In Europe the "vicious, helpless and pauper masses, the weak and silly and pointless, and the lumpy, unteacheable, unimaginative people must be annihilated in a mercifle obliteration through disease, starvation, and execution." Shaw said, the "extermination must be put on a scientific basis if it is ever to be carried out humanely and apologetically as well as thoroughly. ...If we desire a certain type of civilization and culture, we must exterminate the sort of prople who do not fit into it."
I was recently reminded to include Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood in our list of Leftist icons. She supported Nazi-style Eugenics to weed out the undeserving:
The Pivot of Civilization Wrote:Modern studies indicate that insanity, epilepsy, criminality, prostitution, pauperism, and mental defect, are all organically bound up together and that the least intelligent and the thoroughly degenerate classes in every community are the most prolific. Feeble-mindedness in one generation becomes pauperism or insanity in the next. There is every indication that feeble-mindedness in its protean forms is on the increase, that it has leaped the barriers, and that there is truly, as some of the scientific eugenists have pointed out, a feeble-minded peril to future generations - unless the feeble-minded are prevented from reproducing their kind. To meet this emergency is the immediate and peremptory duty of every State and of all communities.
Let us not let these icons of Liberal thought be lionized.
However, their defining thoughts reoccur in modern Liberals for a reason. The facts that they understood to be true in the schools they attended bent them badly, yet these same mistruths are still taught. Why did Paul Ehrlich call for population control to answer the "Population Bomb" that never appeared as he predicted. Why did so many Ecology-movement activists agitate for DDT to be outlawed? Many argued the Wells-Shaw argument, that banning DDT would allow Malaria to help reduce the global population, and best target the "inferior, hopeless masses."
The biggest divergence from reality sprung from a simple mistruth offered up in 1832. If there ever was a simple causation for all belief in the benevolence and value of a strong centralized government, then this is it.
In a review of fourth and eighth grade history books, all of them get it wrong. None of them were honest about big government vs. big business. Each book spent much effort painting a picture of successful government monopolies in the Fur trade, building canals and railroads. The historical truth is that these government monopolies were uncontested failures - Failures so severe that the populace rose up in anger, ended the political forces that fed them, and turned them over to successful entrepreneurs. The books all preached to the young that big government was the savior and Robber Barons the nemesis, when in all actuality, it was the opposite that held true.
What caused this was a reliance on the historical works of John L. and Barbara Hammond, who influenced all the school books that followed. They relied on the Sadler Report of 1832 that reported the Industrial Revolution was "crowded with overworked children", "hotbeds of putrid fever," and "monotonous toil in a hell of human cruelty." Carles Dickens' novels helped to codify this image.
Would modern day Liberals feel less secure promoting big government to solve social and economic problems, if they knew in their hearts that what they learned as children was a lie? An historical review by Dr. Burton W. Folsom points out that
Quote:Mr. Sadler, we know today, lied in his report. He was a member of Parliament and made up much of his report to gain support for a bill he wanted to see Parliament pass. Economist W. H. Hutt has described Sadler's falsification of evidence. Even Friedrich Engels, comrade of Karl Marx, concluded that "Sadler permitted himself to be betrayed by his noble enthusiasm into the most distorted and erroneous statements."
The history of our country is clear: It was the government that charged outrageous prices and tried to pawn off shoddy merchandise, while the private businesses that supplanted them did the job right, charged lower prices, and did it without government subsidies that kept the monopolies afloat.
Folsom Wrote:The school books give the impression that robber barons stepped in to exploit whatever they could, and were a negative point in history. The lesson the books should be teaching is that in the world of commerce, the profit motive, the structure of incentives. and the stifling tendencies of bureaucrats are such that those businesses run by entrepreneurs will consistently outperform those run by the government. Instead, the authors had a bias for a strong central government. When the authors were called on these reports, they agreed that they were not reporting fact, but incorrect, unsubstantiated ideology.
As a prime example, what happened in Michigan, my home state, is the rule and not the exception.
Based on Grace Kachaturoff, author of Michigan, Folsom Wrote:When the state builds a project, the incentives are different from those of private enterprise. Satisfying political interests is often more important to legislators than building a railroad that is financially sound and well constructed. State builders use taxpayersâ money, not their own. If the road fails, itâs the state, not the builders, with empty pockets. The Michigan story is full of accounts of padded vouchers, illegal bidding, cost overruns, and the stealing of materials by contractors and even by the citizens themselves. Since no one actually owned the railroads, no one felt the responsibility to take care of them.
This is a root principle that denies the Liberal belief that is inculcated into their belief systems as school children. How can you dismiss the honor and veracity of a Liberal who believes what he was taught in school?
Going deeper into disinformation, consider the tendency of the Left to disparage the right as religious extremists and strongly anti-science. Once again, how can one begrudge a poor Lib who learned Columbus almost never discovered America because the religious zealots said he was a heretic? The Dems learned in school that the church decreed the Earth was flat and that was that. Going back farther, who hasn't learned that the great enlightened civilization of Greece and Rome ended when the Church entered the picture, and then began a "Dark Ages" That lasted until The Rennaissance? This disinformation is all wrong, yet believed devoutly by the Left.
Rodney Stark in How Christianity (and Capitalism) Led to Science presents the accepted and unargued true history that is unreported in school books.
It was Andrew Dickson White who Wrote:The warfare of Columbus [with religion] the world knows well: how the Bishop of Ceuta bested him in Portugal,; how sundry wise men of Spain confronted him with the usual quotations from Psalms, from St, Paul, and from St. Augustine; how, even after he was triumphant, and after his voyage had greatly strengthened the theory of the Earth's sphericity... the Church by its highest authority solemnly stumbled and persisted in going astray... the theological barriers to this geographical truth yielded but slowly. Plain as it had become to scholars, they hesitated to declare it to the world at large... But in 1519 science gains a crushing victory. Magellan makes his famous voyage. He proves the Earth is round, for his expedition circumnavigates it... Yet even this does not end the war. Many conscientious [religious[ men oppose the doctrine for two hundred years longer.Every history book recounts how Columbus fought the religious extremists who used the Bible to decree the Earth was Flat. Name a Liberal who knows any different!
White lied. He was running for President of Cornell and admitted he wrote this to "get even with his Christian critics of his plans for Cornell." Every educated person of Columbus's time knew the earth was round. This includes Roman Catholic theologians. The Venerable Bede (ca. 673-735) taught that the Earth was round, as did Bishop Virgilius of Salzburg (ca. 720-784). Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), and Thomas Aquinas (1224-1274), and all four became Saints. It was part of an ages-old conspiracy of atheists to portray Religion as being anti-Science. Columbus was not argued out of sailing off the edge of the world. The scientist of his day knew the world was round - but much larger than Columbus estimated. He put Japan at being only 2,080 miles from the Canary Islands, but the "sundry wise men of Spain" knew it was over 14,000 miles. Had Columbus not run across an unsuspected continent - his crew would have all died at Sea.
But then again, the entire "Dark ages" is a crock. Christianity actually inspired science. There was no science in ancient Greece or Rome. Aristotle thought the weight of objects were proportional to the speed with which they dropped. A simple test by dropping two different weights off a cliff never occurred to him. Guesswork without empiricism is not science. It was only at the birth of Christianity, that a wise God appeared who fostered the idea that science could be done and should be done. The Church understood there was a duty to understand God's handiwork, the better to marvel at it.
As for a time of barbarism, superstition, and widespread ignorance - there was no "Dark Ages." The march of progress was sure and steady, and sparked by the Christian concept of the world as an understandable creation following understandable laws which needed to be studied. The phrase, "Dark Ages," was a myth, first used in the early 19th century by atheists to claim credit for a sudden "enlightenment" that occurred against the Church's wishes. In fact it was the Church that fostered science. Quintus Tertullian instructed in the second century, "Reason is a thing of God, inasmuch as there is nothing which God the Maker of all has not provided, disposed, ordained by reasonÂ â nothing which He has not willed should be handled and understood by reason." The success of the West, including the rise of science, rested entirely on religious foundations, and the people who brought it about were devout Christians.
Yet, every good Liberal knows Gibbons wrote The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire and blamed the Fall of Rome and the rise of barbarism on Christianity. Historians disagree - yet the schools still distort the truth. The New Columbia Encyclopedia (1975) says the term "Dark Ages" is no longer used by historians because this era is no longer thought to have been so dim. The Encyclopedia Britannica concurs.
During the era of Classical Greece, neoPlatonism originated, a philosophy which merged Plato's philosophy with Indian pantheism. Plotinus taught that the world was an "emanation" or radiation of being from a nonpersonal Spirit or Absolute--somewhat as light is a radiation from the sun. This is New-Age religion. The Godhead is unknowable, pure and good; the farther away one is the more evil and base. This religion only subscibes to ascetic practices that suppress bodily desires that liberate the spirit and alloes it to be reassorbed into the infinite essence. Through the years, Neo-Platonism has become a a mystical religion, crafted in part to counter Christianity. In some aspects it has merged with Christianity.
But here we are... products of strong disinformation that tells us religion engenders ignorance and is anti-science - when true history claims Christianity is the single catalyst that sparked and promoted science. A famous poll taken in Darwin's day found that almost all celebrated scientists, including Darwin, were deeply religious. Eighty-four years later, the same poll showed exactly the same results. Modern scientists are profoundly religious.
The third major change in misdirected thinking has to be in Civil Rights. The Democrats have staked out their identity as being pro-Civil rights and that all Republicans are bigots. They own 90% of the Black vote.
Check out the message from Rev. Dr. Levon Yuille, who does a weekly radio program. It is paid for strictly with donations: The Ypsi Bible Church - Joshua's Trail He recounts the history of how Blacks gained their emancipation and Civil Rights. It reads as all Republicans. The Democrats form the Ku Klux Klan and filibuster the bills that Eisenhower launched, and Everitte Dirksen pushed through in 1964 and 1965, under LBJ.
LBJ's "Great Society" was a turning point for minorities in America and the Democrats. Before they were the party of bigotry and slave masters - now they became the enablers of victims and entitlements that broke up the Nuclear family, penalized responsibility, and rewarded discrimination. As Rev. Dr. Levon Yuille states: During the Reagan, Bush years of the 80's the Black middle class grew faster and larger than at anytime in America's history. When the tide rises all ships rise with it. On July 7, 2000 a story appeared in The Detroit News, which stated that the Black middle class loss ground during the Clinton years. University of Michigan Researchers did the research for this story.
If that is not enough, the Democrats claimed the Voting Rights laws of the 60's were going to be canceled by Republicans. (False) The Democratic Black Caucus stopped the voting right law from becoming permanent. This way they could be brought up over and over again as a motivating cause to maintain a stranglehold on the Black voting bloc.
Now if we can start with a clean slate and not indict all Republicans as racist and evil religious extremists only out to support the undeserving rich, and allow that Liberals are not evil in their condemnation of the Right, just unfairly misinformed, perhaps we can at least sit down at the same table again.
If the Left refuses to admit being brainwashed, they will miss the irony of George Romney, who came to realize and admit to his own mistaken preconceived notions and then was destroyed by the MSM that refused to admit their part in the process - but will pay a bigger price - being on the wrong side of history.
- WmLambert - 06-24-2010
Note that this is a re-posting. This original essay was posted several years ago, as were others that were accidentally deleted. I invite those who posted essays that vanished to put them up once again.
RE: Party Dysfunction - Mrs. J. Jones - 08-20-2012
It's a good one.
There's new thought out now about the word game...using short slamming words as catch phrases..
The right is good at it, the left keeps going for the facts.
RE: Party Dysfunction - WmLambert - 08-20-2012
I dunno... the Left uses focus groups a lá Carville and Begalla to find emotive words and phrases that evoke ideas. They are purposefully left bare-bones to deny quick rebuttal. In order to challenge some certain clichéd ideas, the rebutter has to redefine the point before even attempting to explain it away. By the time everyone agrees on the definitions, we are all too bored to listen.
Since the 80's the Left has projected the opposite strategy... that it is the Right who sketches the truth and plays lose with facts - when in fact, it has always been the opposite. These catch-phrases are expressed across the Left at the speed of light. Do you recall when Gore was running against Bush 43 and the term, "gravitas" was first used? Every single Liberal talking head on TV, radio, and in all the forums simultaneously began discussing the supposed relative lack of "gravitas" by Bush. It took about
a week and-a-half for the public opinion polls to come back, and miraculously the American public believed by a landslide that it was not Bush who was lacking, but Gore. Instantly, the word "gravitas" vanished form the American lexicon. Brokaw, Jennings, Rather, Russert, Matthews, Moyers, Leno, and Letterman suddenly dropped its usage.
RE: Party Dysfunction - WmLambert - 06-06-2013
I saw the Walter Williams essay this week: Understanding Liberals and Progressives It is eerily similar to the essay I posted above.
The only real difference is that Williams uses the words of current Leftists icons: Alexander King, Dr. Charles Wurster, William Aiken, David Graber, and Prince Philip - while I referenced more dated but revered icons: D. H. Lawrence, Aldous Huxley, H. G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw, Virginia Woolf, Margaret Sanger, and Andrew Dickson White. Williams' references where those that influences current-day politics and also lead to corrupted science, while mine referenced the disinformation instilled by Leftist icons into our schools that teach the lies as established facts which politicians and pseudo-scientists then use as foundational principles.
Both Walter Williams and I also used the lies written by Rachel Carson in Silent Spring as objective proof of how the disinformation was used to foster the Leftist mindset. The hockey stick idea is a similar paradigm. It is about lying to perpetuate long-held beliefs that were wrong to start with. ...The ends justifies the means.