Reply With Quote
I stopped at Glen Beck
WH & MB would like this.
I stopped at Glen Beck
ok, since I "would like" it, I viewed it.
First, this topic is one better treated by something other than a talk show with short clips and watered down, condensed discussion.
Second, where's Reagan? If anyone was squarely in the militarist, warfare-state tradition of Wilson, it was him. And he often cited FDR as a political forebear. One of the great myths of modern "conservatism" is that it is not the heir of militarist progressivism, that it embraces a classically liberal view of a minimalist state, limited in personal affairs as well as in the use of military force. And that it holds the Cons ution sacrosanct when it conflicts with political goals.
At least he did tie Wilson to GWB. McCain may have an affinity for Roosevelt but Wilson is more appropriate. Wilson was an asshole. Of course the participants cite his overt racism, but do miss his damage to civil liberties during his administration and his considerable disdain for the Cons ution. And his lust for war to enhance the glory of the state and the control of society it would bring to the federal government. He makes GWB look like a piker.
The two major political parties in this country essentially carry on in the progressive tradition. One emphasizes the welfare state and the other, the warfare state. Though both incorporate each of these two major views. We focus on the relative differences but don't recognize our politics for what it is.
I do not really understand Mr. beck's point. Is he saying that if we are not careful, we will become the next China/Cuba/Russia? Just because someone shares a similar political philosophy does not mean that they will be a heartless murderer. You can be a communist without being Che.
I know that George Benard Shaw believed in Eugenics, but so did many people at that time. Should we be worried that progressives are going to design a gas that can kill us humanely? Is that the point?
And while the host seems to enjoy these ominous overtones by making these connections, at the end of the day we find that you can connect American political thought today to that of several decades before. Shocking to some, perhaps. As well as connections between the thought of yesteryear and that of European political movements of the time.
In this past years I have read biographies of several of my favorite presidents: Adams, Madison, Jackson, Polk and Lincoln. I can honestly say that aside from modern technology, nothing has changes much in Washington. Differerent politicians may take on a couple of different political philosophies that make them differ on two or three points. They then make the masses focus on those 2-3 points while the masses fail to realize that the outside those 3, the parties are the same. I still have a long way to go on my reading, but it has been a common theme in all of the books I have read thus far.
I start King Henry the VIII next week, a gift from my wife, and then I will move to FDR.
In your readings, did you find anyone who broke a campaign promise? Some on this board seem to think that Obama is the first President EVER to not live up to a promise.
I honestly do not see how you can be a commie and not end up like che. I also am frightened at how common eugenics was and still is. You seem pretty educated, where as alot of people never read up on eugenics or the European progressives and our progressives. Most historians, say that what beck is pretty accurate and very insightful. Sure he does socratic logic of A+B=C, C+D=E therefore A=E, but he doesn't use lies. The right had a problem with him when he went after bush and now the left is after him when he goes after barry. He used to be chris matthews fav. conservative when bush was in office.
Campaigning in the 1800's was not nearly what it is today. For example, Lincoln did not have any debates for his run for the presidency, however, he had some of the most famous political debates in history against Douglas in the run for the senate seat.
However, presidents certainly broke promises. It just wasn't as published as it is today. The most amazing thing I have gathered from my readings is the influence of the press. We tend to believe that the days of Fox and CNN are relatively new. This is far from the truth. Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers were spreading lies, propaganda and selective reporting from the time of George Washington, little has changes there.
I have been contemplating starting to read presidential biographies. Do you have any suggestions on which one to start with?
I am not saying that he is inaccurate in his history. I for one, do not honor Che and I get sick every time I see a che shirt because it is obvious that the people wearing those shirts has never sat down with a real Cuban and heard the horror stories of Cuba during the revolution. Not that it was a Eutopia before that, Bautista was no saint and did his fair share of torture and killing.
My point is that Beck is not really making a point. He is referencing history and trying to tie it into our political system today. It is absurd to think that just because someone in the Obama Administration looks to Mao as a hero that somehow this means that pretty soon we are going to starve or our government is going to steal all of our food.
My youngest son has distracted me so sorry if this is incoheret.
Your statement may make a few heads explode..especially the fox news/ tea party crowd..
Wilson was a fascist. A proto-fascist, maybe, since he preceded his admirer, Mussolini. The most dangerous president ever.
The similarities between progressivism and fascism run deep in the notion that the state is the indispensable actor is promoting a single common good in nearly every aspect of life. Fascism doesn't narrowly mean xenophobic, militarist right-wingers who kill or otherwise oppresses minorities---at least that wasn't its original meaning. Nazi Germany was just one way in which the state-worship ideology of fascism was expressed. (The extent to which Nazi Germany was actually fascist is another interesting debate . . .)
Fascism and progressivism also aren't just about the size of government. It's more about the purpose of, and power given to, government. Progressives and fascists want to transform society.
JFK was no progressive or fascist, but I'm reminded of Milton Friedman's criticism of his inauguration address. ("Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.") The first clause is good and fine, but the second suggests the citizen is the servant of the government, and not the other way around. It appeals strongly to a progressive (or fascist) sentiment, even if that wasn't JFK's conscious intent.
I wonder if any American president would have said such a thing before Wilson.
Very coherent. I don't think he is trying to tie in our system so much as he is trying to tie in the movements.
I've often come across criticism of JFK's statement in this vein. It's not much of an onerous statement if you accept that JFK was referring to the society within the country. That is, to one's families, friends, neighbors...to one's fellow countrymen. I think if he wanted to make a direct appeal to governmental action he would have done so. It's not like JFK necessarily kept that hidden.
Not that conservatives would find much else to disagree with JFK the Cold Warrior on today.
Right. That's how I take it. But I think many people took it as a call to public service in an active and transformational government, especially after JFK's death left open the question of his "legacy." *cough* LBJ *cough*
Or, what's interesting is that in quite a few respects, Reagan offered the same program as JFK twenty years later and was regarded as a reactionary by the establishment.
Or, that vile and profane Mr. Truman from the Pendergast machine in KC is a great figure in GOP history...
Has Newt stopped fellating FDR?
- What do you mean about JFK and Reagan?
- I don't know if Truman is a great figure in GOP history; it's just that his current "stature" is such a departure from his extraordinary unpopularity in the 50s.
Many people---and particularly Republicans---respect his decision to end the war in the Pacific with the use of nuclear weapons. The Marshall Plan and NATO also seem to have been successes in retrospect: the Soviet Union is no more and Europe is free and prosperous. That said, Korea was a mistake. And so was losing China before that.
Obviously, it's the Cold War that animates contemporary Republican praise for Truman. I don't think Republicans are cheering his Fair Deal.
- Newt loves FDR?
It's a Glenn Beck YouTube!
Cold warriors, first and foremost. Or, both ramped up the military, cut taxes, and pursued national greatness.
Another Democrat adopted by the GOP due to the Cold War, not to mention his willingness to drop 'The Bomb.' Or, a way to embrace WWII without embracing FDR, not that it really matters that much to the GOP anymore, unless domestic policy is being discussed.- I don't know if Truman is a great figure in GOP history; it's just that his current "stature" is such a departure from his extraordinary unpopularity in the 50s.
Yes, the admiration for Truman has been retroactive.Many people---and particularly Republicans---respect his decision to end the war in the Pacific with the use of nuclear weapons. The Marshall Plan and NATO also seem to have been successes in retrospect: the Soviet Union is no more and Europe is free and prosperous. That said, Korea was a mistake. And so was losing China before that.
Sure.Obviously, it's the Cold War that animates contemporary Republican praise for Truman. I don't think Republicans are cheering his Fair Deal.
He's had plenty of nice things to say about FDR over the years.- Newt loves FDR?
How would intervention in China been any different from Korea other than the scale and level of monetary and manpower commitment's being much larger in China?
Imho, politicians are a lot less interested in changing the social structure of our country and much more interested in getting wealthy. People like Che believed in the movement, but he was not interested in wealth, he was interested in Revolution. Both Che and our leaders (democrats/republicans) do not mind taking lives along the way.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
