you. It's a ing cartoon.
Who is Ron Paul a front for?
That's your daydream. Just because you don't hear it, don't mean I'm not talking to you.
Ron Paul? that's maybe one, out of 535? And he of course has a HUGE INFLUENCE on Repug Congressional actions and legislation
"That's your daydream"
Seen any Repugs argue publicly with Rush Limbaugh lately?
Seen any Repugs express differences with RL and not then grovel before him in apology?
How many Repugs have failed the winguts' (which includes the NRA gun sicko fetishists) ideological purity test and had the electoral chances increased?
How many, if any, centrist Repugs are there?
I note you did not disqualify him but merely belittled his stature. Fair enough.
I don't listen to Rush. That's your daydream.
I ain't been keepin score. Have you?
In the northeast, a dwindling few, and a few more in the midwest. Sorta.
Or were those all rhetorical questions?
Too bad thats what the modern conservative movement is. I guess in the absence of reality and in the spirit of being "fair" you could ignore that. I don't expect that pointing out the parallels between the right's agenda and that of the Taliban or jihadists in general is going to please them but their displeasure alone doesn't make it false.
Its funny, because I'm pretty sure you would agree with many of the points he makes.
Did you really bring up Ron Paul in a discussion about modern conservatives? Ron Paul is far from the marker of a modern day conservative. You know this, so why even bring him up.
The modern day GOP is as described.
I disagree. It's an element, probably one that has already seen its high tide (under GWB.)Too bad thats what the modern conservative movement is.
Ron Paul is a US Congressman today. He is a modern conservative in a very basic sense.
One person out of millions does not make for an accurate representation of a movement no matter how much you like him or want him to be.
I will say this, Markos is an extremely passionate person who is very frustrated with the current situation in this country and that frustration comes through with passion in his writing. That leads to hyperbole and overextension but that doesn't make his underlying message accurate.
I didn't put him forward as representative of his party. I only said he was a conservative not obviously in hock to special interests. b_d asked for an example. I gave him one.
(You're way overreading this.)
No, it doesn't.
errr, inaccurate.
It's a correct description as far as it goes.
The danger of fundamentalism is overhyped and fundamentalism does not neatly overlap with self-described "conservative" voters.
It very much does. Visit "real" America and you'll find a value structure more progressive but assembled along the same lines as the Taliban. Given the choice those people would trample all over the bill of rights.
The best thing about that book was that it was based off polling data. Now, the that came from R2000 is probably bunk but its not the only data used. In any event, you'd be hard pressed to back up your claim on the voters.
It's a slanted focus. You could draw those parallels with the Baptist church, but that's not Markos' agenda.
btw...I notice it's convenient to conflate social conservatives with fiscal conservatism. Classically, the conservative movement has been concerned with the later. The GOP in no way, represents the conservative mindset except when Markos, or ostensibly, anyone else wants it to. It's a cheap parlor trick that yields cheap laughs but no substance.
So he's passionate and frustrated. Look out your window, Manny.
"parallels with the Baptist church"
There's a Baptist Taleban preacher in the South somewhere who's agitating against Yoga as unChristian.
So if the Repugs don't represent fiscal conservatism (eg, dubya taking the national debt from $5T to $10T without a wimper from the Repugs), who in elected positions represents conservatives?
If the conservatives have no elected representatives, why the does anybody care about such a feckless, politically useless ideology?
The GOP has been co-opted by the neo-con, social conservatives. Fiscal conservatism is nothing more than a balsa wood plank in the GOP platform....much like the Democratic Party has been reduced to nothing more than pandering centrists....a trait both parties possess in spades. In either party you have your outliers, but the bell curve is a ."parallels with the Baptist church"
There's a Baptist Taleban preacher in the South somewhere who's agitating against Yoga as unChristian.
So if the Repugs don't represent fiscal conservatism (eg, dubya taking the national debt from $5T to $10T without a wimper from the Repugs), who in elected positions represents conservatives?
If the conservatives have no elected representatives, why the does anybody care about such a feckless, politically useless ideology?
The GOP absolutely represents the conservative mindset as accepted by mainstream America. You're absolutely correct in that its not the "true" conservative that was around in the past (also known as a classic liberal) but it is what it is today.
I'm not denying that Markos has a political agenda and his book is framed in that light. But that doesn't mean what he points out is false.
That is the bottom line.
Conservative in modern politics refers to the people who identify themselves that way which is the GOP and their cons uency. That they focus on social issues which a classic liberal would not focus on does not mean that they are referenced as conservatives in today's world.
Exactly, hence my characterization as "Co-Opted".
Watch the Tea Party do exactly the same thing.
But Markos isn't writing about classic liberals - he's writing about the GOP. What he writes is just flat out valid. He definitely exaggerates and that undoubtedly makes him less effective in reaching certain audiences but what he writes is at its core very very real. The difference in degree is real (GOP wants to reduce gay rights, for instance, but doesn't want to behead them as the Taliban does) but I think the point to be made is how similar their reasoning can be even if their implementation differs.
And yes, the Tea Party will do the exact same thing because while there may be a small core of conservatives who are actually fiscally conservative and smart enough to understand what classic liberalism is and how it should be implemented the vast majority of people who associate themselves with the tea party movement do not and have different motivations.
What I learned from the Obama election was that people are satisfied with winning and don't really care what comes afterwards. In fact, maybe I should have realized this before but I didn't and I now consider this the most important factor in modern American politics. Its not the actual legislation that is pissing off the Tea Party movement but the fact that they lost in the previous election. On the flipside, progressives for the most part aren't motivated because they just won and even though they should be motivated given the political situation they just don't care. However, if the GOP takes over they will rebound and have much more voter enthusiasm come the next set of elections. It all goes to reinforce how elections are almost a sport in this country.
Its sad because elections are all that seem to matter to the vast majority of the cons uency when really it should be all about the governing. Americans just love a scoreboard though.
"people are satisfied with winning and don't really care what comes afterwards."
You Fail your lesson.
People who elected Magic Negro were naively expecting that there would be change. Silly buggers.
I never expected any change except Repugs would no longer be running the show. So I'm disappointed that change has been so small (health care and financial reform aren't trivial, but unavoidably too weakened and co-opted by Business), but not surprised.
What will never change is that The Business of America is Business, and Business owns the government, no matter which party is in power.
Hasn't this whole thread been about the dumbing down of America?
Besides, do you think if you busted out that 'bon mot' at the local pub that a good number would understand the reference?
There's only a limited amount of time we all have WH23. We haven't all taken the same courses you have.
Well, for this (mostly) progressive voter, I'm only voting for those who backed up the civil liberties issues that piss me off. The rest I don't care about.
And how conservatism made me this way, yes.Hasn't this whole thread been about the dumbing down of America?
I only hoped to extend the conversation. Besides, at my local pub somebody would've had a comeback.
Most people go to college. My casual contact with sociology was neither unusual nor very deep.There's only a limited amount of time we all have WH23. We haven't all taken the same courses you have.
"Most people go to college" what?
Most people go to college
In the US, I believe a bare majority does.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote