Modern American conservatism is simultaneously evil and insane

[bascule]

Hello. I haven't posted in these forums for some time, partly because I've recently become too busy to spend time forum whoring, and partially due to my frustration with the moderation of the Politics forum, a frustration which echoes the frustration I feel with American conservatives in general. Now that election season draws near I thought maybe I'd stop by and share some of my thoughts.

 

So let's start with a local republican candidate for state senate. There's posters for him everywhere. It confused the hell out of me... why do so many local businesses and residents want a Republican candidate? Then I actually read about him... he's pretty cool, albeit a bit of a loon, but hey, he doesn't immediately offend me. However, he is not the norm. Elsewhere in my local political sphere, the Tea Party totally backfired on the Republicans. The Good Ol' Boy candidate, Scott McInnis, who got his start as the Congressman from my childhood home district, lost out to the crazy Tea Party candidate, Dan Maes, this despite McInnis spending over an order of magnitude than Maes on his campaign. Maes managed to rally a grassroots movement of people who I probably shouldn't refer to as "ass stupid retarded inbred hicks", but well, there it is. The situation is worsened because the second pick for the traditional Republicans, Tom Tancredo, decided to run as an independent, splitting the conservative vote between Maes and Tancredo and assuring victory for the Democratic candidate, Denver mayor John Hickenlooper.

 

There seems to be a huge group of people out there who have a very different perspective on the problems this nation has been facing since the change of guard to Obama. These people aren't necessarily racist, but people who ignored the many gigantic problems occurring under the Bush administration but started paying attention to them after Obama took power and conservative pundits started drilling these problems into people's heads, perhaps in the case of one Glenn Beck weaving an elaborate conspiracy about how the Democrats are to do all sorts of things they would really probably never ever do. Rock on, Tea Party! Jon Stewart describes the continuing reinforcement of the narrative-driven conservative media such as Fox News as "manufactured reality". Obama recently came down on it as "yellow journalism". I'd call it evil. News Corporation recently gave the Republicans $1 million. I don't think there can be any debate at this point that Fox News is anything more than an arm of the Republican party.

 

While the Tea Party may backfire in cases like Maes, overall it's part of a general movement that's succeeding to bring Republicans back into power. It really sickens me. The Republicans succeeded in restoring the interest of their base by being party (pardon my pun) to a hysteria-inducing screamfest of truly "biased" journalism. And while there are the simpletons who really don't understand the larger issues, there are the people who do understand what's going on but are still driving it on or deliberately manipulating it. The first line of defense is the constant equivocation... Fox is no worse than CNN! On top of the manufactured reality collectively put forth by the Republicans, there's a constant meta-narrative that tries to reenforce that what's going on is ok. Equivocate equivocate equivocate. Pass blame! Problems created by Bush were created by Obama! Democrats are spending like crazy and the deficit is insane and it's all their fault! People fear all of this crazy shit that's not really happening, and they vote!

 

What can possibly save us from this insanity?

 

Well what ho, out of the collective consciousness of the Internet a meme sprung up on the Reddit web site, asking Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert to have a DC rally. And so they did, and we have the Rally to Restore Sanity. I'm excited to see what becomes of the media attention this rally will draw, and whether any of that will filter down to people who may have bought into the manufactured reality. We'll see!

 

Think of our event as Woodstock' date=' but with the nudity and drugs replaced by respectful disagreement; the Million Man March, only a lot smaller, and a bit less of a sausage fest; or the Gathering of the Juggalos, but instead of throwing our feces at Tila Tequila, we'll be actively not throwing our feces at Tila Tequila[/quote']

[cypress]

Why do you assume these Americans are confused? Perhaps the confusion is with you.

 

What bothers you more, that many Americans are growing impatient with inability of progressive policies to improve the economy or that these same Americans don't seem to care for the policies after all?

[lemur]

Maes managed to rally a grassroots movement of people who I probably shouldn't refer to as "ass stupid retarded inbred hicks", but well, there it is.

 

As long as people use this kind of language, there's going to continue to be the liberal-bashing and other counter-attacks from the right that make politics an annoying battle of egos and social status instead of a reasonable discussion of potential policies.

[iNow]

Oh... FFS. Can we all grow up a little bit and get over avoiding comment on content because of some ridiculous offense at the fact that harsh words are sometimes used when frustrated and exaxperated? You act like Bascule just urinated on your child because he called a group of uneducated voters "ass stupid retarded inbred hicks." Quit being such a thin skinned wuss and try responding to the core of what he said.

 

 

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/09/watch_your_language_young_lady.php

 

But I also think those critics are all wrong. They tend to focus on a few four-letter words and an angry tone that some of us exhibit, and overlook the content. And it's the content of the message that matters. I just ran across a discussion of real problematic language from the right wingers, and I think it puts everything in perspective.

 

Here's one example, from the odious Ann Coulter. Now whenever Coulter is brought up here, there will always be a few pathetic jokes made about how she's a man, she has an adam's apple, stupid stuff like that, but I can also always rely on the commentariat here to slap those down promptly. She's a woman, OK? A tall, slender woman, and physically she's not unattractive (psychologically, though, she's a horror), and it's annoying to see her targeted for her sex. But guess what? Ann Coulter doesn't mind doing a little stereotyping of her own.

 

My pretty-girl allies stick out like a sore thumb amongst the corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons they call "women" at the Democratic National Convention.

 

Notice that she used no profanity, and that you can scrutinize each word independently and find nothing that a good Christian could object to. Put them all together, though, and what you've got is an obscenity far nastier than anything said here.

 

---

 

Hello. I haven't posted in these forums for some time, partly because I've recently become too busy to spend time forum whoring, and partially due to my frustration with the moderation of the Politics forum, a frustration which echoes the frustration I feel with American conservatives in general. Now that election season draws near I thought maybe I'd stop by and share some of my thoughts.

It's nice seeing you around, but FYI - Things have only gotten worse here. People are not even held accountable for supporting their assertions with evidence any more.

[Pangloss]

Good to see you back, bascule! Been too quiet around here!

 

You mentioned being excited about Jon Stewart's upcoming rally -- I agree. Though in my opinion Jon Stewart would react to these statements...

 

ass stupid retarded inbred hicks

 

I'd call it evil.

 

... by saying that you should take it down a notch too. He's spent almost as much time recently criticizing left-wing reactionary politics as he has on criticizing the right. On the night he announced the rally he held up a sign that read "I am not afraid of Muslims/Tea Partiers/Socialists/immigrants/gun owners/ gays — But I am afraid of spiders." (source) If you look at that list, it seems to indicate two items aimed at the left.

 

Then he held up this sign:

 

 

... or evil?

 

In fact, just as Glenn Beck makes the GOP nervous, I think Jon Stewart has a similar impact on Democratic leadership, which has taken quite a pasting from The Daily Show over the last 18 months.

 

My two bits anyway.

[padren]

I won't use the word evil - that may be too far, but I'm certainly thinking it. The problem I see is that I don't know how to look at modern conservatism and address the manipulation, lying, hypocrisy, cognitive dissonance, fear mongering, and blatantly self serving agendas of what appears to be the "spearhead" of the current movement without using harsh and perhaps insulting terminology. I am equally put off when democrats do it such as the "Taliban Dan" quote that Jon Stewart points out, but if I focus overly on the conservative side it's because it dwarfs the intensity of the other side.

 

Liberals should be held to account for their own dirty tricks but it's like they are throwing firecrackers at old ladies when the conservatives are burning down whole city blocks.

 

 

Maybe I am just incredibly jaded but when people can just invent whatever narrative they want, reality be damned, call it news then cite the news as a source and manipulate millions of voters it's a serious problem. I'm not suggesting they don't have the right to free speech or should be silenced in any way but this is a real problem. As a left leaner I know I have a sampling bias too, but things have gotten crazy on orders of magnitude larger than I can blame on that. It was a comforting idea to say "well both sides are bad, that side just irks me more" for many years but I have given up on the idea that is equivocal. I have to believe my eyes and say it's gotten destructive, dangerous, and it's absolutely the right that are manufacturing the problem. Where liberals have dabbled in dirt conservatives have built an industry.

 

 

I don't care if people call Obama a Kenyan plant, a socialist, a Muslim or Hitler. What bothers me is that there is an entire industry in place to make sure that when they do, people will believe them.

It's sick, it stinks, and it's a game that the right has taken, reinvented and industrialized.

 

 

If I thought the people who were mixing the cool-aid were also drinking it I wouldn't call it evil, just misguided. I can't believe that though, because the narrative changes gears so quickly and so ubiquitously you'd never know we were ever at war with Eastasia. It's too fast and too polished not to be deliberate. Genuine ignorance moves and shifts in a much more organic and sloppy manner.

 

 

I really do hope the "take it down a notch" mentality prevails, and I certainly have no interest in supporting representatives that throw around incendiary terminology because I do believe it's counter productive. I would like to see conservatives and liberals alike come to the conclusion that their concerns are better conveyed for debate and discussion within the democratic political process then their representatives don't operate in a manner largely indistinguishable from works of evil.

 

 

PS: Good to see you both around Bascule, iNow, I always appreciate both of your posts.

Edited October 1, 2010 by padren

[swansont]

Oh... FFS. Can we all grow up a little bit and get over avoiding comment on content because of some ridiculous offense at the fact that harsh words are sometimes used when frustrated and exaxperated? You act like Bascule just urinated on your child because he called a group of uneducated voters "ass stupid retarded inbred hicks." Quit being such a thin skinned wuss and try responding to the core of what he said.

 

 

I think that the another view is that you can exchange the same information without the invective. Especially on a forum, where the message is written, and can be edited before submission.

 

Can we all get over avoiding comment on content because of some offense at the fact that harsh words are sometimes used when frustrated and exasperated? Try responding to the core of what he said.

[D H]

The title of bascule's thread is vulgar and derogatory. The core of what bascule said was vulgar and derogatory.

 

He is not taking it down a notch. I recommend this thread by closed.

[jackson33]

Since, I also am happy to see bascule posting here again and feel he and several others are articulating the viewpoints of a good share of Americans on political issues (though I disagree on most), would strongly advise judging the content of his post as anything other than honest personal opinion. What frustrates me more than anything in political debate, are half baked opinions to cater to or from the persons true feelings.

 

DH; IMO bascule uses a self defined meaning for "Conservatism" and another for Progressivism/Liberal/Socialist or any other word used to oppose Conservatism itself. My own is really quite simple, Conservatism is the pursuit of a Constitutional Government, State Control of all things agreed to in 1788, a small Federal involvement in anything not delegated to them. It has worked to get the US to the point is was (pick your date, I'd suggest 1965) and can well into the future.

 

I would adamantly oppose the locking of the returning thread offered by a member whom has displayed nothing else but true emotion, which is no less American than that of my own opinions. If you or the "staff" want something to consider, you might notice the increased number of people using the post rating (rep points) to enhance their arguments, which can only lead to folks just leaving your forum.

 

bascule; I'm a little short of time today, but are you sure, in your mind, that the direction of Governments (State/Federal) are favorable to the future of the US, the people/States right to chart their own course in life and most importantly the economical/financial stability of this nation or in fact any nation (comparable in the US to a State). Anyway welcome back....

[Pangloss]

The opening post does not violate any forum rules. Also, please direct complaints about a post to administration by using the Report button rather than a public comment. Thanks.

[iNow]

While the Tea Party may backfire in cases like Maes, overall it's part of a general movement that's succeeding to bring Republicans back into power. It really sickens me. The Republicans succeeded in restoring the interest of their base by being party (pardon my pun) to a hysteria-inducing screamfest of truly "biased" journalism. And while there are the simpletons who really don't understand the larger issues, there are the people who do understand what's going on but are still driving it on or deliberately manipulating it. The first line of defense is the constant equivocation... Fox is no worse than CNN! On top of the manufactured reality collectively put forth by the Republicans, there's a constant meta-narrative that tries to reenforce that what's going on is ok. Equivocate equivocate equivocate. Pass blame! Problems created by Bush were created by Obama! Democrats are spending like crazy and the deficit is insane and it's all their fault! People fear all of this crazy shit that's not really happening, and they vote!

 

What can possibly save us from this insanity?

Maybe democracy itself is the problem. Voting sucks when large portions of the people doing it are deluded paste eaters, and we remove the power of the propaganda if we remove the power from those who are influenced by it. How would you feel about some sort of a benevolent dictatorship, taking as given that some guidelines exist that the position be granted only based on merit instead of a vote?

 

I'm just putting this out there to get the thread somewhat back on track. It should be noted that I have not yet expressed my own opinion on the suggestion, and also that I would like to hear from others on the question.

[bascule]

Well hello all you responders. Let me respond to you!

 

Why do you assume these Americans are confused? Perhaps the confusion is with you.

 

You don't understand me. There's no confusion. These Americans are simultaneously ignorant and deliberately mislead.

 

As long as people use this kind of language, there's going to continue to be the liberal-bashing...

 

If there is a specific inaccuracy in what I'm saying please specifically address it. Until then you're a hand-waving substanceless airbag.

 

He's spent almost as much time recently criticizing left-wing reactionary politics as he has on criticizing the right.

 

Hi Pangloss, good to see you again. But you are equivocating (which upon review of my previous post you might gather is something I despise), and no, Jon Stewart does not spend "almost as much time" criticizing the left as he does the right. Really, that's not the case. He really does have a bone to pick, and in your terms, he spends an awful lot of time criticizing "the right", and in my opinion, he is well grounded in his criticisms, especially of the right-wing Republican mouthpiece that is Fox.

 

I think that the another view is that you can exchange the same information without the invective. Especially on a forum, where the message is written, and can be edited before submission.

 

Hi swansont. Normally I respect what you have to say, but not now. The other side is in full force, and they have no substance, only invective. A fear of invective is what is giving them a platform. They have no platform except fear. There is no substance to the conservative argument at this point in time. They are not running on a platform of substance. They are running on a platform of fear and attribution, except the problems they instill fear about were created by other republicans. I understand your insistence on an even-handed approach. That's what a rational person such as yourself would do. However politics is anything but rational. These people need to be called out for what they are, a bunch of evil, lying manipulators.

 

The title of bascule's thread is vulgar and derogatory. The core of what bascule said was vulgar and derogatory. He is not taking it down a notch. I recommend this thread by closed.

 

Hi D H. Thanks for injecting the typical conservative reaction. SILENCE THE INFIDEL! Mmmmmkay. Yes that is how conservatives typically react, by rebuking what their opponents say for the simple fact they disagree, and in the worst cases labeling it sedition and actively trying to suppress it.

 

I think such actions are vulgar and derogatory and humbly ask you rescind your position and instead favor open discourse even if you find the subject mater offensive. Sorry to say, but to do any less makes you an anti-free speech nazi. Not to invoke Godwin's Law...

 

DH; IMO bascule uses a self defined meaning for "Conservatism" and another for Progressivism/Liberal/Socialist or any other word used to oppose Conservatism itself. My own is really quite simple, Conservatism is the pursuit of a Constitutional Government, State Control of all things agreed to in 1788, a small Federal involvement in anything not delegated to them. It has worked to get the US to the point is was (pick your date, I'd suggest 1965) and can well into the future.

 

jackson33, I don't refer to conservatism in its pure sense, which is the sense you seem to regard it in. Rather, I am referring to it in a practical sense, namely how the large majority of Americans who self-identify as conservative regard it. You clearly hold libertarian values, which I respect, and equate those with conservatism. But for the majority of American conservatives, this is not their viewpoint, and I can only address conservatives as the exist today. Perhaps you'd be better off branding your viewpoints as libertarianism instead of conservatism, at least for accuracy within the American political climate.

 

It's nice seeing you around, but FYI - Things have only gotten worse here.

 

That certainly seems to be the case. I'm just being chastised without any contextual concern for what's happening to America. I weep for my country. I'm very much concerned that idiots are going to vote liars into power.

 

Not since the Civil War has the country been this polarized, and yet the opposition to those who would move the country forward is no less ignorant or evil. These people really need to be stopped, re-educated, or removed from the political process. Their say in the governance of this country is having a deleterious effect. Their opinions are not educated and deliberately manipulated by the likes of Fox. Something must be done.

Edited October 2, 2010 by bascule

[Pangloss]

He really does have a bone to pick, and in your terms, he spends an awful lot of time criticizing "the right", and in my opinion, he is well grounded in his criticisms, especially of the right-wing Republican mouthpiece that is Fox.

 

Sure, I agree with that. I have no issue with your point in general. I don't entirely agree with the degree of your expression (though I do share it to some extent!), but I do think that what you're saying is largely true. There are some detrimental people pushing some very bad buttons on the right these days. I am also concerned that if they win in November they're going to see it as a conservative mandate, just as many Democrats thought their rise was a progressive mandate. I have seen very little sign that the GOP has "wised-up", as Bill O'Reilly might say.

 

I think also perhaps some of our newer members are less familiar with your history here and don't know that you've taken conservative positions, e.g. gun ownership, and expressed support for some conservatives at various times. IMO this speaks to your general objectivity, albeit admittedly from my skewed centrism-uber-alles perspective.

[Mr Skeptic]

Just because invectives and name-calling are used by our presidential candidates nowadays, doesn't mean we need to stoop to their level. Have some dignity people!

[swansont]

 

Hi swansont. Normally I respect what you have to say, but not now. The other side is in full force, and they have no substance, only invective. A fear of invective is what is giving them a platform. They have no platform except fear. There is no substance to the conservative argument at this point in time. They are not running on a platform of substance. They are running on a platform of fear and attribution, except the problems they instill fear about were created by other republicans. I understand your insistence on an even-handed approach. That's what a rational person such as yourself would do. However politics is anything but rational. These people need to be called out for what they are, a bunch of evil, lying manipulators.

 

 

Allow me to clarify and reiterate. It can be done without the invective, but that's not to say that it is being done without the invective, out in the world. However, in our little corner of the internet, I think there is less of a need to resort to such tactics, and less of an excuse to blame it on the heat of the moment, when you can take an additional moment to review what you have written (as opposed to e.g. someone speaking "live"). Here, our goal is to try and make the extra attempt to be rational. I was commenting on iNow's contribution, which makes the important point that there will be people who focus on the language rather than the message. But recognizing that this is true, why not make the extra effort to make sure that the message is clear, and without the distraction of problematic language? It also makes the important point that it's also incumbent on each of us to step past the language on occasion, and focus on the message. By all means, call them out for being evil, lying manipulators. I just think that, in addition to my earlier example, "These Americans are simultaneously ignorant and deliberately mislead" is going to facilitate a better discussion here than calling them "ass stupid retarded inbred hicks." (Which is not a prediction of any sort, seeing as the sidetracking effects has already happened)

[jackson33]

That certainly seems to be the case. I'm just being chastised without any contextual concern for what's happening to America. I weep for my country. I'm very much concerned that idiots are going to vote liars into power.[/Quote]

 

bascule; It's difficult to understand how or why you feel your being chastised, while making your return post/thread a general condemnation of the American System and frankly Americans, yet received several warm "welcoming return" comments.

 

As for those "idiots" and those they are likely to vote into Congressional Power next month, it could not and would not have happened, without the extreme misuse of power shown, with the convergence of a Progressive/Liberal Executive and Legislative Branch just 20 months ago. As for actual lies (opposed to possible), do you really want me to mention those attributed to Polosi, Reid or the Administration, not to mention the dozens of representatives swept into congress as conservative, yet voting anything but....

 

Not since the Civil War has the country been this polarized, and yet the opposition to those who would move the country forward is no less ignorant or evil. These people really need to be stopped, re-educated, or removed from the political process. Their say in the governance of this country is having a deleterious effect. Their opinions are not educated and deliberately manipulated by the likes of Fox. Something must be done. [/Quote]

 

I'd suggest Obama is the polarizing factor, but to be politically correct, I'll say the Administration which has encouraged a fast track to socialization of the US Government and Economical System.

Your comments appear to border armed revolt of what I'm sure you feel is a minority Conservative electorate, one that for factors like Fox News, are actually reading the US Constitution and is now questioning the direction of their Country. World Social Order or Justice are admirable ideas and possibly in 3-500 years may be achievable, but we are a long way from anything close.

 

I would be particularly interested in an answer, from your perspective to the question asked by iNow;

 

How would you feel about some sort of a benevolent dictatorship, taking as given that some guidelines exist that the position be granted only based on merit instead of a vote?[/Quote]

 

I've honestly been discussing American Politics since the 50's (Truman a Tie Salesman) and am well aware of the Socialist/Communist movements before then, but this is the first time I've ever seen this type a comment actually mentioned, then from a person actually from TEXAS. It would surprise me, but is this anything close to what your desiring for the US.

 

iNow; Out of curiosity and since you believe this is in order of the threads intent, would you please offer a comparable example of a benevolent dictatorship, that has EVER existed or how your utopian country, would operate? While I can't even connect the two words with a meaning, I'm sure in the tribal form of governance, something like this was possible until a less benevolent tribe took over, but in a Nation made up of 50 Sovereign States, thousands of local Governments and independent NEEDS with 310 Million people living under an established agreement (Constitution), it sounds either terribly destructive to the society or an invitation to violent rebellion.

[mississippichem]

Bascule, as far as Fox News being an arm of the Republican party, I agree.

But I wouldn't put much stock in your example about the campaign contributions:

 

Politico Article

 

Does this make BP an extension of the Democratic Party? My point being that often times corporations make campaign contributions for reasons which are not always apparent. BP would be thought by many to have an ideology quite different from that of President Obama.

I'm not saying that Fox News made their contribution with some ulterior motive, I'm just saying let's be careful not to jump to any conclusion. There could be a dirtier reason; or not!?

 

I agree with 99% of your statements concerning Fox, but I have beef with your Democratic congressional spending comments:

 

...Democrats are spending like crazy and the deficit is insane and it's all their fault! People fear all of this crazy shit that's not really happening, and they vote!

 

Look, I consider myself Libertarian, so I would also contest much of the Bush spending; but one can't deny that the recent spending by the Dem. majority congress has been outrageous. I'm even okay with some Keynesian economics, but Keynes rolled over in his grave because of the recent stimulus bill!

The stimulus plan was built on solid principles, but the logistics of how it was executed are ignorant at best. A large portion of the money was spread out over the next few years which negates the purpose of said stimulus [to inflate our way out of recession]. Also, much of the money was spent on public incentives with low or negative multipliers. All the social welfare spending, along with the health care massacre, is not doing much if anything to stimulate job growth, or to tighten monetary policy. The phrase "jobless-recovery", conveniently coined by the administration is an insult to my intelligence. What is a recovery then? So we are left with an egregious amount of debt, a "jobless-recovery?" facing rampant tax hikes in a time of low market activity, and might I add that Gitmo is still operational?

My problem lies in the amount of spending compared to the amount of progress. I wouldn't mind the spending as much if it all wasn't for petty political gain.

Even many liberals are angry at the lack of real progress. It seems that all our money has been spent for absolutely no gain.

Edited October 2, 2010 by mississippichem

[cypress]

I'd suggest Obama is the polarizing factor, but to be politically correct, I'll say the Administration which has encouraged a fast track to socialization of the US Government and Economical System.

 

I tend to agree. It seems the voting populace is reacting to prevent a continuation of the administrations policies which they seem to oppose rather than being misled. I suppose it was ignorant of the voters that many didn't recognize what they were getting in voting for this administration in the first place.

[Mr Skeptic]

I tend to agree. It seems the voting populace is reacting to prevent a continuation of the administrations policies which they seem to oppose rather than being misled. I suppose it was ignorant of the voters that many didn't recognize what they were getting in voting for this administration in the first place.

 

But how ignorant are the voters, really? I voted for the third party candidate because my vote wouldn't count for the election anyways (NY was essentially guaranteed to the Democrats). Other people voted for one of the two big jokers. Or against one of the two big jokers. The real ignorance is that we allow ourselves to end up with two people one of whom will be president, when neither of those two are worthy. That we then select one or the other of the two isn't where the ignorance part comes in.

[A Tripolation]

Living where I do, and I hate to say this because it sounds so elitist, but many people around here are TEA-partyists. They believe all the misleading statements fed to them. They do not bother digging up the truths themselves. But like some posters have already states, they were initially against many "socialist" aspects of Obama's agenda to begin with.

[iNow]

iNow; Out of curiosity and since you believe this is in order of the threads intent, would you please offer a comparable example of a benevolent dictatorship, that has EVER existed or how your utopian country, would operate?

Sure thing. Singapore. It's a pretty ridiculously fantastic country, and I'm speaking from experience. I only returned home from there last week.

[padren]

I'd suggest Obama is the polarizing factor, but to be politically correct, I'll say the Administration which has encouraged a fast track to socialization of the US Government and Economical System.

Your comments appear to border armed revolt of what I'm sure you feel is a minority Conservative electorate, one that for factors like Fox News, are actually reading the US Constitution and is now questioning the direction of their Country. World Social Order or Justice are admirable ideas and possibly in 3-500 years may be achievable, but we are a long way from anything close.

 

First, what policies has Obama engaged in that actually surprised anyone? On a range from "no change at all" to "campaign promise" he has managed to float somewhere in the middle. He was elected to push a more socialized solution for healthcare, and he passed a watered down one that is better than "no change at all" but sure didn't live up to the promise of a public option. He's pulled combat troops from Iraq but we still have DADT.

However, I haven't seen any sign of him doing anything "radically polarizing" unless you count doing what he was elected to do and not even most of that an outrageous abuse of our electoral system.

[cypress]

But how ignorant are the voters, really? I voted for the third party candidate because my vote wouldn't count for the election anyways (NY was essentially guaranteed to the Democrats). Other people voted for one of the two big jokers. Or against one of the two big jokers. The real ignorance is that we allow ourselves to end up with two people one of whom will be president, when neither of those two are worthy. That we then select one or the other of the two isn't where the ignorance part comes in.

 

 

Well yes, true enough. You can only work with the hands you are dealt. As you note, if the majority of either or both parties offer up candidates that are less than stellar as occurred, then fault for that simply regresses.

[lemur]

Living where I do, and I hate to say this because it sounds so elitist, but many people around here are TEA-partyists. They believe all the misleading statements fed to them. They do not bother digging up the truths themselves. But like some posters have already states, they were initially against many "socialist" aspects of Obama's agenda to begin with.

 

I don't think there are many people who don't believe most of the misleading discourse they consume. There are simply so many layers of BS that most people dig through one or two and believe the third one because it seems distinct from the other BS they dug through to get to it. People who support the left are as vulnerable or more so than those for the right, imo, simply because they are more prone to trusting government than distrusting it the way republicans do by definition.

Edited October 3, 2010 by lemur

[iNow]

Look, I consider myself Libertarian, so I would also contest much of the Bush spending; but one can't deny that the recent spending by the Dem. majority congress has been outrageous. I'm even okay with some Keynesian economics, but Keynes rolled over in his grave because of the recent stimulus bill!

Perhaps because it was not as large as it should have been to counter the huge problem we faced? The only rolling in that particular burial ground is surely more aligned with my description than yours.

 

 

All the social welfare spending, along with the health care massacre, is not doing much if anything to stimulate job growth, or to tighten monetary policy.

The healthcare bill was meant to address issues in healthcare, not job growth or monetary policy.

 

 

So we are left with an egregious amount of debt, a "jobless-recovery?" facing rampant tax hikes in a time of low market activity, and might I add that Gitmo is still operational?

Unless you make more than $250K per year, you will not see tax increases. The hikes you mention impact only the richest top 1% of the country, and even there most impact only the top 1 tenth of 1 percent. See the Bush Tax Cuts thread for evidence in support of this assertion.

 

 

Even many liberals are angry at the lack of real progress. It seems that all our money has been spent for absolutely no gain.

There have been gains, though. Try to avoid phrasing things in absolutist terms or you become immediately wrong... Always... All the time. ;-)