Skip to main content

View Diary: Jonathan Chait's new form of hippie-punching: Playing the 'GOP are not racists' card (182 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Idiots kvetching about 'political correctness' (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, Shawn87, a2nite

    ... fail to effectively or even credibly dispute the premise that the vast majority of its operative presumptions* are, in fact, "Correct."
    So people who say things which effectively are "politically incorrect," NEED to be attacked and their lives, if not destroyed (usually it's just too much trouble), seriously fucked up.

    It's not wrong -- it's great. Embrace it, enjoy it.

    *-1. Racism is bad.
    *-2. Sexism is bad.
    *-3. Homophobia is bad.
    *-4. Economic victimization is bad.
    *-5. Unchecked pollution and reckless depletion of natural resources in the pursuit of profit are bad.
    *-6. Denial of basic science is bad.

    •  Thanks for providing the answer to Armando (0+ / 0-)

      about where the radicals are who are more interested in the things I was talking about.

      It is a hallmark of radicalism of whatever stripe that it is far more interested in tearing things and people down than it is in building anything or anyone up.

      •  Radicals get shit done. In the 1950s-70s... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        a2nite, TiaRachel

        ... advancements in civil rights, environmental protection, women's rights, getting rid of Nixon and getting the hell out of Vietnam, did not happen because people held hands and sang around a campfire.

        Those things happened because The Powers That Be looked out the windows, saw hundreds of thousands of people marching in the streets, and they realized unless SOMETHING was done to address these problems those hundreds of thousands would very shortly be storming the White House and Capitol Hill.

        When you want something, there is no better way to get it than to make TPTB scared of what will happen if they don't give it to you.

        Too many kumbayah libs have forgotten this (or weren't around to see it first hand).

        •  Bull. The threat of violence is NOT what led (0+ / 0-)

          to change in the 50s through the 70s.

          Real power is about building coalitions of people toward a common cause or purpose and that's what happened, which then led the politicians to respond to the will of the people and change laws -- that is until the movement lost support because of increasing radicalism.

          Those kumbayah libs are exactly the people who effected change in those decades and it was the radicals who undermined it all.

          •  Actually, for the time period you are both (0+ / 0-)

            analyzing, I would say neither of you are wholly correct. Radicals in the 1950s would have to include people like MLK, after all, because he was out in the world leading marches, going to jail for what he believed, and advocating for new attitudes and laws from way outside the power structure. he built coalitions, but not from within the political realm. It was the televised violence against those groups that swayed the rest of the American public and the pols to begin advocating change. In the 1950s and 1960s, there were no "kumbayah libs", in office, at any rate. Liberalism was pretty much caught up in containment and violent international anti-communism and military interventionism. I can't quite picture LBJ singing with anyone, and he was instrumental in passing the most change-minded legislation since the New Deal.
            Violence by outsiders has had a fitful success rate in the US, unlike many other countries. It worked pre-New Deal, but not so much since WWII, as those in office worked to either accommodate (not accepting, but by reaching accords with those who might turn violent) or repress outsider violence.
            Radicals never "undermined" anything; the only undermining of any successes achieved was pursued solely by conservatives and Republicans (two groups rapidly becoming one.) The destruction of the postwar Democratic consensus had nothing to do with radical action per se, but instead a conservative and Republican reaction to legislation enacted as a result of radical action. Unless you want to believe that Nixon's "Law and Order" campaign rhetoric wasn't part of the "Southern Strategy", and I think you would have a tough time proving that. Dems may have been splintering, but they were whacked from the outside long before they had a chance to develop the kind of factions that can't work together at all. Yes, Chicago 1968 was ugly, but losing in November had less to do with Yippies not turning out for HHH than with southern soon-to-be Republicans voting for Nixon.

            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

            by bryduck on Mon Apr 14, 2014 at 09:27:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site