Daily Kos

Run For Your Lives, Conservatives – the Populists Are Coming To Get You!

Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:41:27 PM PDT

Conservatism is anti-American.

That’s right. I said it.

But don’t take my word for it; ask conservatives themselves.

They’ll tell you straight out.

That towering colossus of intellectual rigor, Jonah Goldberg, puts it out there, and openly says what most conservatives believe in their hearts but dare not say in the public sphere (emphasis mine):

David Frum has an interesting column on the limits of populism and the upside of elitism. These are two of my favorite themes. And since Huckabee seems to be a champion of the former and a foe of the latter, I thought (in the spirit of bloggy self-promotion) I’d call attention to one of my broadsides against populism and one of my defenses of elitism.

   Regardless, I agree with David that populism is a useful and healthy passion when aimed at the liberal elite. But conservatives can get drunk on it when they proclaim that elites are bad simply because they are elites. Conservatives respect authority — the authority of ideas, traditions, morals, religion, customs, reason, law, excellence and so on. One cannot believe in this kind of authority while having a blanket hostility to elitism in any form.

The privileged son of Lucianne "Linda Tripp" Goldberg, a lifelong suckler at the conservative ‘wingnut welfare’ teat, is only echoing the tenets of the neoconservative movement, as articulated in the ideas of political philosopher Leo Strauss of the Chicago School of Economics. The basic idea is that the ‘masses’ must be controlled by the imposition of religion, authority and morality, for the sake of social stability, but that the ‘elites’ – meaning the conservative intellectuals – need not be bound by those pedestrian ideas, which are only needed to keep the rabble controllable. The fact (to them) that there really is no overriding morality would be too much for the feeble-minded public to handle without descending into anarchy and chaos, but intellectual giants such as themelves are rugged enough to withstand the mental turbulence. This means, of course, that they believe in a two-tiered morality for society – one for the ‘masses’ and one for the ‘elites’ – which, conveniently enough, always seem to include themselves! There’s nothing they like better than to sit around on their not-inconsiderable behinds and tell other people to go out and fight and die in wars that they would not for a second get personally involved in. Because, you see, it’s good for the 'little people'. Builds character and backbone. And war also presents many fine punditry and scholarly opportunities for themselves, as well as marvelous opportunities to brush aside those inconvenient and pesky notions of ‘democracy’ and ‘civil rights’ that the little people insist on yammering about. Not to mention that the warmongering (which they have no need to physically participate in, thank you!) is their method of choice to establish the United States as the lone superpower in the world, with the rest of the world our cowering subjects.

The core dimensions of conservative ideology, which according to a study analyzing 50 years’ worth of research on the conservative personality called "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition," are acceptance of inequality and resistance to change. Neoconservatism departs from the second definition in its radical approach to imposing its vision on the rest of the country, but the ‘acceptance of inequality’ is the linchpin that binds all lines of conservatism together and differentiates them from liberalism.

‘Acceptance of inequality’ – if I had to pick only one description of the difference between the liberal and conservative outlook, this is the one I’d choose. Every conservative thought, conservative feeling, conservative policy, can be boiled down to its essence here. "There have to be poor people so there can be rich people, and that’s only natural – just as long as it’s not me!" The conservative outlook is hierarchical in nature. They really don’t believe ‘all are created equal.’ They believe that ‘some are more equal than others.’ There have to be losers in order for there to be winners. And to try to work towards everyone being winners is just plain wrong – even immoral.

Immoral – just like those pinko Founding Fathers.

Somehow, conservatives seem to have missed the message about America. America’s vision is a liberal vision, a progressive vision. The people who refused to accept the yoke of tyranny and the idea that God had placed some people above others were the people who fought for a radical new form of government – democracy of the people, by the people and for the people. The idea that all people are created equal was shocking and unheard-of. But the idea of God-given authority of a chosen few over the powerless many – this was the status quo. Acceptance of inequality and resistance to change. Back then, the Revolutionaries were progressive, and the Royalists were conservative. And it continues to this day.

Conservatives vehemently oppose anything so democratic, so American, as ‘populism’. The idea that the ‘rank and file’ should decide how they are governed is anathema to these people. That’s why they are becoming unglued at the very whiff of populism in their own ranks, as can be seen in the way that the Chattering Teeth in the conservative punditry are descending upon evangelical science-hater Mike Huckabee like a school of underfed pirhanas for even whispering about economic inequality and the problems of the working man, even when the rest of his message is everything the Religious Right could ask for. Bad enough that John Edwards is calling out the greedmeisters. That’s to be expected – he’s a left-wing lunatic. But one of their own? Heresy!

Well, guess what, conservatives? The populists are coming to get you!

You can run, but you can’t hide. We do not ‘accept inequality.’ And we are eager for change. America’s vision will not be denied forever. The economic and social Royalists and their sovereign, King George, have had their way long enough. If the definition of freedom is ‘nothing left to lose’, then we’re almost there. You’ve taken just about all there is to take.

And that’s a dangerous place to be in.

Run, conservatives, run for your lives!

The populists are coming!

Tags: populism, conservatism, liberalism, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, psychology, Rescued (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 88 comments

  •  Would you say? (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Avila, hoolia, kyril

    The time is ripe for a third party? A sort of green technological agrarian renaissance type of political party, organized online, around a platform and not a personality? I do.

    Depending on the outcome of this primary season, we're either going to have to retool a bit and really press hard over the next four years (Democrat elected) to see that the people are heard or (Republican elected) stockpile armament.

    Something has got to break the hold of these two parties and their corporate sponsors on this country. Whether that comes from within or without isn't so important to me right now, as long as it comes before the freaking stormtroopers.

    I am rapidly turning away from this business here and thinking about what the post-America world looks like. With these clowns in power, it just can't hurt.

    T.

    •  "populism is a useful and healthy passion when (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Bulldawg, snakelass, Cartoon Peril

      aimed at the liberal elite."

      Boy is that statement telling especially on this blog lately.

      "Time is for careful people, not passionate ones"

      by roseeriter on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 03:23:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  someone suggested the name "New Democratic Party" (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Bulldawg

      for a project of that sort.

      There are reasons to believe that the Democratic Party is going to sink before 2012 regardless of who gets nominated, starting with mandatory purchase of junk private health insurance posing as a "national health plan". I think HRC would take the party down fastest and hardest, but that's just my opinion.

      I think the progressive movement is going to need a lifeboat before 2012 and perhaps sooner.

      A party who gets people to vote it into total control of the Beltway for the purpose of change and delivers for K Street instead is going to see it's name turned to radioactive mud no matter how much support they get from the media and from corporate donors. Pork awarded to corporations is no longer coming from our hides, it's our internal organs and I doubt it will take even the low information voter a year to realize that what they are getting is NOT what they voted for.

      It's time for a working group to start looking at the mechanics of building a national political party for the time when one can build a new major party instead of a new minor third party. (which I regard as wasted effort)

      I suggest you read the Wikipedia article on the Whig Party and see if the description of that party's end reminds me of any political party you know.

      Someone suggested "New Democratic Party" (NDP as in Canada) as a name for this project. It's as good as any.

      Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

      by alizard on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 11:07:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lacks any definition of "populism" (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    snakelass

    You seem to assume that populism works in the interest of the people, a progressive vision, rather than a callous pretense of giving people what they think they want, which is often the reality.

    Lou Dobbs is a populist, or claims to be. I don't think anyone considers him a progressive!

    America craves elites, that's why they create "celebrities". We prize egghead professors and their scientific breakthroughs. We don't believe people are equally capable, we are just committed to equal opportunity. And we don't like labels!

    Don't you think John McCain looks tired?

    by MakeChessNotWar on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 11:59:32 PM PDT

    •  I disagree... (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      pHunbalanced, brentmack, rubine

      ....that America craves elites. We've had celebrities crammed down our throats for so long that we're used to it, but I don't think we're a country that has largely accepted the Straussian worldview.

      •  Celebrities (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        snakelass

        are created by demand. They are not shoved down out throats. The marketplace proves the demand, the media is merely a loyal servant.

        Look at Huffington Post. To get anyone to read it, they had to fill it with celebrity gossip. It works.

        Not Strauss, Alexander Hamilton. He understood the value of an elite group. We have elites in every aspect of life, from politics to sports to porn. That's human nature, but America has it worse than most countries.

        Don't you think John McCain looks tired?

        by MakeChessNotWar on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:29:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "That's human nature"... (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          brentmack, BYw

          ...is the biggest cop-out answer out there. I don't think we're naturally driven by our genes to crave celebrity gossip. It's just what's out there.

        •  I can believe that (0+ / 0-)

          It seems every group has it 'leader' and the 'low man' on the totem pole.  

          Even in the animal kingdom, there is a 'top dog'. Let a new dog come in and there is a challenge of who is the 'top dog' now. Dogs that aren't penned spend hours marking their territory by 'wetting' on bushes that surround their area.

          There is a lot of difference in what happens to all those who are under the 'King" and the other rulers. All that entails makes all the difference in the spirit of a country.

  •  When I think "conserve" I think Sierra Club (6+ / 0-)

    When I look at these asshats I think "tories/royalists" taking orders from above to keep the status quo.

    Just like crazy King George, they have no concept of life on the streets, and repeating some Reagan mantra will keep the lid on the boiling kettle.

    Back in 1980 Reagan explained crime one time like this....20% tax bracket makes folks disrespect gubbmint, and the 25% bracket leads to lawlessness.

    Luckily his cronies were in the old 38% bracket, so those who weren't underachiever were under indictment.

  •  "towering colossus of intellectual rigor?" (12+ / 0-)

    the doughy pantload?
    steve allen, an old hero of mine, one described society as a car, conservatives are the brakes, liberals the gas pedal. while brakes are necessary, they don't get you anywhere.

    Anyone who advocates, supports, defends, rationalizes, or excuses torture has pus for brains and a case of scurvy for a conscience. - James Wolcott

    by rasbobbo on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 01:09:04 AM PDT

    •  Nice analogy, but it only applies (0+ / 0-)

      to old-style conservatives. The folks who call themselves conservatives today aren't any part of a functioning car... unless you count the nuts behind the wheel, drunken louts who drag race and play chicken on tight mountain curves, and have never heard of brakes.

      Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is.

      by Canadian Reader on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 11:53:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  conservative=coward. (9+ / 0-)

    that willingness to accept inequality in my eyes boils down to nothing more then a craven acquiescence too evil, because although it is true that they are resistant to change, they offer precious little if any resistance to any and all "strongmen" that may come along.

    They bow when they should stand, cower when they should fight, and they crap themselves when scared.

    As much of a case can be made for the post 911 alterations to our laws being the result of the conservatives collectively crapping their pants as any coherent attempt to entrench their elites in power.

    •  I agree (5+ / 0-)

      The typical conservative believes that people are generally bad, and as a result, we need harsh measures to keep the people in line. They have no optimism about humans, no confidence that we can ever improve, despite evidence that we have. I find this worldview very depressing.

      •  I Agree (0+ / 0-)

        How many conservatives do you know?

        From your description of the "typical conservative" my guess is ZERO.

        Pleased to make your acquaintance.

        •  I wouldn't be so sure (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          skippythebox

          I've met plenty of people like this. People who rant that we need to give the death penalty for hundreds of offenses or that we need to have the right to whip the shit out of children, etc. These people are authoritarian conservatives.

          •  People like this. (0+ / 0-)

            MP, who in the world are you talking about? What kind of delusion are you laboring under?

            If you've met plenty of people who want to give the death penalty for hundreds of offenses, and who believe they have the right to whip the shit out of children, may I respectfully suggest that YOU MOVE OUT OF SAUDI ARABIA IMMEDIATELY!

            •  uh, how about suburban New Jersey? (0+ / 0-)

              You obviously don't know many reactionary people. I'll grant you, most of the people I know are moderate-to-liberal or apolitical, but the conservatives are VERY conservative.

              •  The people you know (0+ / 0-)

                They may be "very conservative," but I'll bet they don't want the things you claimed conservatives wanted.

                As I implied, those claims are best made concerning Muslims.

                And that's no delusion.

                •  And who knows this better, you or I? (0+ / 0-)

                  You're being a schmuck.

                  •  The real danger (0+ / 0-)

                    Tell me, what are some of the hundreds of new things that "people you know" want to have merit the death penalty?

                    I've been in political discussions with friends, foes and relatives for many, many years and no one - No One - has ever made such an argument, whether ranting or not.

                    My experience, therefore, makes me think YOU'RE ranting, rather than making me a schmuck.

                    Heck, at first I just thought you were joking when you said what you did, so I made my laughing reference to Saudi Arabia.

                    But the truth in that bit of humor, which should be obvious to you, is that the kind of fanaticism that you attributed to your mythical conservatives is best applied to Muslims - hundreds of millions of mainstream, sharia-advocating, honor-killing, fatwa-issuing, cartoon-rioting, adulteress-stoning, van Gogh murdering, suicide-bombing followers of Islam.

                    They are not a fantasy, and not understanding who the really dangerous people are in the world today makes you a schmuck, MP. Sorry.

        •  ever consider that you may not be typical? (0+ / 0-)

          because I know dozens of conservatives, hell half my freaking family ARE conservatives (my grand parents on that side were HEAVY into the Goldwater campaign back in the 60's).  So I have based my opinion of conservatives upon direct observation.

          They in general can not see beyond the next horizon, nor do they wish to.  They are overly concerned with the lives of others, while at the same time seeking to keep others eyes from their lives.  And they have a great amount of fear in them, they positively reek of it when under the slightest stress.

          Conservatives are good at maintaining empires but lousy at building them; since building requires risks that they generally are unwilling to take.

          A conservative would never have put a man on the moon.

          •  Do I ever consider that I may not be typical? (0+ / 0-)

            Me? A married, suburb-dwelling father of two who works in the construction business? Nah! I'm as typical as they come. Get used to it.

            Sorry to hear about your kin. My mom and dad were party-line FDR Democrats, until Dad wised up in the 60's.

            I don't know very much about building empires or maintaining them, being an American. I'll take you word for it that Caesar, Ghengis Khan, Cortes, Clive and Rhodes were liberals.

            (That second part really isn't true. I'm just playing with you.)

            The "man on the moon" sentence doesn't do much for me, Skip. Try this one:

            "The predicament of Western civilization is that it has ceased to be aware of the values it is in peril of losing."    (Arthur Koestler)

            •  Oh but we are aware of them, at least those on (0+ / 0-)

              the left are.

              It was not a liberal that removed habeas.

              And the fact that your parents were former FDR dems makes you a non typical conservative these days....  

              Hell being a hardline Goldwater supporter would make you a non typical conservative these days!

              The other half of my family are hard core democrats, started with my great granddad who up until Hoover ordered MacArthur to open up on the bonus army was a republican; after that he left the party and never turned back.

              And although the other half of the family are hard R republicans they always seemed to vote for McGovern back in the day for senate.

              •  About habeas and parents (0+ / 0-)

                Abraham Lincoln wasn't a liberal? FDR wasn't? I'm shocked! They suspended habeas.

                You're wrong. There are plenty of conservatives whose parents were liberals. You've heard of Reagan Democrats, haven't you. It's real typical. It was known as "former liberals mugged by reality." If you had lived through the intellectual and social cesspool known as the Sixties you'd understand better, especially if you were a working-class urban Democrat like my dad.

                The claim that being a hard-line Goldwater supporter would make a person a non-typical conservative today is a common canard tossed out by people who have never read "Conscience of a Conservative" and who simply remember the Senator in his later years being cranky about the religious right. It's like thinking you know Johnny Cash because you saw the movie "I Walk the Line."

                I understand your family voting for Senator McGovern. He was a war hero. His actions during WW II spoke louder than his whiny rhetoric later.

                "Come home, America!" Blah, blah, blah!

                Besides the chimeric threat of the loss of habeas corpus, Skip, what other Western values do you see imperiled today.

                (For a clue, look up Salman Rushdie, Theo van Gogh and "Jyllands-Posten.")

                For a wrong answer, two tickets to see "Rendition" when it returns by popular demand.

                •  a lot of those Reagan Dems came back dontcha know (0+ / 0-)

                  not all mind you, but a great many; and those that haven't are still FAR more moderate then your "typical" conservative in power today.

                  Yes Lincoln and FDR suspended Habea, during a civil war and a major global war.

                  W suspended it for what at best should have been a punitive expedition, however he spun into a war of indeterminate length making his suspension of Habeas a near permanent fixture.  Civil wars end, world wars end, wars on psychotics don't as they are born every day and will continue to do so as long as humans walk the earth.

                  One of the first rules for achieving victory in warfare is to deny your enemy his objectives, and eroding our freedoms doesn't do that but rather achieves the enemies objectives FOR him.  If they hate us for our freedom, which is a common saying on the right; then it would follow that you want your people to if anything enjoy greater freedoms!  Since it would piss the other guys off, and when your enemy is pissed off they make mistakes, mistakes that make it vastly easier to kill them.

                  Other Western values that I see imperiled by the conservatives of today?

                  How about, freedom of conscience.  Trial by jury and due process, protection against cruel and unusual punishment (see torture being used and a form of which we executed Japanese officers for using after WW2 as a war crime), the right of a person to be left alone without the prying ears and eyes of their government intruding upon them.....

                  The list is far to long for me to want to type.  And all of them done at the hands of the party that used to fight for a small government to keep them off of our backs and out of our bedrooms.

                  And all because they crapped their pants the second they realized that there ARE psychopaths out there that want to kill you.  Well guess what?  That is something that I have known since I was 16, sad that it took them so long to get the memo.  Does that mean that I live in fear?

                  Hell no!  I am an American, and we fear not but God; and then some of us don't even bother doing that!  I know it is tough living in the "land of the free and the home of the brave" because sometime it actually calls on you to be BOTH of them.

                  And some people have a tough time doing that.

                  Terrorists want TERROR, a heightened state of fear that robs you of your reason and ability to make decisions.  So all you have to do is not give them that and you win.  If they want you to close your society, you open if further, if they want you to constantly look over your shoulder; you keep your eyes forward and your head held high.

                  You in short NEVER, EVER give the bastards anything that they want or desire; excepting of course a quick trip to paradise!

                  And the conservatives aren't doing that.  They are failing miserably at doing anything close to denying the enemy his objectives.  They have also seemed to manage dragging us into a protracted two front land war in South-central Asia with a PEACE TIME strength army.

                  And in the doing of those have made this nation less secure then it was when they took power.  We have lost nearly a third of our heavy armor in Iraq, armor that has not been replaced except in some cases with lighter vehicles.  They have set up conditions within the military that drives platoon level officers out of the force as soon as they have a chance and that weakens our military down the road 10 or 15 years from now when we have no decent colonels and generals....

                  But they have been very good about driving a social agenda that is based on a Biblical view not shared by all Christians, not to mention members of other faiths and creeds.  I know for certain that some of their pet projects I consider to be heretical if I really want to be a hard case with my religious views; yet they want to force me to obey it.

                  And that is one of the many reasons that I went to the Dems even though I do not see eye to eye with them on every issue.  Hell Gore was the first Dem I ever voted for, for president.  The aspects of a small government that I supported are in direct opposition to the goals of the social conservatives that the GOP is beholden to currently.  And I am a bit leery of a group of religiously motivated voters who seem hell bent on destroying social programs that protect the very people that Christ ministered to and about the most.  

                  •  The Incandescent Light (0+ / 0-)

                    Thanks for the long response. I’m flattered you took the time.

                    There is no avoiding the impression, pervasive in your reply, that you live in an America far removed from where I work and raise my family. Yours is one riddled with fear, where people are striving to take things away from you, deny you your rights, force you to violate your conscience and pry into your private life. If you were in fact complaining about trying to start a small business in Philadelphia or some other Democrat Party-controlled city, then I’d sympathize more, because all of those things you describe are actually done to average citizens in the name of the secular god "regulation." But something tells me that the travails of private enterprise are not part of you life experience. If they were you would have far less time or inclination to worry about phantoms like the widespread denial of habeas corpus, and the specter of evil fundamentalist Christians seeking to prevent you from buying this month’s Maxim magazine.

                    To your credit you’re worried about the hollowing-out of our military, its abandonment by junior officers and the loss of heavy armor. Skippy my boy, those are problems that can be addressed and fixed relatively easily. But what are the chances of maintaining a healthy military in a society that bans military recruiters from the halls of its elite universities? A society where Jessica Lynch is better known and celebrated than winners of the Congressional Medal of Honor? A culture that raises up military victims and refuses to praise warriors, or the manly virtues that they personify and uphold?

                    That’s what has me concerned, problems that cannot be remedied by an appropriations act or some new codicil in the Code of Military Justice.

                    You fret about this country’s "eroding freedoms" and the imperiled values of "freedom of conscience," trial by jury, due process and the right of a person to be left alone. Bullshit. I bet that there isn’t a single thing you do differently in your daily life than you did ten years ago. I bet that as you go around living you have to force yourself to be upset about paranoid abstractions like corporate oligarchs, the religious right and the other stereotypical chimeras of the adolescent Left, usually by visiting sites like Kos.

                    Admit it: if you wanted to, you could, right now, write anything you liked; say whatever you felt like; buy whatever your wallet could afford; join any church, group, party or association you decided to; move to anywhere you wanted, including out of the country; date any person who would have you; read any book you could get your hands on; or do absolutely nothing. No state, church, army or police prohibits you from doing anything other than those acts which your mothers and fathers, and your brothers and sisters – in other words, your community – had democratically voted to make illegal.

                    But you say we live in fear and need to open up our society further. Why do I think that you probably mean legalizing pot, rather than lowering taxes and eliminating bureaucracy?

                    I find it all a little game of wildly exaggerated threats and showy rage, with no action required. All rebel hat, no rebel cattle. But it feels good.

                    (If you want a real example of having someone’s values imposed on you, think about this: according to a recent act of the Democratic-controlled Congress, and signed by George W. Bush, it will be illegal in 2014 to own an incandescent light bulb. Illegal! And that includes in your bedroom.)  

                    If you want to know who stands for freedom and openness, think about the institutions liberals dominate – education, the bureaucracy, the major media. Not much intellectual diversity there. Look at the current trio of Democrat presidential candidates – a range of political and social opinions from 1 to 1A.

                    So don’t worry about Christians. Worry about those who maintain that "the time to debate is over," that "the science is settled" and that it now time for all of us, the whole world, to mobilize together for the great, transcendent goal of – whatever we say it is. In other words, we know best, so shut up.

                    You might want to be concerned about people who tell you that if you insult their religion, they have the right to cut your head off. That if you publish a cartoon that offends them, they will create havoc. That if you show a bare leg, they will stone you. And that if you are raped, you must be executed. In other words, submit.

                    Those people, Skippy, ain’t phantoms. They are really out there. They have names, and faces. Some hold positions of power; others are silent, but growing their numbers to a hoped-for tipping point. The words I quoted above are actually being spoken and those mobilizations are really being planned. The havoc that has afflicted Europe is coming to a neighborhood near you. (See Detroit.) The rights they want to abrogate aren’t the cliché abstractions redolent of the dormitory bull-session. They are the rights you and I exercise every day.

                    (And also be fearful of smirking pseudo-juveniles who think nothing of insulting the beliefs of a religion that preaches "turn the other cheek," but who crap their pants and fawn obsequiously when confronted with the followers of Muhammed. Disdain the smart-asses. They are the "dhimmis" of our time.)

                    You may think conservatives imperil Western values and that the Islamic threat is nothing more than the work of few psychopaths. Thousands of bodies in this country and more thousands world-wide testify that you are deluding yourself.

                    (Try Bruce Bawer: "While Europe Slept;" Lawrence Wright: "The Looming Tower;" and Oriana Fallaci: "The Rage and the Pride" to get a better handle on what’s coming and where it came from.)

                    If you want to lose the inchoate fear and anger that I sense in so many posters on this site, my suggestion – granted, it’s worth what you’re paying for it – is to find your way back to earth. I recommend getting re-grounded in reality – church, family, work. Mortgages, compound interest, children, fidelity, waking with the sunrise – concentrating on these things will help dispel the illusion that the key to the Happiness Room is being withheld from you by those evil rich white guys.

                    It’s in your power.

                    Thanks again for taking the time to express your thoughts.

                    •  I was a small business owner (0+ / 0-)

                      been there, done that, had the t shirt ripped from my not quite cold dead fingers.... I am also an NRA lifetime member.  And yes I DO do things a bit different then I did 10 years ago, because I understand the threat that is here at home just as well as I understand the threat outside our shores.

                      You see my friend, back in the day when I was still young and on my way to college I was one of the top 10 high school seniors in the area of strategic studies; I was even published before I was 17... a little barn burner of a comparative analysis paper showing that the Soviets were not meeting domestic needs by comparing refrigerator production and population growth figures from the heroic mother program that Stalin started.  That program BTW was set up to offset the rapid growth of Central Asian Muslims who were projected to be the dominant population group in the USSR by the early 21st century.

                      They didn't publish my other submission (both written to pad my resume for a scholarship I was up for) that dealt with the usage of American commercial airliners as first strike weapons, the reason:  It was contingent upon kamikaze pilots... something inconceivable in the era.  Of the two papers that one was by far the better done though, the first one was based upon too much conjectural crap and my math was none to hot so to the conclusions were shit at best.  But the target packages I laid out for the other were far more concrete.

                      You seem to freak out about the forced phasing out of a light bulb but show no concern about illegal activity committed by the administration.  Regulation of the market although a pain in the ass sometimes is not really contrary to Adam Smith... I have read Wealth of Nations thank you.  Regulation by a government of, for and by the people (also known as consumers), can be seen as a just another market force in the free market.  There is no difference between voting with your wallet and voting with your ballet in that regard.  

                      But wiretapping a citizen of this country without a warrant is a violation of the constitution, the document that WE set up to protect ourselves from tyranny.

                      Yet you are more concerned about not being able to own or use a form of illumination that actually costs you more money to use..... I don't understand those priorities.  

                      But then again I probably have a far different perspective on this which is in part the source of my anger over the actions in recent years:  This is MY country.

                      No really, one of my ancestors was one of the gents that pledged his "life, fortune and sacred honor" in Philadelphia and another 8 or so bled birthing her.  Then again one did rise in rebellion 4 score and seven later...

                      And part of the reason that my family came here was to escape people trying to impose their views of Gods word upon others.... So we are a bit sensitive to signs cropping up that some group of yahoo' might be getting it into their heads to start trying that crap again.  There is a reason that our founders put that wall between the church and the state:  One mans confession is another' heresy, and that never, ever has ended well.  And I have the dead kin to prove it, and no they weren't Jewish in Eastern Europe; they were Scots and Catholics and the Presbyterian branch got it just about as bad and both did it to the other as much as others did it to them.  And any kind of force that can cause blood kin to kill each other in wholesale lots (call it a few hundred men, woman and children at a whack), really needs to be kept as far away from "throne" as possible.

                      As to you comments about the military being "easily" fixable?  In comparison to what?  The canard of a society that does not praise warriors?  Hate to break it to you but that is not this country in it' present incarnation.  No, we are far to militaristic by the standards of previous generations up to and including the founders.  Who forbade the keeping of a large standing army because of the tendency of such to "color" politics domestically.

                      And the last 60 years have done just that.  Our needing to keep a large standing army (including having to pass emergency measures every year in congress to justify it so as not to run afoul of the constitution), have colored our politics domestically.  Care to remind me which party was in power when the first of those emergency measures was passed?  Or which one dropped the bomb on Japan?  Or was far thinking enough geopolitically to insist at great cost politically to have a peace time draft BEFORE the war as well as MASSIVE procurements of arms?

                      Here's a hint:  It wasn't the Republicans.  Nor were they the ones in power during the other great war, or the two small ones after the biggest.  No, up until now the totality of Republican leadership in war time has been the civil war, and the first Gulf war... the rest of it are small fights with vastly inferior forces the best of those also ran' being Spain.  More enemies of the American way of life have been killed by Democratic administration then any three Republican administrations put together.  

                      And I should not have to remind you that it was the first Bush with the assistance of his defense secretary... a guy from Wyoming named Cheney that started the post cold war constitutionally mandated build down of the US military.

                      Not that I am busting their balls or anything; because I am not.  It was a legal requirement and we really did not need to be spending money on that sized monster any more!  It was breaking the treasury.  And we needed to repurpose that money to pay off the debts that Reagan ran up trying to crash the Soviets.  Which in itself was a bone head strategy in the way it was done.  I can understand and support a soft crash one from which no major power vacuum grows; but he played for a hard crash.  And that my friend is just bad strategy since you can not predict the likely outcomes, and without that ability you can not actually plan worth a damn your next move.  

                      And since it is late in the day/early in the morning I am going to cut this off without addressing your subtle digs on drugs et al as they are beneath my dignity to address.

  •  Be careful about idealizing populism (3+ / 0-)

    Hitler, Peron, and Chavez were / are all populists.

    So was Mao to a large extent.

  •  Ha! (9+ / 0-)

    Regardless, I agree with David that populism is a useful and healthy passion when aimed at the liberal elite.

           According to Goldberg "Populism" is a good thing when used by his style of elite to rile the masses against liberals. Anything Limbaugh , Coulter , Roger Ailes et all, do is fair game when aimed at those on the left but when the unwashed masses begin to take Democracy seriously and put up a candidate like Huckabee, it's not so good. Whatever he may be Huckabee is no "Country club republican". Huckabee's comment, "I believe most Americans want their next president to remind them of the guy they work with, not the guy who laid them off." must send shudders down the spines of Goldberg and weasels like him. With Chuck Norris at his side they can see Huckabee leading a crowd of angry peasants replete with torches and pitchforks. It may be good to be king but not so much when the guillotine is being sharpened.

    CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. A. Bierce

    by irate on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 04:17:37 AM PDT

  •  There's no real populism (3+ / 0-)

    The problem is that to have real populism you need a real people's movement.  There was one during the depression era but it's highly fragmented now.  There are just many many issues and the people's movements focuses on particular issues.  So, if there was true populism we have something like the people's party to pressure all sides in the establishment ... where is it?

  •  A little simplistic (3+ / 0-)

    Most "conservatives" I know don't want the status quo. Neither do the liberals. Most of the ones that you consider conservatives are what would be the moderates or centrists.

    The conservatives in power want a lot of changes. Eliminate workplace safety. Outsource our jobs. Eliminate health care. Start wars to make money in oil. Anything for a buck. That's the conservative way.

    Support Fair Trade. Buy American! Keep jobs at home.

    by John Lane on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 06:51:47 AM PDT

  •  The true definition of current "conservatism" (5+ / 0-)

    is actually reactionary. Conservatism assumes keeping "status quo", or all the laws and regulations instituted up to now as a result of the New  Deal. Reactionary would mean a rollback to something in the past. The actual aim of corporatists such as Rush Limbaugh and Grover Norquist is to roll the country back to the McKinley Era or at least to the pre-New Deal good times (for the rich) of the 1920s. Such aims as smashing unions, gutting environmental and labor regulations, and privatizing social security and all of health care are all hallmarks of this reaction.  

    The current crop of Republicans, much of the corporate elite (and the most "conservative" of Democrats), are actually reactionaries, not conservatives. The current situation, with a shrinking middle class, cheap labor, and shredded safety nets, is proof that reactionary policies are working for the elite.

    "Without our playstations, we are a third world nation"-Ani DiFranco

    by NoMoreLies on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 07:14:35 AM PDT

    •  Well (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      snakelass

      another way to look at it is this: Conservatism is not really a specific ideology, like Liberalism. It doesn't have a set of universally applicable principles. What it has is simply a desire to cement a way of seeing the world and existing that conforms to a perceived ideal, whatever that ideal may be.

      It pursues stability and "sameness" at the expense of all else. Same people, same ideas, an attempt to achieve the same way of living, year after year. Of course, Conservatism is reborn, over and over in countries and times, all over the world. It attempts to take some window of human experience and freeze it, always rejecting the new, but always being consumed by it, which produces yet another Conservatism.

      If we decided to "name" the ideology of the current Republican party, it'd more appropriately be called Economic-Libertarianism-Mixed-With-A-Belligerent-Foreign-Policy-Along-With-Some-Theocracy-Thrown-In- And-Oh-Don't-Forget-About-Corpratism-And-A-Bit-Of-Good-Old-Fashioned-Authoritarianism-ism. Or we could try something shorter like ReaganBushism?

      Palpably Extant: the death of the 4th estate.

      by spencerh on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 09:34:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh Well (0+ / 0-)

        Maybe you can tell me how smaller government, lower taxes and school vouchers fit into your description.

        And what are the principles of liberalism?

        (Tell me how big government, higher taxes and no vouchers fit into them?)

        Thanks.

        •  Don't know about school vouchers, (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          MahFellaMerkins

          but if you think smaller government and lower taxes are policies of the current American Republican party, you seriously need to stop listening to what they say, and take a closer look at what they actually do.

          Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is.

          by Canadian Reader on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 12:11:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  An awkward shift (0+ / 0-)

            Please notice that you went from ideology and principles in your first post, to policies and actions in your reply to my question.

            That's called "apples and oranges."

            The principles of conservatism and of the modern Republican Party advocate federalism, less regulation, a smaller role for government, increased privitization (see "vouchers"), and many other policies that limit the sphere of government to those functions only it can do.

            Present office-holders may not uphold these beliefs to my satisfaction, but I'm aware that politics is the art of the possible.

            If the current American Republican Party doesn't advocate them, why do the opponents of such policies oppose the GOP's efforts so strenuously and castigate it for holding them so mercilessly?

            By the way, my taxes are lower - considerably - since 2001. Should I not believe my eyes?

            And I want them lower.

            What were those principles of liberalism again?

            •  They apply them (0+ / 0-)

              where it suits them. They took the worst parts of these ideologies and made a platform out of them.

              Palpably Extant: the death of the 4th estate.

              by spencerh on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:12:18 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Your taxes are lower? Really? (0+ / 0-)

              I doubt that, if you count all the ways they're extracting money from you. Don't forget that you will have to pay the bill they're running up for their wars. (Unless, of course, you're secretly a member of the Carlyle Group just slumming amongst us lower-99% peons.)

              I wrote a long reply, but then re-read your comment, and I suppose I'm not likely to convince you that they are using you. Still, I hate to see someone being manipulated, so I've got to say this much: They're not libertarians. Really not. They're corporatists. They use libertarian code phrases from time to time, but only to divert your attention from what they're actually doing.

              The huge discrepancy between what they say and what they do has nothing to do with the 'art of the possible'. Its source is a huge discrepancy between what they say and what they believe.

              Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is.

              by Canadian Reader on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:58:34 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Really. (0+ / 0-)

                I'm glad you decided to forego the long reply because I'm a dupe. (LOL)

                Dr. Johnson to James Boswell: "If a man should give me arguments that I do not see, though I could not answer them, should I believe that I do not see?"

                I couldn't possibly know how much in taxes I pay compared to eight years ago. Uh-huh.

                I don't think Republicans are libertarians. You misunderstand me. I don't care for libertarianism, capital or small L.

                Actually I think that libertarianism was invented by college students and talk-radio hosts - two groups who never have to answer for their political opinions.

                And by the way, the huge discrepancy in LIFE between what we say and what we do has everything to do with the "art of the possible." Politics is no different. Consider the old adage:

                "If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans."

                •  No. What I'm saying is (0+ / 0-)

                  they're lying to you when they say they want smaller government and lower taxes.

                  They don't. They want much, much bigger government spending -- just, not on anything that will help you. And their "lower taxes" are a conjuring trick; they hope you won't notice that running up huge bills on your credit card is a tax.

                  I quote another familiar adage back:

                  "By their deeds you shall know them."

                  Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is.

                  by Canadian Reader on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 11:53:43 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  About Conjuring and Deeds (0+ / 0-)

                    Who are the mysterious "they" who have me so bedazzled that I do not comprehend that I'm being manipulated? I'd appreciate the names of these diabolical conjurers.

                    In your honest view are "they" really, really smart, or am I really, really dumb? (LOL)

                    OK, I got you to admit that I actually am paying less taxes than I used to. That's progress. Now explain to me the inconsistency of something you just wrote about "running up huge bills on your credit card" with the fact that the US deficit has been declining for several years. (See, I do watch my "credit card.")

                    You also alluded above to one of the scariest phrases in the world: "We're from the government and we're here to help you."

                    I don't want the government to help me. I'm not a child. I want my governments - local, state and federal - to do what I tell them, which is defend the country, maintain law and order, protect private property, supply basic services to widows, children and imbeciles, and otherwise stay out of my way.

                    Things don't always work out the way I'd like them to, but I'll keep trying, by supporting candidates who share many of my values, profess the virtues I try to uphold, and don't insult my intelligence.

                    I sure don't want any government telling me whether, when and by whom I'm going to have my aching knee repaired. I'll take care of it, thank you very much.

                    I'm a citizen, not a subject, and that's the way I like it.

                    I'm sorry, but it's late and I'm a little cranky tonight. It's the knee.

                    Finally - Yeah, that statement is right: "By their deeds you shall know them." To wit:

                    Hillary Clinton - Lawyer. No accomplishments other than being elected to the Senate, twice. No legislative accomplishments.

                    Barack Obama - Lawyer. No accomplishments other than being elected to the Senate, once, and writing two books about himself. No legislative accomplishments.

                    John Edwards - Lawyer. No accomplishments other than increasing the number of Caesarian deliveries in the US through lawsuits and being elected to the Senate, once. No legislative accomplishments.

                    John McCain - Accomplishments: US Air Force combat fighter pilot, survived 5 1/2 years in the Hanoi Hilton as a POW, elected to the US Senate multiple times. Major legislative accomplishment - McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. Not a lawyer.

                    Mitt Romney - Accomplishments: Extremely successful private businessman. Re-organized and saved the Salt Lake City Olympics. Elected to one term as Governor of Massachusetts. Campaigned for and signed major statewide healthcare coverage. Not a lawyer.

                    Rudy Giuliani - Accomplishments: Crime-busting US Attorney. Twice elected Mayor of New York City and revived a city that supposedly couldn't be governed. Was an exemplary leader in the aftermath of 9/11. Is a lawyer.

                    Like I said before, I'm a conservative and a Republican. My trio ain't perfect, believe me, but they sure are heads-and-shoulders above the non-entities the other side is putting up, if, my friend, you really believe "By their deeds you shall know them."

                    Do you really believe your own adage? Or are the facts above just more conjurer's tricks?

              •  Don't forget this... (0+ / 0-)

                Taxes are only one part of your outgoing, mandatory expenses. Under the Bush regime, don't forget that other mandatory expenses, such as energy, food, housing, healthcare have skyrocketed. Gasoline is up over 100 percent, as has health care, many food items, and other necessities. Nor has the government done anything about this, such as increase mass transit, regulate the insurance industry, or follow any kind of policy to do something about high necessity costs and profits in the insurance and financial sector

                Unless you are in the top 5% of the income distribution, don't assume that the tax cuts under Bush have offset the inflation in other inelastic expenses.

                And, to bring up another issue, Huckabee's 23 percent sales tax would be a net tax increase for most people below the 90th percentile of the income distribution. Most of us would lose the ability to write off local taxes, home expenses, business expenses or even use the standard federal income tax deduction to offset these expenses.

                "Without our playstations, we are a third world nation"-Ani DiFranco

                by NoMoreLies on Tue Jan 15, 2008 at 08:53:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  They do support smaller government (0+ / 0-)

            where they want it: public services,taxes and business regulations. At the same time, many of them also want big-government defense and Corpratism. It's an "eclectic" party; hence my title for them.

            Palpably Extant: the death of the 4th estate.

            by spencerh on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:11:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Eclectic? (0+ / 0-)

              You mean syncretic, don't you?

              But if the principle is as I've stated it - that they want government to handle those functions only it can perform - then they are consistent and reasonable, at least as much as a political party can be in the arena of democratic compromise.

              Do you want smaller government?

              •  The size argument is a red herring (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                MahFellaMerkins

                Starting from the "size" argument is silly. You decide on your requirements first, then you build it how you need to. What "size" it is after the fact is simply a side effect. What's important is what we get.

                Example: Universal Health Care. In a way it requires bigger government (more government management) on the other, it requires smaller government (not dealing with insurance company regulation or corporate welfare). Now, do I care what the size is after we put in place a sensible system? Nope. As long as it works the way we want to. Policies are what matter to me.

                Palpably Extant: the death of the 4th estate.

                by spencerh on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:42:54 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Silly. (0+ / 0-)

                  I've got to disagree with you when the question is the size of the government. It's not silly at all to start with the principle that the best government is the one that governs least.

                  Deciding first on what we want and then cobbling together a means to get there always leads to excess and often to tyranny. Once the machine gets as big as it wants to get, tell me how you are going to restrict it to a "sensible" size? That's the history of government programs, set-asides, grants, regulations, etc. Surely you know that.

                  Here's an axiom that you can count on being true: In politics there is never an end to "need."

                  •  I have great respect for Mister Paine (0+ / 0-)

                    but he did not live in our times. Times change, needs change. Different problems need different solutions. I'm arguing from policies, you're arguing from ideology. That's your choice, but it doesn't interest me.

                    Palpably Extant: the death of the 4th estate.

                    by spencerh on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:05:30 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  True colours (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    Canadian Reader

                    It's not silly at all to start with the principle that the best government is the one that governs least.

                    It is not only silly, but mistaken. The best government is the one that governs, and does not delegate that authority to corporations and churches.

                    You smell like a freeper.

                    Vote with your conscience, O Progressive, for there are many Conservatives who will vote without one.

                    by MahFellaMerkins on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:26:28 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  The Nose knows (0+ / 0-)

                      That keeps the trains running on time?

                      "The best government is the one that governs."

                      The best ball is the one that rolls.

                      The best writer is the one that writes.

                      Your statement makes no sense. Elaborate.

        •  They part and parcel of (0+ / 0-)

          Economic Libertarianism. "Smaller government" and "lower taxes" are parts of Minarchism (the small-government form of Libertarianism).  "School vouchers" are as well; Libertarianism calls for few/no public services. School vouchers are a stop-gap method of "choice" until the public school system is abolished and replaced with completely privatized education.

          Palpably Extant: the death of the 4th estate.

          by spencerh on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:09:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Another assertion (0+ / 0-)

            You have a preference for grand assertions.

            I can name hundreds of Republican office-holders and policy-makers who favor choice in elementary school education.

            (I do, too. I also send my children to my local public school.)

            Can you name ONE office-holder or policy-maker who advocates the abolition of the American public school system?

            If you cannot, where on earth did you get that idea?

            •  Try Rep. Ron Paul (0+ / 0-)

              He wants to close the DoE, and return control to the states; this is the first step towards ending public education. Additionally, the point is not "which officer-holders advocate.. [openly]"; it's "who influences their policies, and what direction are those policies going.". For that, the list can go on and on. Examples:

              Cato Institute
              Americans for Tax Reform
              American Enterprise Institute

              The Overton Window has not shifted quite enough for them to say "we should close all public schools"; the have been attempting to shift in that direction, and have, in fact been moving the country towards it. It's not all at once; it's bit by bit. There have been a few sweeping pronouncements, but they've taken a much more subtle approach over the last few years.

              Let's look at another example:

              'While campaigning for his doomed-to-lose bid for the presidency, Bob Dole said on Sept. 9, 1996, while in Georgia, "We're going to cut out the Department of Education." At that time, the GOP presidential platform read, in part:

                 Our formula is as simple as it is sweeping: The federal government has no constitutional authority to be involved in school curricula or to control jobs in the workplace. That is why we will abolish the Department of Education, end federal meddling in our schools, and promote family choice at all levels of learning.'

              Palpably Extant: the death of the 4th estate.

              by spencerh on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 08:53:18 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  DOE (0+ / 0-)

                Please.

                Advocating the elimination of the Department of Education is not the same as advocating the abolition of the public school system. Surely you understand that distinction.

                I favor eliminating the Department of Commerce. Am I secretly against interstate commerce? My goodness!

                I also favor the elimination of the DOE. So did Ronald Reagan. So does Rep. Paul and the think tanks you cite. We want the federal government out of elementary school education as much as possible, and see no reason to maintain a bureaucracy in Washington that has done nothing to further elementary school education.

                As I said, I send my children to my local public schools. (Don't you?) Over which institution can I have more leverage to keep it "sensible" and "working the way we want it to," the local school district or the Department of Education?

                Your suggestion that you know that conservatives really want B when they say A is pure assertion, especially in light of the 160-year-old, bi-partisan tradition of American public schooling.

                Where do you get these ideas?

        •  The Republican Party is not unified (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          NoMoreLies

          It's largely a marriage of convenience, and there's some overlap, but there's plenty of disagreement.

          Theocons: want anti-LGBT policies, anti-abortion policies, and anti-sexual freedom policies. They get some of what they want, and sometimes they get ignored. Rank and file have been largely tricked into voting against their own economic interests, and would like choose more social democratic/populists economics if it didn't mean empowering relatively secular Liberals. Clash with the Libertarians and (invisibly with) Corpratists.

          Neocons: Want a belligerent foreign policy, imperialism, and military might. Have gotten a lot of what they want (Iraq, Afghanistan). Have not yet gotten Iran.

          Libertarians: Want a Libertarian system. They get tax breaks, deregulation, and shrinking public services. They do not get want they want with regards to government involvement in social matters (especially sex and drugs) - they're at odds with the Theocons, Neocons (not big fans of Imperialism), Security Authoritarians (civil liberties) and sometimes with the Corpratists (corporate welfare).

          Corpratists: Like Economic Libertarianism when it makes them money (deregulation, lower taxes, holding the line on wage increases). Otherwise like corporate welfare. At odds with the Theocons. Sometimes at odds with the Libertarians. Invisibly prey on poor/middle class rank and file Theocons.

          Security Authoritarian-types: Cozy with the Necons, often one and the same. Seriously at odds with the Libertarians due to civil liberties violations. Friendly with the Theocons due to terror propaganda.

          Palpably Extant: the death of the 4th estate.

          by spencerh on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 09:03:28 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Your definitions (0+ / 0-)

            Fascinating.

            If I want to know why Republicans are evil and despicable, I think your breakdown will do nicely.

            "First decide what we want, then build the reality that gives it to us." Didn't you recently write something like that?

            Perhaps for your next assignment you can spend a little time segmenting the various elements of the Democratic coalition to show me why Democrats are stupid and naive?

            It would be just as valid, you know.

  •  If the populists are actually (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    brentmack

    coming, and if they actually represent any danger whatsoever to the existing order, then why is the only populist democratic candidate scoring consistently in the teens at about half the other two corporate-liners? I think they actually found a way to kill populist movements -- forever. They just can't seem to happen anymore. I think it has something to do with deep psychological manipulation through media. We're dead meat.

    (-,-) "Just because an idea appeals to a lot of people doesn't mean it's wrong. But that's a good working theory. " John Tierney

    by phaktor on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 08:35:09 PM PDT

    •  We aren't dead meat (0+ / 0-)

      We have gradually realized what the most of the problems are and we will learn to overcome them.

      It starts with a media that represents the corporations and not the people.  They destroy those politicians who are 'for the people' by harping on something they have done, whether it is something sexual or extravagant.  That created a two party system that is strangely alike in many ways. When one party wins, the other doesn't lose too much.

  •  I hope you're right. (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Cartoon Peril, karmsy

    But these guys are nasty.
    They will say/do anything.

    Bless your spirit.

    If you dance with the devil, then you haven't got a clue; 'Cause you think you'll change the devil, but the devil changes you. - illyia

    by illyia on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 09:49:41 PM PDT

  •  The biggest jolt for me (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    MahFellaMerkins, Cartoon Peril

    was seeing Matthew Continetti (young neocon pundit extraordinaire) asked if he would personally enlist to fight in Iraq, and if not, why not. His response was such a repulsive sneer, I could only think, "My God, he's a good argument for birth control." Dad shoulda put on a condom, mom shoulda remembered her pill, because nothing good was unleashed when this boy came into the world.

    My point being, it's tough for neocons to sell their core points anymore. The "government is bad" stuff is starting to wear real thin with people. They just look like jackasses.

    Thanks for the diary.

  •  Equality or Inequality? (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    snakelass

    The subtext of America is that the WASP elite wealthy, Sons and Daughter of The American Revolution, those who arrived on the Mayflower = natural top tier.

    Former slaves are the underclass.

    Equality is for everybody else, but the more you look to the elites like top tier or underclass, the less 'equality' you get.

    Another point....I read in a 1940s work on political psychology that personality types are very similar in both authoritarian right wing and left wing people. Thus, your Hitler, Stalin, Mao and followers are 'off the scale' for what in our society is considered right/left...

    Best Diary of the Year? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/23/03912/3990

    by LNK on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 10:16:35 PM PDT

  •  These United States of Sanctimony (0+ / 0-)

    It was working already, and then in the late '80's,  they found this guy called Rush Limbaugh.

    "Yes dear. Conspiracy theories really do come true." (tuck, tuck)

    by tribalecho on Sun Jan 13, 2008 at 11:48:48 PM PDT

  •  The Populists are coming! (0+ / 0-)

    Elitists beware!!!

    Photobucket

    "Teach the children quietly, for someday sons and daughters, will rise up and fight while we stood still!" -Mike Rutheford

    by Bulldawg on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:12:36 AM PDT

  •  Conservatives: royalists in red white & blue drag (0+ / 0-)

    Conservatives, to extend your basically sound reasoning, are pre-age of enlightenment and the rights of man, despite their supposed love of reason, which is one of the pillars of the enlightenment

    They are pre-democratic-American-and- French-revolutions, basically, believing in the justness of a patrician ruling class.  But then, Ayn Rand was a lover of "The Scarlet Pimpernel."  No contradictions there, really.

    Check out all articles here esp. the scary ones on global warming - http://skirsch.com

    by racetoinfinity on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:48:41 AM PDT

    •  Hang on a minute (0+ / 0-)

      "Royalists in red, white and blue drag?"

      You think you own those colours?

      Union Jack

      The "royalist" name-calling among some here is silly. I'm a supporter of constitutional monarchies, and I lean socialist as well. Do you really understand the terms you bandy about?

      Vote with your conscience, O Progressive, for there are many Conservatives who will vote without one.

      by MahFellaMerkins on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 10:35:11 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If they're not actually going to "Conserve" (0+ / 0-)

    Why don't they just call themselves "The Dumb-Ass Party?"

    No, we already have the Donkey.

    What bright-boy came up with that particular icon?

    Own your rights. Know your life, and visa-versa

    by SecondComing on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:49:50 AM PDT

  •  I wish I had as much optimism... (0+ / 0-)

    Populism is fed by the rank and file, which use to be the unions, and those struggling to unionize. Now, it seems difficult to me, for Americans to consider organizing in their own communities, except for elections.

    Historically, it is the street action that brings change, not elections.

    Stay tuned.

    Good writing, btw.

  •  Conservatism and America (0+ / 0-)

    Neoconservatism is at it's core, historically a Trotstyist movement. It has never outgrown that outlook; witness it's adherence to to programs of violence and its fondness for Trotskyist tactics.  Basically it's as foreign to American politics as Stalininsm.
      There is a traditional American Conservatism, in the spirit of John Adams.  It was last seen alive in the person of Robert Taft sr.  Whatever it is that calls itself conservative today in neither American nor coservative.

  •  This diary is so wrong in so many ways.. (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    DevonTexas

    Geez.. where do I begin?

    Elites.. This diary demonstrates the typical behavior of the believer with blinders on.  They are the bad guys! They demonstrate elitism!  When all one has to do is remove the blinders to see the the very leaders of the progressive movement demonstrate the same elitist behavior.

    "John Edwards is calling out the greedmeisters". Huh?  Is that the guy who just built a 28,000 sq ft mansion?  Or how about the Kennedys, that grand defender of populist ideals.  You know, those Kennedys (like Robert and Teddy) that preach environmentalism, but who have fought tooth and nail against a wind farm in sight of their estate.

    I won't go very deeply into ‘Acceptance of inequality’. but let me just say, many believe liberals thrive on inequality.  Without the downtrodden and the poor, these limousine liberals have no message.  Look at the themes of this year's presidential race for examples.

    My biggest beef with your diary is this.  You confuse "resistance to change" with adherance to the Constitution.  Now, I'm more of a Libertarian than a Conservative, but I believe the Constitution has served us pretty well for more than 200 years.

    Conservatives vehemently oppose anything so democratic, so American, as ‘populism’. The idea that the ‘rank and file’ should decide how they are governed is anathema to these people.

    You demonstrate a complete and utter lack of understanding of how those "pinko" founding fathers designed this country to work.  The ‘rank and file’ do indeed decide every few years how they are governed. We live in a Representative democracy and as such our elected representatives make decisions on our behalf.

    If you have a problem with the decision of those representatives, the solution is to boot them out.

    If those representatives are working more in the interest of corporate donors, then boot them out and elect someone else!

    This is the problem with John Edwards' message.  He blames the corporate donors rather than the corrupt politicians who take the money and ignore the best interests of their constituency.  It's popular to blame some bogeyman for your problems, when the real culprit is someone you keep re-electing year after year.

    All of that said, I am not defending Conservatives, Republicans or the status quo.  But take those blinders off long enough to recognize the fact that politicians of all stripes will look towards their next re-election first, and their constituency's needs second.  The electorate needs to keep vigilant and throw out the bums when they become unresponsive to the needs of those who elected them.

    "Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others." - G. Marx

    by Skeptical Bastard on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 04:48:25 AM PDT

  •  Shades of the Handmaid's Tale, (0+ / 0-)

    with Little Jonah playing the Commander.

    "...we all of us, grave or light, get our thoughts entangled in metaphors, and act fatally on the strength of them."

    by beagledad on Mon Jan 14, 2008 at 02:51:28 PM PDT

Permalink | 88 comments