APP - What to do, what to do....

midcan5

Member
The following piece is excellent, but I am often reminded of Stanley Fish's quip that you'll agree with me if you already agree with me. But interesting stuff below and good fodder for debate. How does America return to America?

"The probability, then, is that the next election will be close. It could also be fateful. Not because it is apt to enable the kind of electoral transformation the country urgently needs. But the Republican Party already has a majority on the Supreme Court, which increasingly attacks the rights of workers and consumers. If it captures the White House and both houses of Congress it will pass Draconian measures and deploy repressive tactics to stifle public dissent. All in the name of freedom. What to do?"

"To me, the first thing to do is to explain in sympathetic ways what kind of pressures the white working class faces today, without caving in to tendencies within a segment of this class to demonize minorities.

The second is to remind people forcefully how many times tax cuts for the rich and market deregulation have generated economic crises, starting with the Great Depression.

The third, and most fundamental, is to challenge head on Republican definitions of freedom through anti-labor and anti-consumer policies of the state joined to a vision of market self-sufficiency, elaborating a richer story of how freedom works and how deregulated markets demean it.

The fourth, which can only work if the third is under way, is to propose an ambitious jobs program that, if passed, would simultaneously rebuild the infrastructure to meet the needs of the twenty-first century, provide meaningful jobs for high school graduates, stimulate the economy, and promote real freedom for families, workers and consumers.

The fifth is to insist, against the grain of the Republican story, that tax increases for the rich and a regulated economy are desperately needed to avoid a new version of the most recent meltdown.

To me, the third element provides the lynch pin." William E. Connolly

http://contemporarycondition.blogspot.com/2011/06/republican-pincer-machine.html

And see this. http://www.truth-out.org/ideological-crisis-western-capitalism/1310127895

"The rancorous debate over the debt belies a fundamental truth of our economy -- that it is run for the few at the expense of the many, that our entire government has been turned into a machine which takes the wealth of a mass of Americans and accelerates it into the hands of the few. Let me give you some examples." http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/15

"If you think your local Andy Griffith is a greedy pig because he retired in his forties and built an addition to his garage with your tax money, try hanging out with a guy who eats $400 crabs, throws himself $5 million parties where he is serenaded by Rod Stewart and Patti Labelle (who sang "Happy Birthday"), and then compares the president to Hitler when word leaks out that he might have to pay taxes at the same rate as a firefighter or a kindergarten teacher." http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/14-15

And yet conservatives love welfare, it is just a different sort of welfare. http://www.conservativenannystate.org/
 
The following piece is excellent, but I am often reminded of Stanley Fish's quip that you'll agree with me if you already agree with me. But interesting stuff below and good fodder for debate. How does America return to America?

"The probability, then, is that the next election will be close. It could also be fateful. Not because it is apt to enable the kind of electoral transformation the country urgently needs. But the Republican Party already has a majority on the Supreme Court, which increasingly attacks the rights of workers and consumers. If it captures the White House and both houses of Congress it will pass Draconian measures and deploy repressive tactics to stifle public dissent. All in the name of freedom. What to do?"

"To me, the first thing to do is to explain in sympathetic ways what kind of pressures the white working class faces today, without caving in to tendencies within a segment of this class to demonize minorities.

The second is to remind people forcefully how many times tax cuts for the rich and market deregulation have generated economic crises, starting with the Great Depression.

The third, and most fundamental, is to challenge head on Republican definitions of freedom through anti-labor and anti-consumer policies of the state joined to a vision of market self-sufficiency, elaborating a richer story of how freedom works and how deregulated markets demean it.

The fourth, which can only work if the third is under way, is to propose an ambitious jobs program that, if passed, would simultaneously rebuild the infrastructure to meet the needs of the twenty-first century, provide meaningful jobs for high school graduates, stimulate the economy, and promote real freedom for families, workers and consumers.

The fifth is to insist, against the grain of the Republican story, that tax increases for the rich and a regulated economy are desperately needed to avoid a new version of the most recent meltdown.

To me, the third element provides the lynch pin." William E. Connolly

http://contemporarycondition.blogspot.com/2011/06/republican-pincer-machine.html

And see this. http://www.truth-out.org/ideological-crisis-western-capitalism/1310127895

"The rancorous debate over the debt belies a fundamental truth of our economy -- that it is run for the few at the expense of the many, that our entire government has been turned into a machine which takes the wealth of a mass of Americans and accelerates it into the hands of the few. Let me give you some examples." http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/15

"If you think your local Andy Griffith is a greedy pig because he retired in his forties and built an addition to his garage with your tax money, try hanging out with a guy who eats $400 crabs, throws himself $5 million parties where he is serenaded by Rod Stewart and Patti Labelle (who sang "Happy Birthday"), and then compares the president to Hitler when word leaks out that he might have to pay taxes at the same rate as a firefighter or a kindergarten teacher." http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/14-15

And yet conservatives love welfare, it is just a different sort of welfare. http://www.conservativenannystate.org/

When you have redefined your language you might then consider to which America you wish to return. But while various factions are wordknapping words such as 'gay', 'freedom', 'liberal', 'right', 'left', 'communist', 'socialist', 'black', 'white', 'defence', 'truth', then you don't have a cat's.
 
When you have redefined your language you might then consider to which America you wish to return. But while various factions are wordknapping words such as 'gay', 'freedom', 'liberal', 'right', 'left', 'communist', 'socialist', 'black', 'white', 'defence', 'truth', then you don't have a cat's.

other than the liberal redefinition of freedom meaning things you can do at the permission of the government, what the hell are you talking about?
 
other than the liberal redefinition of freedom meaning things you can do at the permission of the government, what the hell are you talking about?

OK. For those asleep at the back.
Gay = joyous, happy. NOT homosexual.
Freedom = means freedom to pursue health and happiness unfettered. NOT carry guns and kill whoever you like.
OK so far?
Liberal = desire for a society that is loosely based and lives for the good of the whole NOT communist.
Right = The hand that most people write with and to support a conservative with a small 'c' society.
Left = the hand that most people do not write with and in politics one who supports the good in society.
Communist = a philosophy in which a society owns the means of production and in which all are treated equally, NOT totalitarianism and NOT the democratic party and NOT Europe.
Socialist = a society that is predominantly controlled by the state, NOT Europe, NOT Obama, NOT the democratic party.
Truth = the existence of that which can be shown or proven. NOT lies and propaganda issued by MOST governments.
Defence = the act of putting into place measures to safeguard the well being of a society, NOT attacking foreign countries and NOT ignoring the sovereign status of other countries by killing the inhabitants.

So once there has been agreed definitions of these terms (and others) one can then decide which America you wish to return to. I suspect that many here would like a return to the America of negro killing while others hanker for a team of horses and a wagon.
Probably because deep down they are scared shitless of the future. That looks quite funny from here.

What are you? Negro killer or wagon driver?

Let me guess.
 
OK. For those asleep at the back.
Gay = joyous, happy. NOT homosexual.
Freedom = means freedom to pursue health and happiness unfettered. NOT carry guns and kill whoever you like.
OK so far?
you were doing ok, up until you thought freedom meant you could kill whoever you like. If you have a choice of carrying a gun or NOT carrying a gun, then you have freedom.
Liberal = desire for a society that is loosely based and lives for the good of the whole NOT communist.
so individual freedom is bad, got it.
Right = The hand that most people write with and to support a conservative with a small 'c' society.
Left = the hand that most people do not write with and in politics one who supports the good in society.
k
Communist = a philosophy in which a society owns the means of production and in which all are treated equally, NOT totalitarianism and NOT the democratic party and NOT Europe.
if we use the soviet union as the model of communism, then all are NOT treated equally. you'd know this if you paid attention in class
Socialist = a society that is predominantly controlled by the state, NOT Europe, NOT Obama, NOT the democratic party.
again, if you'd paid any attention in class, you'd know that the democrat party is all about control by the state.
Truth = the existence of that which can be shown or proven. NOT lies and propaganda issued by MOST governments.
Defence = the act of putting into place measures to safeguard the well being of a society, NOT attacking foreign countries and NOT ignoring the sovereign status of other countries by killing the inhabitants.

So once there has been agreed definitions of these terms (and others) one can then decide which America you wish to return to.
so as long as we all agree to YOUR terms and definitions, all is well. pffft

I suspect that many here would like a return to the America of negro killing while others hanker for a team of horses and a wagon.
Probably because deep down they are scared shitless of the future. That looks quite funny from here.

What are you? Negro killer or wagon driver?

Let me guess.

please do, this should be entertaining.
 
you were doing ok, up until you thought freedom meant you could kill whoever you like. If you have a choice of carrying a gun or NOT carrying a gun, then you have freedom.
so individual freedom is bad, got it.
k
if we use the soviet union as the model of communism, then all are NOT treated equally. you'd know this if you paid attention in class
again, if you'd paid any attention in class, you'd know that the democrat party is all about control by the state.

so as long as we all agree to YOUR terms and definitions, all is well. pffft

please do, this should be entertaining.

The soviet union was never communist. There have been no communist nations, ever. The closest was Cuba and that failed. Communism can exist within small societal units but is an idealistic concept, not a practical one.
There is no point in continuing this since you illustrate perfectly my original point.

Let me, perhaps, point out something which is quite significant.
No government, no society, of any size shape or colour can exist without communication. All communication needs language. Perfect communication can only exist where the language used by speaker and listener are the same and engender identical understanding.
Ipso facto, while yank loonies try to redefine language there can be no efficient government and therefore no efficient society and it therefore follows there can be no freedom either.
Your bed, dear boy.
 
When you have redefined your language you might then consider to which America you wish to return. But while various factions are wordknapping words such as 'gay', 'freedom', 'liberal', 'right', 'left', 'communist', 'socialist', 'black', 'white', 'defence', 'truth', then you don't have a cat's.

I know what you mean, but I also think we'll never all agree to simple definitions of words and then in agreement come to some sensible consensus on what we value, or how we want to see America. Each of us live in a community of thought and experience and it is impossible to convince another if they see a different world. Some of my debates with right wing conservatives bring this aspect out too often. Words are code in politics and politics today is a sophisticated use of words, political correctness has changed the landscape so that overt racism, jealousy, and hatred of the other are coded today. The right has actually twisted the entire debate, consider if it were a republican president they'd raise the debt ceiling tomorrow. The piece above notes that change. But this is fertile ground for discussion.

"You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states’ rights and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a by-product of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” Lee Atwater, Republican strategist
 
I am surprised none of the right wingers of modern America were able to counter this OP? One could hope they are starting to see the light, well hope at least.

"Something is profoundly wrong with the way we live today. For thirty years we have made a virtue out of the pursuit of material self-interest: indeed, this very pursuit now constitutes whatever remains of our sense of collective purpose. We know what things cost but have no idea what they are worth. We no longer ask of a judicial ruling or a legislative act: is it good? Is it fair? Is it just? Is it right? Will it help bring about a better society or a better world? Those used to be the political questions, even if they invited no easy answers. We must learn once again to pose them." Tony Judt 'Ill Fares the Land'
 
When you have redefined your language you might then consider to which America you wish to return. But while various factions are wordknapping words such as 'gay', 'freedom', 'liberal', 'right', 'left', 'communist', 'socialist', 'black', 'white', 'defence', 'truth', then you don't have a cat's.

So true...

What Is Conservatism and What Is Wrong with It?

Liberals in the United States have been losing political debates to conservatives for a quarter century. In order to start winning again, liberals must answer two simple questions: what is conservatism, and what is wrong with it? As it happens, the answers to these questions are also simple:

Q: What is conservatism?
A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

These ideas are not new. Indeed they were common sense until recently. Nowadays, though, most of the people who call themselves "conservatives" have little notion of what conservatism even is. They have been deceived by one of the great public relations campaigns of human history. Only by analyzing this deception will it become possible to revive democracy in the United States.

The Destruction of Language

Reason occurs mostly through the medium of language, and so the destruction of reason requires the destruction of language. An underlying notion of conservative politics is that words and phrases of language are like territory in warfare: owned and controlled by one side or the other. One of the central goals of conservatism, as for example with Newt Gingrich's lists of words, is to take control of every word and phrase in the English language.

George Bush, likewise, owes his election in great measure to a new language that his people engineered for him. His favorite word, for example, is "heart". This type of linguistic engineering is highly evolved in the business milieu from which conservative public relations derives, and it is the day-to-day work of countless conservative think tanks. Bush's people, and the concentric circles of punditry around them, are worlds away from John Kerry deciding on a moment's notice that he is going to start the word "values". They do not use a word unless they have an integrated communications strategy for taking control of that word throughout the whole of society.

Bush's personal vocabulary is only a small part of conservative language warfare as a whole. Since around 1990, conservative rhetors have been systematically turning language into a weapon against liberals. Words are used in twisted and exaggerated ways, or with the opposite of their customary meanings. This affects the whole of the language. The goal of this distorted language is not simply to defeat an enemy but to destroy the minds of the people who believe themselves to be conservatives and who constantly challenge themselves to ever greater extremity in using it.

A simple example of turning language into a weapon might be the word "predictable", which has become a synonym for "liberal". There is no rational argument in this usage. Every such use of "predictable" can be refuted simply by substituting the word "consistent". It is simply invective.

More importantly, conservative rhetors have been systematically mapping the language that has historically been used to describe the aristocracy and the traditional authorities that serve it, and have twisted those words into terms for liberals. This tactic has the dual advantage of both attacking the aristocracies' opponents and depriving them of the words that they have used to attack aristocracy.

A simple example is the term "race-baiting". In the Nexis database, uses of "race-baiting" undergo a sudden switch in the early 1990's. Before then, "race-baiting" referred to racists. Afterward, it referred in twisted way to people who oppose racism. What happened is simple: conservative rhetors, tired of the political advantage that liberals had been getting from their use of that word, took it away from them.

A more complicated example is the word "racist". Conservative rhetors have tried to take this word away as well by constantly coming up with new ways to stick the word onto liberals and their policies. For example they have referred to affirmative action as "racist". This is false; it is an attempt to destroy language. Racism is the notion that one race is intrinsically better than another. Affirmative action is arguably discriminatory, as a means of partially offsetting discrimination in other places and times, but it is not racist. Many conservative rhetors have even stuck the word "racist" on people just because they oppose racism. The notion seems to be that these people addressed themselves to the topic of race, and the word "racist" is sort of an adjective relating somehow to race. In any event this too is an attack on language.

A recent example is the word "hate". The civil rights movement had used the word "hate" to refer to terrorism and stereotyping against black people, and during the 1990's some in the press had identified as "Clinton-haters" people who had made vast numbers of bizarre claims that the Clintons had participated in murder and drug-dealing. Beginning around 2003, conservative rhetors took control of this word as well by labeling a variety of perfectly ordinary types of democratic opposition to George Bush as "hate". In addition, they have constructed a large number of messages of the form "liberals hate X" (e.g., X=America) and established within their media apparatus a sophistical pipeline of "facts" to support each one. This is also an example of the systematic breaking of associations.

The word "partisan" entered into its current political circulation in the early 1990's when some liberals identified people like Newt Gingrich as "partisan" for doing things like the memo on language that I mentioned earlier. To the conservative way of politics, there is nothing either true or false about the liberal claim. It is simply that liberals had taken control of some rhetorical territory: the word "partisan". Conservative rhetors then set about taking control of the word themselves. They did this in a way that has become mechanical. They first claimed, falsely, that liberals were identifying as "partisan" any views other than their own. They thus inflated the word while projecting this inflation onto the liberals and disconnecting the word from the particular facts that the liberals had associated with it. Next, they started using the word "partisan" in the inflated, dishonest way that they had ascribed to their opponents. This is, very importantly, a way of attacking people simply for having a different opinion. In twisting language this way, conservatives tell themselves that they are simply turning liberal unfairness back against the liberals. This too is projection.

Another common theme of conservative strategy is that liberals are themselves an aristocracy. (For those who are really keeping score, the sophisticated version of this is called the "new class strategy", the message being that liberals are the American version of the Soviet nomenklatura.) Thus, for example, the constant pelting of liberals as "elites", sticking this word and a mass of others semantically related to it onto liberals on every possible occasion. A pipeline of "facts" has been established to underwrite this message as well. Thus, for example, constant false conservative claims that the rich vote Democratic. When Al Franken recently referred to his new radio network as "the media elite and proud of it", he demonstrated his oblivion to the workings of the conservative discourse that he claims to contest.

Further examples of this are endless. When a Republican senator referred to "the few liberals", hardly any liberals gave any sign of getting what he meant: as all conservatives got just fine, he was appropriating the phrase "the few", referring to the aristocracy as opposed to "the many", and sticking this phrase in a false and mechanical way onto liberals. Rush Limbaugh asserts that "they [liberals] think they are better than you", this of course being a phrase that had historically been applied (and applied correctly) to the aristocracy. Conservative rhetors constantly make false or exaggerated claims that liberals are engaged in stereotyping -- the criticism of stereotyping having been one of history's most important rhetorical devices of democrats. And so on. The goal here is to make it impossible to criticize aristocracy.

For an especially sorry example of this pattern, consider the word "hierarchy". Conservatism is a hierarchical social system: a system of ranked orders and classes. Yet in recent years conservatives have managed to stick this word onto liberals, the notion being that "government" (which liberals supposedly endorse and conservatives supposedly oppose) is hierarchical (whereas corporations, the military, and the church are somehow vaguely not). Liberals are losing because it does not even occur to them to refute this kind of mechanical antireason.

It is often claimed in the media that snooty elitists on the coasts refer to states in the middle of the country as "flyover country". Yet I, who have lived in liberal areas of the coasts for most of my life, have never once heard this usage. In fact, as far as I can tell, the Nexis database does not contain a single example of anyone using the phrase "flyover country" to disparage the non-coastal areas of the United States. Instead, it contains hundreds of examples of people disparaging residents of the coasts by claiming that they use the phrase to describe the interior. The phrase is a special favorite of newspapers in Minneapolis and Denver. This is projection. Likewise, I have never heard the phrase "political correctness" used except to disparage the people who supposedly use it.

Conservative remapping of the language of aristocracy and democracy has been incredibly thorough. Consider, for example, the terms "entitlement" and "dependency". The term "entitlement" originally referred to aristocrats. Aristocrats had titles, and they thought that they were thereby entitled to various things, particularly the deference of the common people. Everyone else, by contrast, was dependent on the aristocrats. This is conservatism. Yet in the 1990's, conservative rhetors decided that the people who actually claim entitlement are people on welfare. They furthermore created an empirically false association between welfare and dependency. But, as I have mentioned, welfare is precisely a way of eliminating dependency on the aristocracy and the cultural authorities that serve it. I do not recall anyone ever noting this inversion of meaning.

Conservative strategists have also been remapping the language that has historically been applied to conservative religious authorities, sticking words such as "orthodoxy", "pious", "dogma", and "sanctimonious" to liberals at every turn.
 
OK. For those asleep at the back.
Gay = joyous, happy. NOT homosexual.

Actually, it means both. While the original meaning was indeed happy, all major dictionary sources have both the adjective (happy) and the noun (homosexual) listed as definitions of the word.

Freedom = means freedom to pursue health and happiness unfettered. NOT carry guns and kill whoever you like.

LMAO... so as you define freedom you immediately restrict that freedom??? Moron.

OK so far?

Nope, you already fucked up twice

Liberal = desire for a society that is loosely based and lives for the good of the whole NOT communist.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal?show=0&t=1311260922

Right = The hand that most people write with and to support a conservative with a small 'c' society.
Left = the hand that most people do not write with and in politics one who supports the good in society.

You truly are warped.

Communist = a philosophy in which a society owns the means of production and in which all are treated equally, NOT totalitarianism and NOT the democratic party and NOT Europe.

ok

Socialist = a society that is predominantly controlled by the state, NOT Europe, NOT Obama, NOT the democratic party.

Yet that is what Democrats want.... more government control.... just look at their takeover of Health care, social 'safety nets', more regulations, LESS freedom

Truth = the existence of that which can be shown or proven. NOT lies and propaganda issued by MOST governments.

ok

Defence = the act of putting into place measures to safeguard the well being of a society, NOT attacking foreign countries and NOT ignoring the sovereign status of other countries by killing the inhabitants.

So not England, France and Germany.... ok... understood....

So once there has been agreed definitions of these terms (and others) one can then decide which America you wish to return to. I suspect that many here would like a return to the America of negro killing while others hanker for a team of horses and a wagon. Probably because deep down they are scared shitless of the future. That looks quite funny from here.

Nah... if we went back to those ways it would also include kicking the crap out of the British.... wait... you may be on to something....

Seriously though your comments are quite ridiculous. No one wants the above.
 
Actually, it means both. While the original meaning was indeed happy, all major dictionary sources have both the adjective (happy) and the noun (homosexual) listed as definitions of the word.



LMAO... so as you define freedom you immediately restrict that freedom??? Moron.



Nope, you already fucked up twice



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/liberal?show=0&t=1311260922



You truly are warped.



ok



Yet that is what Democrats want.... more government control.... just look at their takeover of Health care, social 'safety nets', more regulations, LESS freedom



ok



So not England, France and Germany.... ok... understood....



Nah... if we went back to those ways it would also include kicking the crap out of the British.... wait... you may be on to something....

Seriously though your comments are quite ridiculous. No one wants the above.

You have cited Merriam Webster as an authority. Two things that, perhaps you do not understand, firstly a dictionary displays what is and not what should be. This is a common misunderstanding. A dictionary accepts a word when the word has been used, in writing, with a particular meaning. A dictionary does not say whether that meaning is right or wrong.
Secondly, it is a widely known fact that Merriam Webster is accepted almost solely in America. It was started by Noah Webster who, far from being a scholar, was an absolute charlatan.
I do not expect you to know that.
Your final comment about kicking the crap out of the British is quite funny for it is you, who exist on the lunatic fringe of civilisation, who are full of crap and, as you would know, had you ever had the courage to leave your polluted shores, most Brits would knock seven shades out of wussy yanks.
Ask any of your servicemen (millie dairy) who have faced an angry jock while on R&R.
Still dont like your name so while you use it dont bother to respond to my posts.
 
You have cited Merriam Webster as an authority. Two things that, perhaps you do not understand, firstly a dictionary displays what is and not what should be. This is a common misunderstanding. A dictionary accepts a word when the word has been used, in writing, with a particular meaning. A dictionary does not say whether that meaning is right or wrong.
Secondly, it is a widely known fact that Merriam Webster is accepted almost solely in America. It was started by Noah Webster who, far from being a scholar, was an absolute charlatan.
I do not expect you to know that.
Your final comment about kicking the crap out of the British is quite funny for it is you, who exist on the lunatic fringe of civilisation, who are full of crap and, as you would know, had you ever had the courage to leave your polluted shores, most Brits would knock seven shades out of wussy yanks.
Ask any of your servicemen (millie dairy) who have faced an angry jock while on R&R.
Still dont like your name so while you use it dont bother to respond to my posts.

"...most Brits would knock seven shades out of wussy yanks..."

Is that what your dad, not your father, told you; every time he reminded you that you were conceived when your mum lay down with a WW II American Soldier?
 
Back
Top