Slowly but surely, Americans have learned to stop thinking. If you do not believe this, walk through any crowded area in your city during the next few days and watch closely as people mill about. The experiment will be especially telling if you go to a place where thought once thrived – the Church or the university. The awe inspiring hope of Puritan John Witherspoon, who believed America was chosen by God to be “a shining city on a hill,” is gone. The optimism of Ronald Reagan, who believed that America had “a rendezvous with destiny,” is lost. The fortitude of George Washington, who said “the Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon,” is softened and overlooked due the fact that many of us have never read or considered the Constitution.
We pride ourselves in our “education.” We take comfort in the “advances” we have made over those who went before us and mock the “backwardness” of our ancestors, even of those white landowners who signed the Declaration of Independence. Ironically, those white landowners of the late 18th century were probably far better educated that we are in the early 21st. For instance, while some of us know how to clean a gun, our Founders knew not only that but also how to make a gun. And while all of us know what cigars and cigarettes are, the Founding Fathers in Virginia and the Carolinas could have taught us how to plant, grow, and harvest tobacco. They could have explained the proper type of barns to construct in order to allow harvested tobacco to cure correctly. Thereafter, they could have explained the different grades of cured tobacco and how combinations of differing grades in cigarettes would provide varying flavors.
This knowledge would not have been esoteric in the Founder’s generations as it is in ours; broad sweeps of the population would have been familiar with it. The amount of knowledge they stored in their minds was simply vast compared to ours.
In his book, “Knowledge and Decisions,” Thomas Sowell illustrates the greater knowledge stores of our ancestors by positing a modern, “civilized man,” suddenly dropped into a jungle: “Although the civilized man might be a well educated individual, working in complex profession…it is doubtful whether his knowledge would be sufficient to merely sustain life in an environment where primitive peoples have lived for untold generations.”
Sowell’s point should cause us to think of the untamed environment into which our forefathers and Founders entered when they came to this continent. Regardless of the professions they had held in Europe, upon arriving here they also demonstrated the additional, priceless knowledge of survival. Moreover, their knowledge was so well rounded that they and we, their posterity, have been able to thrive rather than “merely sustain life.”
In addition to establishing civilization in an untamed land, our Founders understood and dwelt upon the value the freedom. They esteemed it of greater worth than their own lives, as demonstrated by their pledge of their “lives” to its cause in the final sentence of the Declaration of Independence. Thus, although Jefferson thought about indoor plumbing, philosophy, and agriculture, among other things, the output of his pen indicates that he spent far more time considering the beauty of liberty. And Jefferson, a product of the Enlightenment in many ways, knew that the liberty of his posterity depended upon their habits of thought and their ability to think. Therefore he wrote: “Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the day of day.”
What Jefferson opined with these words was the simple fact that thought, well practiced, is the enemy of tyranny. And the corollary to this is simple: The death of thought is the birth of tyranny. When we refuse to use our minds we are asking someone else to use theirs in place of ours. This is tantamount to asking them to look out for us, or to protect us, or to reign over us. And reign they will.
In “The Conservative Mind,” Russell Kirk touched upon this in describing how despots will arise to control our behavior if we prove incapable of controlling it ourselves. His point was that the less control we exercise over the self from within, the more others will exercise control over us from without. This brings President John Adams famous quote about morality to mind: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” In other words, just as our Founders knew that “a free people ought to be an armed people” they also knew that only a moral people could be free.
The morality of which Adams wrote requires us to think about our actions, weighing not simply consequences of certain endeavors but foundational questions of right and wrong as well.
Until we decide to think again, we cannot be surprised that millions of Americans will continue to disrespect our military – How can they respect those fighting for a freedom that is not understood? We also cannot allow ourselves to be surprised that America will move closer and closer to a socialist state – A myriad of laws from without will be passed to make up for the loss of control from within. And we cannot be disheartened by the raw ignorance college student’s display concerning our nation’s heritage – Why should they esteem what their parents undervalue?
I have thought of these things again and again as I watch the seeming mindless march of hundreds of thousands of Barrack Obama supporters. Ask any of them what he stands for and the answer is the same – “change.” Ask them what kind of “change” and they will either stare at you with that blank look that betrays the fact that they’ve never thought about it or retort, “Man, it’s his turn; it’s our turn.” The real answer is far simpler – they are not thinking, and that’s why they support Obama; a man who has no respect for our military and a soft spot of socialism.
Recently, in a speech to his adoring fans, Obama said he didn’t look like the other presidents whose faces are on our money. He said this because he is black and they were white. And his goal was to shame John McCain and other Republicans into backing off from their criticism of his policies. But his statement made me think about how correct he was in one way – he is nothing like our Founders. They loved freedom, he hates it. They loved capitalism, he wants a socialist state. They fought Britain to the death; he wants to make the U.S. more European. They loved guns, and viewed them as befitting companions of free people; he opposes concealed carry laws and private gun ownership.
Perhaps in time, more of us will come to the realization that the cessation of thought opens the door for every oppressive demagogue slick enough to step in, and we will reverse the trend. Until then, men like Obama actually have a fighting chance in what would otherwise be a grand slam for McCain. If Obama wins the election, we must remember that through our refusal to think and encourage thought in others we have become our own worst enemy.
Agreed.
thesimulacra Friday, August 15th at 9:30AM EDT (link)I propose that we petition our public education system to remove all unnecessary classes (Computer Training, Science) and replace them with the true tests of man’s intelligence: Gunsmithing and Tobacco Cultivation. Only then can we hope to return to the grand old days of critical thought and public decency; the kind that says that your wife deserved that black eye for mouthing off, and that understands that if we allow black people to vote, why, all hell will break loose! If only people today were as smart as they were back then, we wouldn’t have these kinds of problems!
A Culture of self-reliance
Hermes Friday, August 15th at 9:36AM EDT (link)The Founders all envisioned a culture of strong faith (yes, Jefferson and Franklin, too) and self-reliance. They were men who lived by ideals and were willing to suffer for those ideals. Authentic American conservatism begins with the Founders and their values. It can hardly be shocking to anyone following American politics in 2008 that those on the left (and some on the right) despise the Founders. Indeed, some of our more prominent lefties (include the junior Senator from Illinois) have conducted personal jeremiads against the Founders. Think of the other side of the coin in B.H. Obama’s “doesn’t look the like the guys on the money” comment: sure it’s easy to call out the race angle, but I think it betrays a personal loathing for the men on our currency; he does NOT want to be anything like them, he cannot stand what they stood for. And that, my friends, is the foremost visionary leader of the left in 2008. Is it any wonder America is such a mess today?
Well written, Hawkins. I could not agree more. Also, I highly recommend anyone interested in the Founders go down to your local library and check out Gordon Wood’s Creation of the American Republic. It is a fine history and testament to the ideals that drove the Founders.
Hi, moby!
blooch Friday, August 15th at 9:41AM EDT (link)Long time listener, first time caller? Nice knowing you.
“I have to admit that Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a smart man. He was, in many ways, a psychologist.”–drealoth
Moderator: Troll alert.
Brian Simpson Friday, August 15th at 9:41AM EDT (link)n.t.
The Minority Report | Twitter | Facebook | Digg | Politics4All | Missouri Matters | Rebuild the Party
Important principles may and must be inflexible. ~ Abraham Lincoln
I say moby based on its screen name ;>) nt
blooch Friday, August 15th at 9:45AM EDT (link)nt
“I have to admit that Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a smart man. He was, in many ways, a psychologist.”–drealoth
I look on the bright side when it comes to these kinds of comments.
Moe Lane Friday, August 15th at 9:51AM EDT (link)I figure that it takes some mental pressure off of the liberals who post them. I can live with the odd clumsy attempt to smear us if it means that, somewhere, some kid doesn’t get a black eye of his or her very own.
Or worse.
Not that this means that we’ll let people do it twice if we can help it, of course.
Check out my new blog at http://moelane.com/.
http://twitter.com/moelane
My (blogging-related) wish list.
Only too true
Lorraine Friday, August 15th at 10:51AM EDT (link)I have seen this happening for years
I do not remember who said it, but it went something like this:
Those that would trade liberty for security deserve neither
That is all too true.
And the problem is, as long as the American people have their entertainment and food they do not seem to care that we are sliding into dictatorship.
God help America
Bread and circuses, Lorraine
Hermes Friday, August 15th at 10:59AM EDT (link)I agree. Less “infotainment” and more emphasis on what made the West great would go a long way toward making American a better place.
Actually
Hermes Friday, August 15th at 11:02AM EDT (link)You are half right there mindless, left-wing automaton. We should put a LOT less emphasis on the failed Dewey education system’s insistence on vocational training (Computers, Science, etc.) and a WHOLE lot more emphasis on the humanities and the ideals and virtues of our Founding Fathers. Which was part of Hawkins’ point; obviously you missed it.
Is this guy for real?
Libertyman13 Friday, August 15th at 11:16AM EDT (link)You know what, Barry has his flaws. Some of his policies aren’t so good. But coming from a conservative, I don’t want to hear ANYTHING about the death of thought and the birth of tyranny. Since when have conservatives supported thought? From the monkey trials to religious indocrination to denying evolution and global cooling, demonizing science and intellect, and putting forward the folksy hokum of Bush and Reagan, the conservative hierarchy has despised thought, and even expressly run against it.
As far as tyranny, how about the Big Brotherish tactics of the current administration? Indefinite detention on a whim. Monitoring communications with no oversight. If you’re more afraid of universal health insurance than vastly expanded police powers and the suspension of due process, you’ve got no place discussing tyranny. Oh, and while we’re at it, how about the legislation of morality by a fringe form of Christianity? Yeah, no threats of tyranny there.
Maybe some of you are reasonable conservatives who loathe Bush and anti-intellectualism. Who put their faith in the scientific method, and truly believe in small government that does more than cut taxes, but respects individual choice and liberty. But I’m guessing some are not. And to even write an article like this if you’re a social conservative is a ridiculous, laughable proposition.
All that being said, there are certainly some morons who like Obama. And socialism, although obviously not a danger with Obama (you did study what socialism is, didn’t you?) will often be a lurking threat. But the culture of the true liberal values thought and liberty. Many if not most conservatives dislike thinking and education, and enjoy employing cultural authoritarianism. They dislike the scientific process, and how many conservatives deny the results of that process? How many conservatives even “think” evolution took place? Not many, I’d wager.
In short, you’re a black hole discussing the darkness of the kettle.
The fall of American education?
Tony_W Friday, August 15th at 11:23AM EDT (link)What amazes me is the preponderence of elite intellectuals and academics who have fallen into line behind Obama and his on-word mantra.
P.S., John Winthrop was the Puritan who espoused the concept of America as a “shining city on a hill.” Jonathan Witherspoon was a Presbyterian minister who signed the Declaration of Independence. Our educational system has even failed you.
Surely you jest, sir
Hermes Friday, August 15th at 11:45AM EDT (link)Conservatives hate “thought?” What What What? From what fever-swamp have you emerged oh stranger creature?
Here’s a list of some real die-hard thought hating conservatives:
Friedrich Hayek
Russel Kirk
Barry Goldwater
Robert Nozick
Murray Rothbard
Peter Kreeft
Robert P. George
C.S. Lewis
G.K. Chesterton
Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Pack of radical thought-smahsing Luddites there, mate.
I agree with your point, but the examples detract from the point.
Brian Hibbert Friday, August 15th at 11:47AM EDT (link)The ability to select and cure tobacco is no longer a relevant skill. Neither is the ability to manufacture a gun or make the gunpowder, or any of a number of other skills that were essential in colonial life. (Some of this reminded me of an old country song “A country boy can survive.”)
As to the larger point, it is up to us to educate people and teach them how to think for themselves. We have to counter lefty arguments with rational reasoned responses. This type of response doesn’t make good 30 second sound bites, but does show people how to reason through an argument. Chances are, the lefty will respond with platitudes or name calling, but the observers may learn something…..
Socialism doesn’t work. It looks nice on paper, but it’s been tried and it’s failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Join the RedState Strike Force
Pseudo-intellectuals
Hermes Friday, August 15th at 11:57AM EDT (link)A fair number of America’s so-called academics are pseudo-intellectuals who belong to the deconstructionist movement. With an increasing number of dissertations on pointless or inane topics flooding the market over the past twenty years, is it any wonder that modern faculties are clueless political junkies with no serious educational background? The more balanced members of the academic left have realized the danger to the American education system posed by the utter garbage that passes for scholarship in today’s universities. Stanley Fish and Alan Sokal(both men of the left) have been fighting against this sort of thing for years.
Obama’s phoney baloney academics are nothing more than political guerrilla fighters who have achieved professionally much more than they are capable of intellectually. They include clowns and rip-off artists like Cornel West, Toni Morrison, Angela Davis, William Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and bell hooks. Most of these people are, at best, capable of undergrad work, but in our flawed system are now the proud owners of doctorates. Gimme a break.
Observations
jdwhit Friday, August 15th at 12:00PM EDT (link)I do not believe that the percentage of independent thinkers has changed very much through history. If you read real history and not PC history you would know that only a small, but very vocal minority of Americans pushed for, started our break from England. Even when active fighting between the Continental Army and England was in progress, large percentages of the population were “Troy’s” and supported the crown. It was not until the “knowledge” of Cromwell’s Army’s cruelty and total disregard of Colonist’s persons and property became widespread did the average “American” support and stand with the “Revolutionaries” against the Crown. The biggest change is our obsession with Political Correctness and the pervasive influence of the modern media.
I understand the argument and it may have some merit. I believe that the early Americans who lived “in country” rather on the frontier and were of the middle and upper class (not striving to merely survive another day) did have extremely good educations. In some ways they had a better education than comparable Americans of today. However, I also believe that this comparison is not as straightforward as it appears. I believe that if you took most Early Americans and dropped them into our society, they would have just as difficult of a time as we would in theirs. While we would know nothing about agriculture and precious little about scratching out the basic needs for life from nature, they would be just as lost trying to survive post industrialism. They would not be able to navigate modern transportation; could not handle: information overload, telecommunication or constant technological advancement; and would be unable to cope with modern efficiency requirements, multi-tasking, etc. In today’s world we often accomplish a task in an hour that would have taken months to accomplish in the 1700’s. I think that adjustment to the demands of modern life would be more difficult to make than moving back in time and learning how to grow crops and scratch out a life from nature.
Observations:
jdwhit Friday, August 15th at 12:07PM EDT (link)Sorry,
I did not preview my post, and did not realize that the line spacing did not make it through the cut and paste. Hope this makes for easier reading:
I do not believe that the percentage of independent thinkers has changed very much through history. If you read real history and not PC history you would know that only a small, but very vocal minority of Americans pushed for, started our break from England. Even when active fighting between the Continental Army and England was in progress, large percentages of the population were “Troy’s” and supported the crown. It was not until the “knowledge” of Cromwell’s Army’s cruelty and total disregard of Colonist’s persons and property became widespread did the average “American” support and stand with the “Revolutionaries” against the Crown.
The biggest change is our obsession with Political Correctness and the pervasive influence of the modern media.
I understand the argument and it may have some merit. I believe that the early Americans who lived “in country” rather on the frontier and were of the middle and upper class (not striving to merely survive another day) did have extremely good educations. In some ways they had a better education than comparable Americans of today. However, I also believe that this comparison is not as straightforward as it appears.
I believe that if you took most Early Americans and dropped them into our society, they would have just as difficult of a time as we would in theirs. While we would know nothing about agriculture and precious little about scratching out the basic needs for life from nature, they would be just as lost trying to survive post industrialism. They would not be able to navigate modern transportation; could not handle: information overload, telecommunication or constant technological advancement; and would be unable to cope with modern efficiency requirements, multi-tasking, etc. In today’s world we often accomplish a task in an hour that would have taken months to accomplish in the 1700’s. I think that adjustment to the demands of modern life would be more difficult to make than moving back in time and learning how to grow crops and scratch out a life from nature.
Hi Libertyman13, care to engage in debate?
Brian Hibbert Friday, August 15th at 12:17PM EDT (link)Or would you prefer to assume that conservatives are incapable of rational thought? Assumptions like yours are what this diary is about. You assume things about others and they become real to you.
Let’s start with the “As far as tyranny, how about the Big Brotherish tactics of the current administration?” and compare and contrast with the socialists and the tyrannies that have been imposed by socialist countries.
You somehow consider monitoring INTERNATIONAL communications of a few suspected terrorists as worse than forced confiscation of everyone’s property and the removal of personal choice in making medical decisions. I don’t get it. Why do you hate freedom?
And yes, I know what socialism is. Do you?
Socialism doesn’t work. It looks nice on paper, but it’s been tried and it’s failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Join the RedState Strike Force
Hermes
Brian Simpson Friday, August 15th at 12:21PM EDT (link)Solzhenitsyn is decidedly not a conservative. He was against the way that people were treated in the Soviet Union but he was still a communist.
The Minority Report | Twitter | Facebook | Digg | Politics4All | Missouri Matters | Rebuild the Party
Important principles may and must be inflexible. ~ Abraham Lincoln
Goldwater
Libertyman13 Friday, August 15th at 12:34PM EDT (link)I actually like Goldwater a great deal. He was certainly a good man and nobody can argue that he wasn’t a thinker. Notice I explicitly made room for reasonable small-government conservatives with exactly Mr. Goldwater in mind. He bitterly opposed the religious right, whom he correctly saw as a very serious threat to liberty. He said that the Republican party was being hijacked by a bunch of kooks and warned that if the Republican Party became a religious organization, it would be a disaster (and it has!).
Goldwater opposed everything that the modern Republican party has become. He loathed social conservatives and cultural authoritarians like Jerry Falwell. Not to mention the fact that Goldwater’s intelligent conservatism was an electoral disaster for the Republican party.
You cannot, with a straight face, claim that Republican leaders run on a platform of thought. The entire machine is based upon opposition to intelligence and the substitution of faith for reason.
I know not all conservatives are like that, there are still some Goldwaters out there. But they don’t have any power. There are intelligent, thoughtful conservatives. There have been many throughout history. But they aren’t the conservatives running things today.
Libertyman13 lacks huevos.
Vegas_Rick Friday, August 15th at 12:37PM EDT (link)Don’t come in here, spewing your hateful liberal demagoguery. You people are the freaking thought police. How many conservatives are trying to limit free speech in the media? Yet you people are pushing the “Fairness Doctrine” to shut down conservative voices.
We can’t think? Disagreeing with your distorted world view, does not mean we can’t think. Rather, I think it proves we can be independent thinkers.
We don’t need you or Obama to tell us that America sucks, that our lives suck, that the world is going to hell in a hand basket, and only long-nosed liberal elites can save us from ourselves.
We, conservatives, think for ourselves, take care of ourselves and our families, and take responsibility for the decisions we make.
In short, get lost!
“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan ‘press on’ has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.” Calvin Coolidge.
So conservatives are only thoughtful if you agree with them?
Brian Hibbert Friday, August 15th at 12:41PM EDT (link)Or at least you think you agree with them. Try again. Thoughtful people can come to completely different conclusions for various reasons (ranging from incorrect or incomplete data to personal bias).
Truly thoughtful people understand the difference between facts, assumptions, opinions and conclusions.
Socialism doesn’t work. It looks nice on paper, but it’s been tried and it’s failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Join the RedState Strike Force
Not so
Hermes Friday, August 15th at 12:41PM EDT (link)Solzhenitsyn was not a communist, not as the term was (and is) understood in Russia. Now a fair argument could be made that he was a Tsarist, Orthodox nationalist, but he most certainly was not a communist. Regarding his conservatism: in the US 2008, Solzhenitsyn would be a Republican and, most likely, a paleocon. He opposed laissez-faire, rampant consumersim-driven capitalism and supported the principle of subsidiarity; the man well knew the dangers of any accumulation of power, having suffered for his beliefs first-hand. He viewed Marxism in general and Leninisn and Stalinism specifically as fatally flawed systems that mandated violence. He spoke openly of the need to oppose communism. I don’t see how any of that can be construed as pro-communist.
No, don't tell him to get lost. Teach him.
Brian Hibbert Friday, August 15th at 12:44PM EDT (link)Even if he isn’t convinced, he’ll be an example for others.
Socialism doesn’t work. It looks nice on paper, but it’s been tried and it’s failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Join the RedState Strike Force
I'll take that action
Libertyman13 Friday, August 15th at 1:04PM EDT (link)Hi Brian,
“Why do you hate freedom?” This is absurd. I love freedom. That is why I am a liberal. “You assume things about others and they become real to you.” I’m sorry, I must have missed my assumptions. I clearly provided for conservatives with rational thought processes in my comments. It is a FACT that conservatives explicitly run for office against reason. Look at Bush. He doesn’t use logic. He uses his gut, and his faith. He says as much, and he’s proud of it. That’s not thought. For a real conservative and real man who wasn’t a fearful and emotional person willing to cede individual liberty to the government at the drop of a hat, like today’s closet case Republicans, look at my post about Barry Goldwater.
Socialist countries are awful. I’m not trying to defend socialism, socialists, communists, syndicalists, or anything like that. Now who’s assuming things, Brian? Just because you cannot actually challenge any of my main points, doesn’t mean you can set up a socialist straw man and then try to ascribe those beliefs to me. How typical, though, of many of your irrational fellow travelers. Notice I said many, not all. You know what else is awful? Theocracies. Military dictatorships. Fascists. All the demons of the right.
I clearly mentioned that some conservatives are perfectly capable of rational thought. But that’s not what the Republican party is about. The Republican party openly mocks education and raises up ignorance and faith over reason and debate. Can you deny this? Can you deny that Republicans are the driving force behind undermining scientific discourse in this country? You don’t see a lot of liberals trying to ban books or teach religious dogma in school. You do see conservatives who will close their eyes and ears to any sort of historical and sociopolitical discussions about the origins of Islamic terrorism, as we all know they hate us because we’re free for some reason.
I’m sorry, I must confess I missed the part where anybody was advocating the “forced confiscation of everyone’s property.” Or taking away medical choice. I personally support the reduction of artificial barriers to competition among medical care providers, as well as providing a very basic universal health insurance administered by a private company (with tax credits for those who don’t wish to use it).
And we aren’t just talking about international surveillance, and you know that for a fact. The whole point of the program was “domestic” surveillance, you know, within our country. And what do you call the increased police powers of the Patriot Act? Or conservative justices tripping over themselves to let the government do whatever it wants to do to you? The reduction of the protections of the Fourth Amendment. Seeking to regulate such personal issues as sex, marriage, religious freedom, the sanctity of the home, privacy, etc. etc. etc.
Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. Dictionary.com
Now I know this might be a little hard for you, because you keep ascribing socialist beliefs to both Democrats and I (I am a proud independent who has even voted for the occasional reasonable Republican), but look very, very closely at the definition. And look very closely at yourself. It’s time for you to admit that nobody is talking about socialism. Nobody wants to give the means of production to the community as a whole.
I am not trying to be rude or obnoxious. But articles like this are simply doublethink. Accuse the other side of tyranny while practicing it yourself. Accusing the other side of trying to destroy thought while doing your very best to destroy science, discourse, and intellectuals.
That might not be you, personally. But if you vote for a Republican, that’s what you are doing. I issue this challenge to conservatives:
If you are so skeptical of government, why do you limit that skepticism to when government is trying to help people? Why not when the government is trying to force you into a Leave it to Beaver, Pleasantville little social box? Or when they invade other countries? If welfare stirs you up more than war, for the love of God you’ve got a problem.
"But coming from a conservative, I don't want to hear ANYTHING about the death of thought and the birth of tyranny."
stang Friday, August 15th at 1:09PM EDT (link)Of course you don’t. The objective truth would upset the fantasy world you have had to construct to support your overinflated sense of moral superiority.
“Ignorance is a voluntary condition.”
Herbert V. Prochnow
“Whenever the legislators endeavor to take away and destroy the property of the people, or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power, they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence.”
John Locke
just a quick reminder
Streiff Friday, August 15th at 1:16PM EDT (link)I think you’re lost because you are on a conservative site and calling us intellectual luddites when we are the only party that’s had an original idea in about 40 years. That’s not a highly developed evolutionary strategy.
“A man does what he can and endures what he must.”
Warning: Fire Hazard
blooch Friday, August 15th at 1:28PM EDT (link)RedState needs to set a limit on strawman occupancy within a comment, or at least require fire-retardant links to each strawman.
“I am not trying to be rude or obnoxious.”
Well, you…
Nevermind. Enjoy your hayride.
“I have to admit that Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a smart man. He was, in many ways, a psychologist.”–drealoth
That's tragilarious
Libertyman13 Friday, August 15th at 1:29PM EDT (link)Oh Vegas Rick, do you even believe yourself? You’re so willing to cede control of his own life to a government to make all your moral decisions for you, to watch over you and keep you safe from all the big scary Muslims, along with anything that challenges your narrow world view. Pathetic. And you’re mentally defective enough to come right after me with ad hominem attacks, further proving my point. Be a man, think for yourself, and address my issues with reason, like Brian attempted to do.
The thought police? That’s tragically hilarious (thus my title). Who wants to destroy dissent? Who wants to ban flag burning (now, before you say it, I don’t like flag burning at all. But it’s clearly a liberty issue)? Who wants to keep gays out of sight or “cure” them? Who wants to institute religion into public schools (and, may I ask, which brand of religion will be applied?).
How exactly do conservatives promote thought, discourse, science, knowledge? Give me one example. Do you even know what’s been happening in this country for the past few years? Many conservatives rail against science and secular thought, promoting faith as an answer for everything. Denying evolution. Denying the change in the climate (there are many things up for debate on this issue, but flat denials are not one of them). But if the answer to everything is already decided, well, that doesn’t leave much room for thought, does it? (As an aside, I am a religious person. But blind obedience to what somebody tells you God wants is hardly thought, is it?).
I don’t want to limit free speech at all. I don’t want “Free Speech Zones.” I don’t want a fairness doctrine. I love liberty, as all true liberals do. I love all the amendments, including the Second Amendment AND the Fourth Amendment. I believe that the government should not be able to decide what your life should be like. You do. You’d give up your own individual responsibility that easily?
I didn’t say America sucks. I love this country. But I dislike what cowards like the president have done to it. And you’re not helping. So keep your bs claims about my huevos yourself. Stop trying to compensate for yourself.
No actual responses?
Libertyman13 Friday, August 15th at 1:31PM EDT (link)No rational responses, then? Awesome.
Sigh
Libertyman13 Friday, August 15th at 1:33PM EDT (link)It’s a rhetorical device. If you’ve got the truth, where is it? Why do you cling to tradition, faith, and fear for your values? Where is your reason?
If none of you can actually answer me, then I will consider this discussion over. Tell me which conservative policies are helping thought or liberty.
OK Libertyman13, let's begin.
Brian Hibbert Friday, August 15th at 1:47PM EDT (link)You love freedom. Wonderful, so do I. We have some common ground. You claim to be a liberal. Perhaps you are using the definition of a classic liberal, to quote Milton Friedman:
“The heart of liberal philosophy is a belief in the dignity of the individual, in his freedom to make the most of his capacities and opportunities according to his own lights, subject only to the proviso that he not interfere with the freedom of other individuals to do the same. ”
It’s a belief I share. Unfortunately the Progressive movement co-opted the term “liberal” and it now means something completely different.
This is an assertion presented as a fact:
“It is a FACT that conservatives explicitly run for office against reason.” The example you gave about Bush not thinking is also just an assertion. This could turn into a pissing contest, so let’s move on to something of substance.
I agree with your description of socialism as awful (I would use the term tyrannical, but awful will do). I am glad you are not a socialist and I don’t believe I called you one. I would tell you that single payor health care is a socialist policy and as such would require a loss of freedom. The only way to allow the government to provide universal health care is to for government bureaucrats to determine what procedures are needed and how they should be provided. There are limited resources and those resources have to be allocated somehow by someone. You can either do it with a free market approach or a command economy. Right now we have a somewhat mixed version of them and it doesn’t work as well as it could. Your description of what health care should be sounds a lot like McCain’s plan. I’m not sure it will work well, but it is better than the single payor model advocated by most of the left.
By the way, Fascism has nothing to do with conservatism. It is an ideology with its roots in socialism. It was a movement in which the “people” as represented by the state was the ultimate authority. Individuals (including legal entities like corporations) were allowed to exist and own property only as long as they met the needs of the state. If a company no longer made the government happy, the state would confiscate it. (Sound familiar? Democrats were calling for confiscation of oil companies earlier this year.)
Uh, you misunderstand what the “domestic surveillance” program was. It was a program that allowed government intelligence agencies to monitor international calls. Only half of the call was domestic. The other half was to people in other countries (and since I make international calls on a regular basis, I assume someone may have monitored my calls).
Can you give a concrete example of conservative judges “tripping over themselves to let the government do whatever it wants to do to you”? The only decision I can think of that did that is the Kelo decision that allows a city to take your property and give it to another private citizen “for the good of the people”. That decision was made by the liberals on the court.
As for the leave it to Beaver stuff. No one on MY side of the aisle wants the government to FORCE people to live that way. We just want to be able to CHOOSE to live that way without government intervention.
Socialism doesn’t work. It looks nice on paper, but it’s been tried and it’s failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Join the RedState Strike Force
I agree
Libertyman13 Friday, August 15th at 1:51PM EDT (link)Thoughtful people can do that. My comments are not directed towards thoughtful people. The ascendancy within the conservative movement is an authoritarian one.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20070921.html (for a somewhat accurate, IMO, example)
That authoritarian movement leaves no room for thought. Thoughtful people cannot be anti-intellectuals, anti-science, religious zealots. Thoughtful people can certainly agree or disagree on economic issues. I personally hold many conservative economic positions. But on the social issues, that is where the disconnect lies. Appealing to authority is not a rational discourse. And if anyone would actually address my challenges to social conservatism, I can prove it. Because there simply is not a rational reason behind many (not all) tenets of social conservatism.
Ignorance and stuff
Zombie_Flanders Friday, August 15th at 1:53PM EDT (link)I don’t get this. The fact that people today know little about Tobacco and guns compared to in the late 18th Century doesn’t mean much of anything to me. I mean, Thomas Jefferson may have known more about that stuff, but think of all the things I know more about than him. Special Relativity, Internal Combustion Engines, Computer Programming, Genetics, Evolution, Cosmology, 21st Century warfare (Tanks and planes and Nukes and such)… and I am just some College Student, not freakin’ Thomas Jefferson. And if I had to pick, I would pick any two of those things over Tobacco and gun-making, about which I know little because I don’t need to, and they’re not terribly interesting.
What I have listed differs from what you listed in being more purely intellectual whereas the TJ stuff is more hands-on working knowledge (as in something you can get a job doing). But even there, many Americans have a lot of knowledge he did not; fixing cars, using computers, etc. I’d take that over the old stuff any day.
In general, popular knowledge changes as the times change, and people’s jobs and such change. You go to different parts of the country today, you will see different areas of working knowledge. One can lament the loss of old knowledge among the populace, but it doesn’t get lost forever, it gets replaced with more useful, up-to-date stuff.
No way that is true. Think of all the things you know that they did not. Maybe if you talk about the Founders themselves, as they were smarter-than-average, but not when comparing general population to general population.
By the way, someone who knows Tobacco growing and gun making would do just as badly as I if dropped into the middle of the jungle. What are you going to do, mine for raw materials and live off cigarettes?
And I want to point out that us college students always get dumped on in “today-people-are-dumb” arguments. I’d like to see solid evidence from someone that we do worse than the general population.
And I think the Obama stuff you’re saying is ridiculous, I am not going to get into detail about it now except to remind y’all that in 1912 a Socialist Candidate for President (as in an actual Socialist) got 6 percent of the vote (okay, 5.99%).
Also, since when is there an underscore in my username? I don’t remember that from before…
Feel better?
Vegas_Rick Friday, August 15th at 1:58PM EDT (link)You still bring no facts, only your opinions of conservatives. One can only assume from your rants about climate change, gays, flag burning, etc. that you feel that if we don’t think as you do, we don’t think at all.
“You’re so willing to cede control of his own life to a government to make all your moral decisions for you, to watch over you and keep you safe from all the big scary Muslims, along with anything that challenges your narrow world view.”
How can you extrapolate that thought from my comment? Who is his?
The government does not control ANY aspect of my life. Even though you folks would like to tell me what fuel to use, what car to drive, where to set my thermostat, what radio and TV shows I can listen to or watch.
I am an independent thinker. I don’t believe that global warming is caused by humans because I am not afraid to research ALL of the evidence, not just that which supports my preconceptions. I believe radical Islam is a threat because I actually listen to the radical Islamists when they speak about what they want to do to America and Israel. And, I believe there are better ways to protest than burning the flag. So what? You wouldn’t understand values if they slapped you in the face.
How any liberal can call Pesident Bush a coward is beyond me. Liberals are the most spineless species on the planet.
I’ve already given you more time than you deserve. No more replies, I’ll simply wait till you get blammed.
Have a nice day, and please come back in November so we can rub McCain’s blow-out victory in your face.
“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent. The slogan ‘press on’ has solved and always will solve the problems of the human race.” Calvin Coolidge.
There you go again, ascribing arguments to us without knowledge.
Brian Hibbert Friday, August 15th at 2:02PM EDT (link)Stick around a while and DISCUSS issues before you start ascribing beliefs and thought processes to us. You might find out that we actually follow the scientific method “Test your theories and be willing to throw them out when proved wrong.”
We don’t call for Nuremberg style trials for Global Warming Deniers as has happened from the left. Sorry, that we don’t accept pronouncements from on high at face value. We’ve been through global cooling, global warming, ozone alerts, etc. and usually such theories are accompanied by more hysteria than fact. We deal in facts here and tend to be more open minded than you apparently think we are.
You keep saying that “all liberals” believe in freedom. You are describing the classical liberals which are more akin to conservatives and libertarians than the group that currently identifies itself as “liberals”. The original term for the modern liberals was progressives which was another socialist oriented ideology. Some modern liberals have started to refer to themselves as progressives again and I encourage them to continue that practice. Their use of the term liberal has confused a great many people.
You’ve mentioned the 4th amendment a couple of times. How does that square with your opinion of the Kelo decision?
Socialism doesn’t work. It looks nice on paper, but it’s been tried and it’s failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Join the RedState Strike Force
Last one for you
blooch Friday, August 15th at 2:10PM EDT (link)You said we can’t deny it(sigh, another of your “rhetorical devices”), and I’m not wasting my time trying to prove the negative to any of the unfounded insults and accusations in your rant.
Just one more thing: Don’t get comfortable with your current modus operandi.
“I have to admit that Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a smart man. He was, in many ways, a psychologist.”–drealoth
Again, you're ascribing things to us that aren't true.
Brian Hibbert Friday, August 15th at 2:14PM EDT (link)Sorry, pointing to an opinion piece by John Dean is hardly proof of what WE believe.
Stick around a bit. Loose the attitude and actually ASK us what we believe and why we believe it. You might get a bit of a shock.
Socialism doesn’t work. It looks nice on paper, but it’s been tried and it’s failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Join the RedState Strike Force
Hinz Rule, Brian
blooch Friday, August 15th at 2:21PM EDT (link)Just because he can string together words into sentences and paragraphs doesn’t make him any less of a troll. Good–if wasted–effort, though.
“I have to admit that Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a smart man. He was, in many ways, a psychologist.”–drealoth
The underscore came as part of the move to RedSate 3.0
Brian Hibbert Friday, August 15th at 2:25PM EDT (link)Spaces are no longer allowed in a username.
I agree with part of your reply and said something similar above. The examples he gave were not the best. Many of those skills were important for survival in colonial times. They aren’t anymore.
I think the points were that people rarely think for themselves these days and rarely pass on common knowledge. In the “old days” there was a wealth of things that people just knew. Not so much anymore. I think that has more to do with specialization than anything else.
The more important point was that people are rarely taught to think for themselves these days. This seems to be more common on the left side of the aisle than it is here. I’m happy to say that I think you are an exception and are one of a handful of modern liberals that actually think through their arguments rather than accept talking points at face value. I wish more people were like you.
Socialism doesn’t work. It looks nice on paper, but it’s been tried and it’s failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Join the RedState Strike Force
I think a point needs to be made here Libertyman13
Brian Simpson Friday, August 15th at 2:29PM EDT (link)I think you may be conflating conservative with Republican. The two terms are not always mutually exclusive.
Conservative =/ Republican in all cases just as Republican =/ Conservative in all cases. There are a good many times that Republican policy has strayed away from Conservative principles. That, I am sure, we can agree on.
For the record then, conservative policies that advance thought and liberty:
free trade agreements
lower taxes
reduced regulation
fighting against the Fairness Doctrine [Currently in the form of the Broadcaster Freedom Act]
and more that I’m sure that I could think of if I wanted to spend a lot of time on this.
The Minority Report | Twitter | Facebook | Digg | Politics4All | Missouri Matters | Rebuild the Party
Important principles may and must be inflexible. ~ Abraham Lincoln
Some common ground
Libertyman13 Friday, August 15th at 2:33PM EDT (link)I am simply using the correct definition of liberal, not the one co-opted by the few P.C. leftists out there.
First, fascism is not conservatism, but it isn’t socialism either. There is some debate over what the particular origins of fascism are, but it is clear that it owes something to militant nationalism, clearly a rightist ideology. Fascism is marked by orthodoxy and social controls, hallmarks of rightist ideologies. In theory, extreme left ideologies want to do away with the state. Extreme right ideologies (think empires, monarchies, despotisms) elevate the state of the individual. A fine distinction, perhaps, but an important one. But it really depends also on what kind of conservatism we are talking about here. If it’s Edmund Burke or Barry Goldwater, there’s no relation.
No Democrats called for the confiscation of oil companies. I’d like a link if I’m to believe that.
As for the NSA surveillance program, you are right. Only half of it is within the U.S. But U.S. citizens abroad can be tapped without warrants, and the suspicion that permits U.S. citizens to be surveilled is minimal. And this also does not address any other program enacted to prevent terrorism that increases the police powers of the government. That is hardly pro-liberty. I imagine you agree with me on this.
Conservative justices tripping over themselves to let the government do things to people. This is my biggy:
Florida v. Riley: a targeted aerial viewing of property held not to be a search, and thus not regulated AT ALL by the Constitution.
U.S. v. Place: a canine sniff is also not a search, and thus the Constitution has no bearing upon its use.
Lawrence v. Texas: conservative minority argues that the government has a right to regulate private consensual sexual conduct.
Alexander v. Sandoval: individuals cannot enforce nondiscriminatory portions of Civil rights Act
Saucier v. Katz: police officers have qualified immunity and cannot be used, even after a jury find they used excessive force on a person
Employment Division v. Smith: individuals cannot challenge facially neutral laws that significantly burden the free exercise of religion.
The recent habeas corpus decision featured conservatives advocating the government’s ability to indefinitely detain people who stand accused, but not relaly proven, of being enemy combatants.
Connecticut v. Griswold: Conservative minority says that the government can ban the use of condoms.
The list goes on and on and on. The Kelo decision is an unfortunate one, it’s one of the two I can think of that I agree with the conservatives on (along with Heller, the gun case).
As for the Leave it to Beaver stuff, I was, quite honestly, unaware that anybody was interfering with that. I do have to disagree, though, that nobody on your side of the aisle wants to force that upon everyone. Focus on the Family, Sam Brownback, and a host of others that want to legislate fringe Christian dogma terrify me, quite frankly. There are (some of these were) sodomy laws, victimless drug crime laws, blue laws, obscenity laws, adultery laws, barriers to divorce, etc.
But if, in fact, you have no problem with a live and let live attitude, then we can definitely agree on that. I think you’re welcome to a Leave it to Beaver type life, if that’s what you want. I’m not sure I know how people were interfering with that, but I agree with you it shouldn’t happen.
Maybe, but I want to play with this one a while.
Brian Hibbert Friday, August 15th at 2:38PM EDT (link)It’s just possible he’s willing to open up his mind a bit. Even if he’s not, there’s still the example for others.
Socialism doesn’t work. It looks nice on paper, but it’s been tried and it’s failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Join the RedState Strike Force
There are a wealth of conservative views out there
Hermes Friday, August 15th at 2:39PM EDT (link)As you point out, there are still Goldwater Republicans who are active in the party. One could make a very solid argument that Ronald Reagan was one of them; at the minimum, the Goldwater debacle in ‘64 produced the Reagan triumph in ‘80. And, before we trod on the so-called tyranny of the religious, Reagan was a man of deep faith and a “culture warrior.”
Most, but by no means all, of the self-identified paleocons are, essentially, academics and theorists. Thomas Fleming, Clyde Wilson, Virginia Abernathy, etc. are all distinguished scholars. Amongst mainstream conservatives, there are also numerous people who have a genuine regard for reasoned, rational debate. Robert P. George and Peter Kreeft are two of the most brilliant philosophers in modern academia and both are conservatives. Judges Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas and Anton Scalia are certainly not what I would call irrational, religious tyrants, yet all are devout Roman Catholics and die-hard conservatives.
I think you may be falling victim to caricatures of the Right. While no one doubts that the Christian Coalition, Dr. Dobson, the late Jerry Falwell, etc. have/had pull in the GOP, they represented only one faction. The GOP is not a monolithic entity. For every bible-bashing creationist the media loves to discuss ad nauseam, there are ten thoughtful men of faith and reason who are conservatives. Surely you are aware that the left has just as shoddy a history of anti-intellectualism as the right?
My own peculiar brand of conservatism is based on the philosophies of men of faith, yet that has not compelled me to pillory thought or reason. On the contrary, I stand firmly within the realm of the idealists and the rationalists. I am a disciple of Plato and Socrates, Acquinas, Descartes and Kant. Empiricism and materialism are anathema to me. You have identified yourself elsewhere as a liberal. Upon what philosophies do you base your beliefs?
Maxine Waters is a Democrat
Brian Hibbert Friday, August 15th at 2:47PM EDT (link)http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65111
I just googled Maxine Waters oil companies and this was the first link Maxine Waters: Socialize Oil Companies
In her own words.
Socialism doesn’t work. It looks nice on paper, but it’s been tried and it’s failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Join the RedState Strike Force
Damn Kelo
Libertyman13 Friday, August 15th at 2:53PM EDT (link)I just wrote a rather lengthy explanation of the Kelo factors, and then it wouldn’t post and I lost it. I’ll summarize: Kelo was wrongly decided, but it isn’t as bad as the hype. Nobody can just take your house. First of all, you must be compensated. Second, there is a rather long list of considerations to determine whether it is a “public use” or not.
Suffice it to say, I don’t find them horribly persuasive, but again, it’s perhaps not as bad as made out to be.
Yeah, I would call that Libertarianism...
Slightly_Askew Friday, August 15th at 2:56PM EDT (link)Drag up a rock, light up a fatty, and welcome to the club
You have already mentioned Goldwater, as well as your desire for individual liberties (you might want to check the Democrat voting record before you go thinking they have your personal liberty at heart). I think you might find you are more of a Libertarian Conservative than a Libertarian Progressive, and probably align more with the people here than over at dKos.
And yes, social conservatives scare me as well; just not as much as fiscal liberals (in the non-classic sense of the word) do. Still, it’s not a good idea to go around calling them names on their forum.
There are some
Libertyman13 Friday, August 15th at 3:05PM EDT (link)I agree, there are plenty of reasonable conservatives out there. But it is rather difficult to argue that the actual politicians of the Republican party, who represent the views of conservatives, are full of reasoned analysis. Unfortunately for everyone, I would argue that the flat-earthers control the Republican party, and tried mightily to block the nomination of John McCain, who promptly gave up his “maverick” beliefs.
As for anti-intellectualism and anti-science, there certainly has been some of that on the left (and by left, I mean the economic left, such as in the USSR and Maoist China). But liberals generally don’t fall into that trap as much, but I’ll certainly concede that there is some.
As for global cooling, which some of you have addressed, the scientific debate over climate change is really over in terms of whether the climate is changing. We’ve already had well over the mean precipitation for August up here, and the month isn’t even halfway over. Now, the debate still exists over the cause of it, but the shift is pretty obvious. Now I 100% agree that there is far too much hysteria about it, and that we need a more balanced approach. However, a good friend of mine works for a Republican senator who states that it is happening.
Maybe the issue with that is environmentalists who somehow want it to be our fault, and righties who want it not to exist, both need to just examine it empirically. Then, when the results are more clear, and the causes, we need to do something. But getting involved emotionally isn;t the way to go, and I’m very clear that the left is equally to blame for that one.
I'll respond to this soon but Bill Murray just jumped out of a plane nt
Zombie_Flanders Friday, August 15th at 3:06PM EDT (link)First Libertyman DO NOT EVER call this
JadedByPolitics Friday, August 15th at 3:06PM EDT (link)President a coward he is more man than you and liberal pieces of garbage including the illustrious piece of crap Obama will ever hope to be….I will note you are able to post on a website 7 years after 9-11 because this President had the courage to take on what the former liberal President would not.
Peddle your tripe elsewhere…BDS does not play here.
Whoever has his enemy at his mercy &
does not destroy him is his own enemy
Do you think he even gets the irony in what he is saying?
Alberta Friday, August 15th at 3:07PM EDT (link)I would bet the farm that Libertyman doesnt.
Im late to the party I see but Ill leave it at this
Conservatives: Free Markets, Free Religion, Free Speach, Free Movement of Labour, Free Movement of Capital, FREE! FREE! FREE!
Liberals: Slave Markets (to each according to need, from each according to ability is the definition of serfdom and hell) Restrictions on Religion, Restrictions on Labour, Restrictions on Capital, Restrictions on Speach, TYRANNY! TYRANNY! TYRANNY!
But, no, your right. Us conservatives have no ideas. Its you leftists that have all the (old and failed) ideas.
Sir, my concern is not whether God is on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God’s side, for God is always right.
Abraham Lincoln
hahaha
Libertyman13 Friday, August 15th at 3:13PM EDT (link)Perhaps, perhaps. If you guys dislike the social conservatives too, then maybe you’re alright. I’m more of an economic moderate I think. But as far as judiciary, governmental police powers, civil liberties and rights, and the other issues I care the most about, the Dems are a lot better right now. That could theoretically change. If the Repubs ditch what I call affectionately the “exploding heads” (not that there aren’t any on the left either) then I’d probably join that party.
And those guys at dailykos aren’t what I care for either hahahaha.
Well, it was interesting discussing with all of you. I think maybe we did find some issues where we can agree. And some where we obviously won’t.
I still stick by main point, though, which was that Obama isn’t going to enact brainless tyranny, and you guys need to watch the crazies in your party too! They are just as big, if not bigger (in my book), then the loser P.C. crowd that I get to deal with. I’ll tell you what, let’s each try to limit their power, and maybe we’ll all be better off.
Actually, her own words were:
Slightly_Askew Friday, August 15th at 3:14PM EDT (link)From the video:
The Fox newscaster supplied the word she was looking for: “Nationalizing”.
Check out the others in the background laughing at her idiocy. Don’t know whether her lack of retort or her insane ideas were the joke.
Pretty funny
Jack_Savage Friday, August 15th at 3:16PM EDT (link)“And you’re mentally defective enough to come right after me with ad hominem attacks…”
I admire the posters who have ventured into your mind-numbing screeds. I’ll save my breath to cool my soup, as they say.
I feel a
jdub19 Friday, August 15th at 3:17PM EDT (link)“KATRINA”! and “BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION ” coming on….
” Got to love the Lord for making things like that.”
Morally Compromised
You are using the correct definition unfortunately it doesn't apply to most of those
Brian Hibbert Friday, August 15th at 3:18PM EDT (link)who claim it these days. It appears the majority are using it incorrectly. Might I suggest you read some Milton Friedman for lessons on applying classic liberal ideology to government policies. Capitalism and Freedom is very good. It was written in the 60’s and has some specific ideas, many of which have been put to the test and work very well.
I’m not familiar with all of the cases you and am not an attorney (though there are many here that are). I will comment on the few cases that I am familiar with.
“Florida v. Riley: a targeted aerial viewing of property held not to be a search, and thus not regulated AT ALL by the Constitution.” I’m not actually familiar with this case, but I don’t see how an arial photograph is any different than a photograph taken from the street and “targeted” at a specific individual or location. This is a technique that has been in use for many years and has never required a warrant.
“Employment Division v. Smith: individuals cannot challenge facially neutral laws that significantly burden the free exercise of religion.” If this is the case I think it is, the agency required a photo ID and the Muslim woman didn’t want to show her face on religious grounds. The court felt that the government’s need to provide positive identification of employees overrode the religious objection.
The rest of the cases, I don’t have any particular knowledge of. I notice that many of them had minority opinions that you objected to. Often the minority opinions argue based on a point of law rather than any specific moral ground. I suspect that is the situation in most of the cases cited, but don’t really have time to properly research them. It’s also very possible that I would agree with your opinions on these cases and if they are as presented it’s very likely that higher level courts would overturn the decisions.
Socialism doesn’t work. It looks nice on paper, but it’s been tried and it’s failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Join the RedState Strike Force
The funniest man in the world?
blooch Friday, August 15th at 3:18PM EDT (link)Let me guess…He was wearing the Boy Scout’s backpack?
“I have to admit that Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a smart man. He was, in many ways, a psychologist.”–drealoth
No, he doesn't
Jack_Savage Friday, August 15th at 3:19PM EDT (link)And he starts it all with a complete misrepresentation of the basic tenets of Marxism.
Just smart enough to be dangerous and to put two sentences together. Kinda like Obama.
I have spent the last six years
Jack_Savage Friday, August 15th at 3:21PM EDT (link)Trying to teach my dog to use the microwave and balance my checkbook.
You will fare no better, I fear.
I have spent the last six years
Jack_Savage Friday, August 15th at 3:21PM EDT (link)Trying to teach my dog to use the microwave and balance my checkbook.
You will fare no better, I fear.
It was pretty windy for awhile,
blooch Friday, August 15th at 3:22PM EDT (link)but seems to be dying down and heading back out to sea.
“I have to admit that Karl Marx (1818-1883) was a smart man. He was, in many ways, a psychologist.”–drealoth
work gets in the way...
jdub19 Friday, August 15th at 3:28PM EDT (link)I saw someone fired up our friend Jaded, and had to take a look….
” Got to love the Lord for making things like that.”
Morally Compromised
I don't think the Obama you think you know
Brian Hibbert Friday, August 15th at 3:31PM EDT (link)is the one you’ll get. Prior to becoming the “presumptive” nominee, his proclaimed policies were definitely socialist in nature. He has since modified his policies to move more centrist, but I his first response still seems to be “government is the solution” to all problems.
I think government “solutions” tend to cause more problems than they solve and can’t really name any government social program that has achieved its stated objectives.
Socialism doesn’t work. It looks nice on paper, but it’s been tried and it’s failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Join the RedState Strike Force
okay, now that that's over...
Zombie_Flanders Friday, August 15th at 3:43PM EDT (link)Go on a Democratic website and you are liable to see the same said about Republicans. I know plenty of Republicans (as well as Democrats) who “accept talking points at face value.” The difference is that when you hear Republican talking points you subconsiously fill in the blanks, as it were, and it makes total sense to you, whereas they sound dumb to me. VIce versa for Democratic talking points. Like for example, if a Republican mentions “lower taxes” you think “Laffer Curve” and I think “just parroting talking points, does not necessarily have clue what he/she’s talking about.” And I am sure you could think of a similar example for Dems.
As for people like me, I know a lot of them (starting with my family, which split between Clinton and Obama); they don’t have the patience to come on a site like this, where they have to argue everything and would likely be assumed from the start to be arguing in bad faith, they are more liable to just say “forget it.”
I don’t see any reason to think that people are less taught to think for themselves than in years before, or that they can think for themselves any less than in years before. People often lament that today’s kids don’t know as many facts about US History…this is not the same as thinking for one’s self. In a way they are opposites. I was taught to think for myself I think…my education always had more of an emphasis on how historical events were linked than just memorizing dates, for example, and math education has changed from algorithms (here’s how you multiply two-digit numbers…) to concepts (this works because of the Distributive property…) and in my math classes in college they are all about drawing up proofs, the logic of which are way more ironclad than anything you’ll read on politics.
Perhaps it's just different common knowledge.
Brian Hibbert Friday, August 15th at 4:02PM EDT (link)The liberals have a different set of common knowledge than conservatives. That would go a long way towards explaining why things like the “lower taxes” reactions are so different.
I would submit that Reagan was right when he said “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant, it’s just that they just know so much that isn’t so.” is probably pretty close to the truth. See the discussion with our friend libertyman above for a whole list of things that he knows that just aren’t so.
I’m also willing to admit that it’s possible that there are some bits of common knowledge on my side that are wrong. But you’re going to have to point them out and prove it when you see them (you are on our site after all, the burden of proof is on you) .
Socialism doesn’t work. It looks nice on paper, but it’s been tried and it’s failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
Join the RedState Strike Force
Zombie
Hermes Friday, August 15th at 4:35PM EDT (link)“People often lament that today’s kids don’t know as many facts about US History”
Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it. Granted that is a paraphrase of Santayana, but I can’t find the exact source of the quote right now. Think of the modern, Democratic [Socialist] party in America today; in this election cycle alone, I have seen more repetition of disproved “folk Marxist” rhetoric than even 2004’s joke of an election. The Obamas alone have contributed quite a bit to this.
Dates are absolutely critical in history. The modern approach to this (dates don’t matter) would be laughable to scholars even fifty years ago. Knowing when an event happened helps to put it into context, which I know is not trendy given that deconstructionists and post-structuralists are in vogue in the humanities, but that doesn’t mean you have to join the lemmings. Thinking for yourself, in this day and age, especially on campuses, almost mandates that you adopt conservative or libertarian values. The uneducated herd is going with their pseudo-intellectual profs. Will you fall into the same trap?
It once was true, not so sure about now
olderthangandalf Friday, August 15th at 5:33PM EDT (link)There was a time when you had to be an independent thinker to be a Republican, particularly if you were on a university campus. I was very near the only conservative I knew on my Ivy League campus back in the day.
There’s no question that Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan thought on their own, and that Reagan was a lot smarter and better read than the academic clique of the era wanted to admit. Newt Gingrich was/is an original thinker who pulled together other conservative thinkers to put together a conservative vision of government that won back the House in 1994.
Somewhere, it changed. George W Bush is the most anti-intellectual President we’ve had in my lifetime. As Peggy Noonan wrote about him (gushingly, meaning to praise him, justifying why she was leaving the Journal to work for him), “He’s not an intellectual. Intellectuals start all the trouble in the world.”
Bushism has run out of steam, and we need some real thinking to be done to rebuild the party (and rebuild we will have to do - best case for 2009 is a strongly Democratic House, a strongly Democratic Senate, and a moderate who likes to work across ideological and party lines in the White House).
Paul Krugman, a slavering liberal if ever there was one, had a column a week or two back on the anti-intellectualism built into the current Republican brand. While I disagree with a lot of what Krugman thinks, it’s worth reading and thinking about. No one would have been able to say this kind of stuff about Republicans fifteen years ago, no matter how much they disagreed with us. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/08/opinion/08krugman.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
We need to get past that, and get back to thinking hard about hard issues - with willingness to tolerate painful truths and new approaches - if we are going to get this party back on the rails.
Of course, I may get banned for making this observation that we’ve got work to do.
Examples
Zombie_Flanders Friday, August 15th at 5:38PM EDT (link)THis is off the top of my head, I thought of others while walking to Chipotle but forgot…First, that Al Gore claimed to “invent the Internet” and second that Bob Casey was not allowed to speak at the 1992 DNC because he was pro-choice (RedState got this right a few days ago, noting it was really because he would not endorse Clinton…but said it as if it were somehow beyond the pale not to let someone who won’t endorse you speak at your convention…would the Republicans have Ron Paul at the RNC this year?)
These aren’t the same as policy questions, these are more dumb political things, but same idea.
Noonan should have known better
jonlester Friday, August 15th at 5:45PM EDT (link)than to quote Pol Pot in that context.
lesterblog.blogspot.com
Anti-Intellectual vs. Anti-Intellectualism
chemjeff Friday, August 15th at 5:45PM EDT (link)Just wanted to make one quick point in this enlightening discussion. There is an important difference between being an anti-intellectual, and anti-intellectualism, that liberals deliberately confuse in order to make conservatives out to be ignorant fools (a la Libertyman above). Being an anti-intellectual just means that you hate smart people, and that’s not very nice. But being an advocate of anti-intellectualism is actually quite different, and very much in keeping with conservative thought. Favoring anti-intellectualism, at least as I understand the term, simply means that you don’t think brains should be the primary litmus test for service in public office. We conservatives believe strongly in tradition and therefore, it follows that a solid belief in tradition should be at least as important, if not more so, than brains when it comes to governing. After all there is a certain arrogance in being really smart; you tend to think that the past has nothing more to offer. That’s the essence of anti-intellectualism. It’s not a hatred of smart people or opposing education.
"folk Marxist rhetoric"
chemjeff Friday, August 15th at 5:55PM EDT (link)That’s a good one
Well said -- 5 (nt)
kowalski Friday, August 15th at 6:14PM EDT (link).
Defend Liberty — Join the NRA | Live in Massachusetts? Join GOAL.
Anti-intellectualism crystallized...
furious Friday, August 15th at 6:18PM EDT (link)“I’d rather be governed by the first hundred names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty at Harvard.”
–WFB, Jr.
The problem with being really smart is that one thinks one is smarter than everyone else, that IQ entitles leaderhip, and that credentialism equates to competence (e.g, M.Ed. and running a public school).
–furious
“I find your lack of faith disturbing.” — Darth Vader
I think that's a misread, Gandalf
Hermes Friday, August 15th at 6:31PM EDT (link)Granted, President Bush is no fan of reading for fun, but you have to remember that he and much of his staff are managers and social sciences-types. That doesn’t make them anti-intellectual; it simply means that they have a disregard for the traditional classical education.
I happen to disagree with the managerial society and with policy-wonks like Bush, Cheney, etc., but I still respect the fact that they have had the benefit of graduate education. Unfortunately, they neglected the humanities in favor of economics, sociology, political science, etc., but that doesn’t necessarily make them bad people.
On the other hand, you are right in that there are some mainstream conservatives who are beginning to adopt Luddite tendencies toward academia and the humanities in general. Rush, for all the times he has been right in the past, was dead wrong a few weaks ago when he took apart Niall Ferguson. Rush implied that Ferguson is some type of wacko Euro-commie who hates Americans. On the contrary, Ferguson is an old-guard British conservative who has a fellowship with the Hoover Institution. Those in the know understand that the Hoover Institution does not offer such positions to bozo lefties. Further, Ferguson has championed: the flat tax, privatization of social security, and slashing the federal deficit. These are not exactly lib positions.
All this to say that, yes, there is a small segment of mainstream conservatives (including Peggy Noonan, who should know better) that are beginning to demonstrate hositility to academia. It’s utterly wrong and sad, but I don’t think that it can be traced to President Bush.
What's funny is that it can be nuanced
jonlester Friday, August 15th at 6:42PM EDT (link)to as many degrees as anyone can render the effort to rationalize their own subjective understanding of what any word means and connotes to them. You can be Einstein or you can only think you’re smart, but it’s always only about what we think we know about everyone external.
If you don’t have 3 hours to watch the original Solaris, as I mentioned in another comment tonight, the above is pretty much the point of the original Stanislaw Lem novel.
Which reminds me, I keep forgetting to subscribe to Fortean Times.
lesterblog.blogspot.com
5555555555 - nt
Mike gamecock DeVine Friday, August 15th at 6:44PM EDT (link)nt
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
Would you be willing to justify the "anti-intellectual" claim?
tcgeol Friday, August 15th at 7:41PM EDT (link)That is an accusation that we all have heard a lot, but the evidence to support that claim doesn’t seem to be there. Maybe you are using it differently, but I’d like to know why you say that.
Just your typical bitter gun- and God-clinger
It was Benjamin Franklin...
briang Friday, August 15th at 10:29PM EDT (link)from WikieQuote
I thought of that quote many times when we were giving up our fourth amendment rights by giving the telecom’s retroactive immunity. Oh wait, can I say that here?
One more thing
Zombie_Flanders Saturday, August 16th at 12:58AM EDT (link)This post isn’t solely in response to you but just a last thing I want to say.
One thing that should be pointed out about this whole education thing…I am a math major. Neither dates nor politics are anywhere near anything taught in the majority of my classes (actually, occasional dates about when this-or-that was discovered, but hardly the main focus). And many of my firends are also sciences or engineering majors. In fact, it is a relatively small slice of majors where this stuff is relevant. As for me, I have taken only four classes where that stuff might come into play.
One was a writing class involcing politics where the “prof” was a grad student, and it was less about politics and more about dangling modifiers…the type of class that for 95% of kids is a waste of time, but they can’t have 5% of grads unable to make a complete sentence.
One was a history class, where the history was sufficiently long ago and not America-centric to be an everyday right-left argument. The big thing he went on about is that, as he put it, “our past was once their future” (or, that to view historical events as this inevitable obvious sequence of events moving inexorably towards one or another conclusion misses the context in which people in the past made whatever choices or whatever observations about their surroundings, in addition to often being wrong). And he was somewhat big on dates, I heard his tests were full of random obscure knowledge but we ended up having no tests only papers.
My last was a Political Science prof on Constitutional Law. He was evenhanded I thought, I was aware of the fact that he is Liberal, because he mentioned it a few times (like when relating a story about his daughter…after she went to elementary school he asked her about the moment of silence in the school, and she responded that it was to give the students time to calm down). He would rarely say good or bad things about cases either way, just relating the arguments from both sides. And in recitation, the class discussions were usually not too partisan, with people (including me) often taking the conservative side one case and the liberal side the next. And people were more worried about remembering the difference between scrict and minimal scrutiny and thinking through the logic of the various arguments/doctrines/etc. than about arguing their side’s talking points.
Among my friends, there is no difference in level of knowledge between McCain people and Obama people. I obviously have no way of proving this for my friends or the country at large so I will just go on the record say that yall are all wrong on this one and leave it at that.
There was something else I was going to say…but I don’t remember…so whatevs, I will leave it at that for now.
this one is a keeper - 55555 - nt
Mike gamecock DeVine Saturday, August 16th at 8:08AM EDT (link)nt
Mike DeVine’s Examiner.com, Charlotte Observer and The Minority Report columns
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson
Yeah, you can say that
itrytobenice Saturday, August 16th at 8:54AM EDT (link)But you should know that we think it just exposes your stupidity.
The problem with America is stupidity. I’m not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don’t we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?
Still bothers you that much, huh?
NightTwister Saturday, August 16th at 9:10AM EDT (link)What a colossal failure that was for you.
Get Connected in Colorado.
NOW THAT is funny
David Hinz Saturday, August 16th at 9:40AM EDT (link)I don’t care who you are!
The Minority Report — The HinzSight Report — TMRB.tv — MFOB “Miss Tagart, do you know the hallmark of the second-rater? It’s resentment of another man’s achievement.”
no fan of reading for fun?
David Hinz Saturday, August 16th at 9:55AM EDT (link)I suggest you are falling into the “Bush is a dummy” trap of the left.
I believe it was Karl Rove (I might be wrong as to which advisor) who told about losing a contest to the President. In one year, President Bush read more than 100 books, while Karl finished at something like 95.
THAT suggests an intellectual curiousness that the left would like to deny
The Minority Report — The HinzSight Report — TMRB.tv — MFOB “Miss Tagart, do you know the hallmark of the second-rater? It’s resentment of another man’s achievement.”
found a reference
David Hinz Saturday, August 16th at 10:09AM EDT (link)Although it is a typical anti-Bush piece, it does make mention of the President’s voracious reading appetite.
The Minority Report — The HinzSight Report — TMRB.tv — MFOB “Miss Tagart, do you know the hallmark of the second-rater? It’s resentment of another man’s achievement.”
Good call
Hermes Saturday, August 16th at 8:01PM EDT (link)I had not heard about the President’s reading contest. I respectfully withdraw my original comment about his lack of interest in reading, although, in fairness, the article does seem to call out the reading contest as something out of the ordinary for the President, the implication being that he normally does not do a lot of reading, but is hoping to correct that deficiency.
Anyway, regardless of President Bush’s reading schedule, I have never considered him to be anything less than an intelligent, educated man. I simply pity the fact that his education and leadership style center on business management and dry policy papers rather than the classic statesman style of those educated in the humanities. That’s not an insult, simply a regret.