Home › Blogs › Jon Henke's blog ›

How to behave when you're out of power

Submitted by Jon Henke on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 12:09
in

Andy Levy has a great "To Don't List"; suggestions on what Republicans should avoid doing now that Democrats are in power.  I'll excerpt the items that resonate for me, but read the whole thing.

DON’T question the motives - question the policy. When you disagree with Obama’s policies, say so, and make it clear why. But remember that President Obama is doing what he thinks is best for the country, as President Bush did. Both men love America and want what’s best for her. End of story.

DON’T make it personal. We don’t need another Derangement Syndrome. We don’t need people doing things like emphasizing Obama’s middle name in a derogatory fashion. How anyone would think that’s beneficial to their cause, or to the country as a whole, is beyond me. Also, it’s not even clever. Neither are smushwords like BusHitler, or sillywords like Rethuglicans and Dhimmicrats.

[...]

DON’T pretend you’re being brave when you criticize your government. Not while people in other countries actually, y’know, DIE, when they do that.

DON’T use the word “divisive.” At this point, all that word means is “You disagree with me,” and the English language gets mangled enough these days.

[...]

DON’T automatically think people who disagree with you are stupid or evil. Some of them are, of course. But most of them aren’t, and you might actually learn something if you listen to them.

And finally, DON’T use the fact that many on the left behaved abominably for the past eight years as an excuse to behave the same way. America needs adults. And if it bothered you when they did it, it’s a good sign that you shouldn’t do it.

He's absolutely right.  Please take these to heart.  Especially the last one.  It's very, very difficult to claim the moral high ground while simultaneously demanding a "but they did it, too!" exemption.  (Via Race 4 2012)

3.5
Your rating: None Average: 3.5 (2 votes)

Comments

This is the Bush media strategy for the last 4 years

Submitted by chemjeff on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 12:29.

and it didn't work terribly well then either.  So the left behaved like children with their insults.  What else is new - they're liberals !  But guess what, it worked.  People actually do believe now that Bush is an idiot and Cheney is some unholy manifestation of Darth Vader.  So I don't think we start the day off with blistering character assaults on Obama but that's got to be part of our media strategy for 2012.  We build a narrative about Obama that can be reinforced by his own actions.  We don't make stuff up and go into conspiracy land, we just focus on what is self-evidently true - that Obama's a self-absorbed narcissist who believes his own hype and can't make tough decisions.  Yup it's personal but that is what you do if you want to take down the leader of a cult.  YOu can't reason with the cultists.

two things:

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 13:04.

saying he's a narcissist is fine, but stay the FUCK away from his sexuality. that's racist talk, pure and simple.

I don't know a single person who is part of this cult, and I know quite a few democrats, living in da Burgh (go Steelers!). If you approach it like that, you will probably fail.

But don't worry, if you can't find some way to take down the president who nationalizes our entire banking system, you deserve to fail. Oh, and if he doesn't... might as well forget about superpower status.

You're the first person

Submitted by centerfire on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 13:25.

to bring up his sexuality and his race in this thread.

What are you, some kind of racist homophobe? 

 

typical. sexuality in an African America context

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 13:29.

specifically as used by white folks against black people (particularly men) has been to display them as over-sexualized agressors -- generally not the derogatory "you're a sissy" that is used to insult white men.

I bring this up because there are boundaries, and I figure you might cross a few without realizing where the lines in the sand are.

Like this one.

Plus, I find this sort of shit kinda interesting -- how other people are likely to percieve what you're saying. It helps with communication.

In other words, "Yes, I am a

Submitted by centerfire on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 14:56.

In other words, "Yes, I am a racist homophobe."

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

Excellent

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 21:50.

Please DO continue this line of development for 2012, centerfire and chemjeff.

It should bring you and your band of brothers much comfort.  And not too many votes.

I agree!

Submitted by youngurbanconse... on Fri, 01/23/2009 - 17:50.

One does not win elections by being "nice"--not even Obama was.

Behaving like adults...

Submitted by centerfire on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 12:58.

is largely what got us into this situation.

Politics isn't about claiming the moral high ground. It's about winning elections. The left has established the ground rules for how an opposition party should behave: reckless hate, unhinged lies, and sweeping bad faith in the service of partisan advantage, regardless of how this might hurt the country. Playing this game by Marquis of Queensbury rules, as you and Andy Levy would have us do, is nothing more than a recipe for further electoral asskickings.

I intend to treat Barack Obama with exactly the same degree of respect that the Angry Left accorded George W. Bush for the last eight years.  Tit for tat.

 Now really. People saw

Submitted by In between on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 13:13.

 Now really. People saw through the lies, ignorance, arrogance, deceit, blunders, and incompetence of the republicans. You talk of hate, but listen to Limbaugh and Hannity and they just go and on. They have no answers. For 8 years they tried to avoid any talk of Bush and his incompetence. For 8 years we had to put up with this shenanigans. You may call it hate or whatever, we have seen it for what it was. Just total failure, total neglect of the country, and total neglect of the middle class. And that was the complaint. It was not hate, but the complaining that something was wrong. 

Thanks for that excellent

Submitted by centerfire on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 13:24.

Thanks for that excellent example of the hate, lies, and sweeping bad faith I was talking about.

 

IB, do you actually listen to Rush?

Submitted by Ironman on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 21:39.

 I recall numerous occasions when he was downright hostile to the Bush adminstration espcially over immigration. No that was the one time Bush tried to befriend the lefties, and what good did it do him?

And he wasn;t an apologist for the spending or Katrina either. So, I know that the "facts" are different; but they are written by nonlisteners. 

Your right over the

Submitted by In between on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 22:14.

Your right over the immigration policy, with his coalition with democrats. He should have taken a tougher stance. And Limbaugh and everyone else was mad at him for it.

But nothing was done on spending, the deficits and debt, abandoning Afghanistan, did not know for years what was going on in Iraq, free trade and factories closing, a military stretched thin, not knowing what was going on in New Orleans.

There was a guy who replaced Limbaugh for one day and he said the deficits were good. In any case, the country is left with a mess. A lot of things could have been dealt with, but the problems were ignored. 

For the most part Limbaugh and Hannity continued to attack the democrats for 8 years.

Limbaugh & Hannity continued to attack the democrats 4 8 years

Submitted by Ironman on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 22:37.

So. They're entitled to their opinion and weren't holding office.  I fully expect MSNBC to blast the Republicans 24/7, and if they don;t , will suspect we're being lulled to sleep.

I dislike the hyperbole

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 10:16.

and the ad hominem "why am I not funny" stance of Rush.

I think effective critiques from the left and right are the only way to make the center feasible.

Limbaugh and Hannity

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 17:42.

They each made their fortunes by attacking President Clinton viciously and libelously and without pause for 8 years.

I listen to them because of their inordinate influence over the Right wing in this country.  If Limbaugh says it, I know dittoheads wil be repeating it.

No one in this country has done more to sow hate, divisiveness, and discord than these two, and they are damned proud of it.

Limbaugh just finished this week saying flat-out he wants Obama to fail.  Just yesterday, on Hannity's vitriol-filled nightly FOX program, he said

LIMBAUGH: We are being told that we have to hope he succeeds, that we have to bend over, grab the ankles, bend over forward, backward, whichever, because his father was black, because this is the first black president.

And yet, see the comments above.  There are people here who love them, who believe them, who will defend and stick up for them and continue to listen raptly to the Conservative Gospel that comes out of their radio six straight and solid hours a day.

I think that's just great. 

AS Rick Santorum, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, GW Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom Tancredo, and others passionately promoted by Hannity and Limbaugh as models of Conservatism have found out, their influence and help is no longer moving Elections.  America has moved on, but Bush dead-enders and Limbaugh-Hannity Conservatives will keep spewing the hatred and divisiveness, forevah.

You'll probably have to wait for an Obama trip-up

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 13:36.

It's much easier to push a meme like "Bush is stupid" when he messes up easy words. It's also easy to push a meme like "Cheney is secretive" when his office is granted the power to classify and he refuses to report what he's classifying, because he's part of some magical 'fourth branch' of government.

http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3261

http://www.newsweek.com/id/81883

You'll have to wait until Obama performs some memorable gaffe/mistake that lines up with the public's general knowledge of him and strike then.

how about him nationalizing the banks?

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 13:41.

(that'd be a good thing, fwiw. the alternatives would be disasterous to our national standing in the world).

That's likely to come this week (after Geithner gets appointed, probably).

Too many people behind that one

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 14:15.

It will moderate the base, but I doubt it will appeal to moderates. I think most of them think Obama was put in a crappy situation and is listening to everyone to try and make the best of it.

hard to parse

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 14:25.

but what I think you're saying is that "everyone understands the economy is bad, and doing something, even so drastic, deserves to be given the benefit of the doubt." And that most moderates will think that.

However, I don't see them giving the 700 billion dollar bailout this priviledge, so I don't know if you're right.

Ha!

Submitted by LnGrrrR on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 15:47.

I meant to say "satisfy" the base but obviously got my tongue twisted. You figured it out anyways.

I think that people are 'shell-shocked' ... what's another few billion? (Sadly.) And more people supported the auto bailout than the Wall Street one.

Only one way to find out though, right? :D

I feel like everyone is in the dark.

Submitted by RisingTide on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 15:55.

And that the politicians would be best served by communicating the issues. I think the public is not so much upset about 700 billion, but at the impression that nobody cares what the public thinks, nobody feels any obligation to explain to the public the consequences....

I'm stocking up in silver right now... I choose to believe that Obama's administration can save the world economy. The alternatives would be disasterous.

Reason for despair

Submitted by Dan D on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 13:42.

Yes, Barack Obama is President and there is a reason to despair.  That reason is the unseemly and disreputable response of far too many on the right to having lost the election, and the sneering tone of opposition.

We cannot know the heart and mind of our new President, the campaign revealed a mixed bag of associates and stated positions, and he has a limited track record in public life.  But clearly he is a very intelligent and capable guy, with the wind at his back, and a tough job ahead of him.  He could easily be a triumphalist, push the country quickly pretty far to the left, and pander to his most avid supporters.  So far he seems to realize that he has to succeed by uniting and building support, not running off thrilling the shrillest of his base.

The people elected him, and people should be tired of the Bush Derangement Syndrome and would not welcome the right responding with Obama Derangement Syndrome.  The election is over, we have better prospects in supporting Obama when he is on an acceptable path, and pushing back on the issues when he is not.  The way to do that is to argue with specific programs, respond with better proposals to solve real problems while protecting vital interests.

A lot of comments seem to be flying around the non-Obama camp that are wild venting of worst fears.  Get over it, folks, no politician is ever as dangerous as he or she appears, and nobody ever gets 100 percent of what they want in a pluralistic society.

If we can't rigorously follow Levy's Don't Do List, the right will deserve to spend even longer in the wilderness.  Win the right way, or don't waste your time complaining.

 

 

 

 

lessons from BDS

Submitted by chemjeff on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 23:01.

Oh I absolutely agree that we should "respond with better proposals to solve real problems while protecting vital interests".  But what are the lessons that we should learn from the BDS phenomenon?  The lesson I learn is that it becomes a lot easier to win the presidency if you first construct a believable narrative about your opponent that seeks to undermine not just his agenda, but his very character.  That was the Democrats' strategy from 2004 onward: object to every single thing Bush does and fan the flames of your kook BDS-afflicted fringe.

Learn from BDS

Submitted by lgm on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 22:02.

You can learn from BDS what it takes to make Americans really mad.  Lie to them consistently.  Appoint incompetents and act as though you don't care how things turn out.  Make a big show of fomenting national disunity by loudly questioning the patriotism of people who disagree with your policies.  Flout America's most deeply held values by turturing and imprisoning without trials.  Americans will put up with some s**t, but not that much.

recovery is a hard road

Submitted by chemjeff on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 22:42.

Clearly, some among us have not yet recovered from their BDS-induced fevers.  Lgm, perhaps you should lie down.  Can I get you an aspirin?

I'll lie down till we get our intelligence agencies back,

Submitted by RisingTide on Fri, 01/23/2009 - 07:52.

 how about that, you damn fool?

There is really a perception problem

Submitted by cr on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 16:03.

There is really a perception problem here. First, the are stupid people on both sides that say . . . stupid things. But I hear more hate coming from the right than I do the left. And the comments in this artle prime that. You're basically saying "Don't be the asshole that those assholes are." Then, of course, the assholes here step in an be assholes.

In fact, instead of talking about liberals or dems, talk about the issues. Every time I go to NRO or some similar site it's "obama" this, "liberals" that. I grew up embedded in conservatism and as I was walking on the Mall yesturday . . . I was there . . . I thought Dems have achieved some significant measure of something they talk about . . . equality. What have conservatives achieved? Small government . . . no. Fiscal conservatism . . . no. Guns. . . . yes.  Wow, we've managed to arm everyone. They get civil rights, we get guns. Jeez.

Our party is more defined by what we're against, than what we can achieve. Pretty sad.

Best thing about being a liberal.

Submitted by artigiano on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 18:12.

cr,

Sounds like you had quite an epiphany on the mall yesterday. We liberals by definition stand for change. So when stuff changes, like yesterday, we stand proud. And since stuff changes just about everyday, we get lots of chances to stand proud. Of course, we have a generally agreed upon prefered framework for how and what change we want. But, change is going to come even if we sit on our hands and do nothing. So in many ways we are paddeling with the current, and only have to use our oars to direct the boat this way or that.

Conservatives are by definition attempting to do something that has never happened anywhere in the entire history of the world. Have things stay much like they currently are, or return to the way they once were. No wonder you guys are exhausted and don't have much to show for your efforts, except a bunch of penile substitute firearms. You are definately paddeling against the currents of history.

I've said it many times before, but the best thing about being a liberal is we always win in the end. All you guys on the right can do is slow our progress. Truman was the first to seriously propose universal single payer health care. And you guys have beat it back everytime. Even when Clinton put all his horses in the race, you won. And Obama's best efforts might only get us halfway or three quarters of the way there. But we will get there, eventually.

And just like Women's Sufferage, Social Security, Medicare, Civil Rights, etc., etc. it will become a cherished "third rail" program that no one dare mess with.

Some of these things are not like the others.

Submitted by centerfire on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 18:56.

Women's sufferage, social security, Medicare, civil rights, universal single-payer health care.

Pondering the essential differences between these things might be a fruitful use of your tiny little mind, lest you end up on the business end of one of those "penile substitute firearms".

I'd also note that this:

Have things stay much like they currently are, or return to the way they once were.

rates pretty high on the Unintentional Comedy Scale for "talking authoritatively about conservatism while not having the slightest fucking clue what it actually is".

Different indeed, but also the same.

Submitted by artigiano on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 18:59.

All the things I cited are extremely differerent indeed, But the thing I was aludding to that they all share is that they were ideas promoted by liberals on the left and opposed by conservatives on the right. And that each took quite a while from when it was first proposed until the time when it was enshrined into US law.

Oh, and one more thing about liberal ideas. They are completely impervious to the effects of any penile substitute firearms. I'm not sure who said it first, but there really is NOTHING more powerful than an idea whose time has come. Not you. Not me. Not anything.

Reality check time.

Submitted by centerfire on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 21:27.

I know that your kind likes to imagine that every challenge in the universe can be solved through the application of sufficient amounts of idealism and smugness, but history isn't kind to this belief.  Some of the bloodier wars have been fought over it.

The simple fact of the matter is that there's a limit to how far people can be pushed by, and how much freedom they're willing to cede to, their government.  The fact that we haven't reached a full-blown repudiation-by-gunfire of collectivist utopianism yet doesn't mean that it can't or won't happen, or that it isn't coming.

I know people -- not a lot, but more than a handful -- who've already committed themselves to peaceful non-compliance with government efforts to encroach on their human and economic freedoms.  I know others -- fewer than the first group, admittedly -- who are presently ready to kill and die to protect what's theirs.  Are you willing to kill and die to control them or seize their stuff, to spare some species of vermin from extinction, or fund universal single-payer health care, or whatever the latest and greatest collectivist project is?  Or will you just send someone else to kill and die for you, so that you don't have to actually bear witness to the body count and wash the blood from your hands?

Idealism and smugness may be sufficient to lubricate the engine of collectivist "progress" right now, but what happens when it starts requiring blood?  Is the endgame along the lines of what Stalin did to the kulaks?

 

This is one of the

Submitted by Jim Dandy to th... on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 21:36.

stupidest posts here yet.

 

"...Are you willing to kill and die to control them or seize their stuff, to spare some species of vermin from extinction, or fund universal single-payer health care, or whatever the latest and greatest collectivist project is?  Or will you just send someone else to kill and die for you, so that you don't have to actually bear witness to the body count and wash the blood from your hands?.."

 

Yeah, armed right-wingers will take to the street with their guns to resist having cheap healthcare for their families.

Like your wife is going to let you!

 

 

Nah.

Submitted by centerfire on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 06:54.

Throughout the two decades prior to the American Revolutionary War, the English were consistently stunned by colonial reaction to their policies.  A few people tried to warn them, but particularly in Parliament the prevailing sentiment was along lines of, "Yeah, right!  Those freaking hayseeds are going to riot and rebel over a miniscule tax on stamps and tea? Like their wives are going to let them! They rise and sleep under our protection, for crying out loud."

No, we're not going to have a sudden, Fort Sumter-esque setpiece that touches off a Second Civil War.  Rather, every time you exalt government a little more over individuals, we'll see more Ruby Ridge-style incidents.  Every time, a few more people will stop cooperating, and if you try to force the issue some of them will go down shooting.  Yeah, they'll lose, but they'll take some non-zero number of government enforcers with them.  And I know that you're unclear on the concept, dwelling as you do in the land of Hope and Change and rainbow-colored unicorn farts, but it'll happen because people decide that whatever the benefits of the collectivist program you're pushing today, they're not worth donning slave's chains.

So, again: is that something you're okay with?  If some fraction of the population is moved to resist the hidden consequences of your policies, and some fraction of that group is willing to do so violently if pushed, how many government agents are you comfortable sacrificing, and how many of your countrymen are you comfortable purging or jailing, in the name of collectivist utopianism?  How high does the body count have to get before you stop and say, "Gee, maybe we'd better just leave these people well enough alone."

 

as many as it takes. I don't suffer thieves kindly.

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 10:24.

even if they install gatling guns on their mansions, and threaten to take the entire fiscal network of the world down, they will be the ones who die. Even if it's my house burning in the riots, I'll make sure that they go down.

Man, I fucking hate AIG. There will be consequences (extragovernmental, assuredly. when the theives jump like rats from a sinking ship, extradition treaties be damned!)

Now there is a stunning

Submitted by acinphx on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 12:19.

Now there is a stunning display of promoting conservative 'traditional values' and respect for the rule of law!

I have no problem with those who would resist the taking their 'stuff' by lawful means -- working to change laws, getting candidates elected who oppose the taxation, protesting, etc.  But if a lawfully-elected Congress and President have passed a tax that a few don't like, I have no more problem with government enforcing the law against them than I do with it enforcing the law against any other crime.  Yes, enforcing the law sometimes involves tragic bloodshed.  That's sometimes the awful price of enforcing the law.  It's tragic when a law enforcement officer is killed in the line of duty but really, do I then feel I have blood on my hands?  No.  Are we supposed to worry about the gangs' body count and at some point say "Gee, maybe we'd better just leave these people well enough alone"?  What's the difference between the gangs breaking the laws with murder and drug dealing, and your friends who would break the law if we touch too much of their stuff?  I'm sure the answer will involve some moral relativism.

And we all dutifullly "stayed the course" in Iraq for three years, when clearly we had "blood on our hands."  If you'll recall, the Iraqis had a pretty high body count but the GOP demonized anyone who criticized 'stay the course' and would have savaged anyone who suggested "Gee, maybe we'd better just leave these people well enough alone" as Anit-American.  Now you're making not-so-veiled threats that we'll "have blood on our hands" if taxes are raised and we 'stay the course' with enforcing our laws.  Hypocrisy of the highest order.

So share with us:  Where is the bright line where we'll have blood on our hands?  Any new taxes?  A certain percentage?  A particular type?

Sorry to disappoint...

Submitted by centerfire on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 14:58.

but my answer's going to involve moral clarity, not moral relativism.  Nor is the jab about "conservative respect for the rule of law" particularly well-aimed, since (a) I'm not a conservative, and (b) I have never in my life advocated a respect for "traditional values" or the rule of law.  Oops.

What's the difference between the gangs breaking the laws with murder and drug dealing, and your friends who would break the law if we touch too much of their stuff?  I'm sure the answer will involve some moral relativism.

Murder involves a violation of someone else's rights; i.e., their right to life.

"Refusal to comply with the national healthcare mandate" and "refusal to comply with the national carbon emission allowances" (and, for that matter, peaceful "drug-dealing"), in contrast, involve violations of arbitrary bureaucratic edicts representing nothing more than the will of the mob.  People guilty of these made-up crimes weren't lawbreakers until you made them into lawbreakers, by attempting to forcibly impose upon them your collectivist utopianism.  They were perfectly happy to live in peace, but you steadfastly refused to leave them alone and keep your hands off their stuff in your pursuit of some ethereal "greater good".

In case you're still unclear on the concept, the operative principle is: Who is the aggressor?  In the former case, it's clearly the murderer.  In the latter case, it's clearly not the poor bastard desperately trying to be left alone, who's lived his whole life in peace and grudingly gone along with every single ruinous, waterheaded collectivist program for years and years, but who finally says, "Enough," and then defends himself when you send thugs with guns to enforce your diktats.

With respect to Iraq, in 1990 Saddam Hussein invaded our ally, peaceful Kuwait.  We honored our allegiance and retaliated, forcing Hussein's armies out of Kuwait and then negotiating a ceasefire agreement that, generously, permitted him to remain in power.  He proceeded to violate the material terms of that ceasefire agreement repeatedly and flagrantly for more than a decade.  Violation of a ceasefire agreement by one party is grounds for the resumption of hostilities by the other, and replacing the Iraqi regime with one that would comply with its ceasefire obligations was entirely consistent with the non-aggression principle -- as was trying to defend the new regime and innocent Iraqis from medieval death cultists until the new regime could provide for its own security.  The affair was not always conducted competently, and every civilian death was a tragedy, but moral responsibility for the overwhelming majority of them lies with Hussein and the medieval death cultists, not with the United States, its agents, or its citizens.  To the limited extent we are morally culpable, as for example we appear to be in the case of Joseph P. Mayo, the perpetrators should be tried and punished, and the victims paid reparations.  That's how I clean the blood from my hands.

How are you going to clean it from yours?

you'll next be defending breaking traffic laws

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 15:15.

I imagine, as they are the epitome of bureucratic nonsense.

Your first paragraph is spot

Submitted by acinphx on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 17:18.

Your first paragraph is spot on.  I made assumptions about your views given your presence here and I clearly shouldn't have made them.  I'm perfectly willing to concede those points.

What in your view is the difference between "the will of the mob" and actions taken by democratically-elected representatives of the people?  Or is there a difference?  If you believe that our current system of government amounts to nothing more than an indefensible "will of the mob" what do you advocate as an alternative? 

rofl. they will.

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 10:21.

you do remember the militia folks?

gun sales are through the roof.

ETA to expected American Civil War Part 2: ten to twenty years.

Sorry if my stuff reads smug.

Submitted by artigiano on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 22:08.

I don't intend to come off as smug. Just confident and committed. And I will cop a plea of guilty on the idealism thing.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." -Margaret Mead

And as geeky as it sounds, I'm hoping the end game goes down not like Stalin, but like the United Federation of Planets. IDIC. Live long and prosper. 

 

Collectivism does not have a happy ending.

Submitted by chemjeff on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 23:11.

Rather than the United Federation of Planets, the ending is more likely to end up like this.

DOWN WITH KIBBUTZIM! i HATE ISRAEL!

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 10:26.

excuse me? collectivism works quite nicely on a small scale. I'm sure you'd like moshavs better, but they're ALSO collectivism. collectivism mixed with capitalism.

you might want to try it, it's a rather innovative system.

Star Trek is just a TV show.

Submitted by centerfire on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 03:26.

And it's worth noting that the more utopian portrayals of the Federation were expressly premised on the existence of technologies that freed humanity from want.  Inasmuch as antimatter reactors and replicators don't appear to be in the technological pipeline, let's assume that for at least the foreseeable future that you're going to have to either persuade people to go along with your agenda, or force them to do so.  And let's acknowledge that (a) persuasion isn't going to have anywhere close to a 100% success rate, and (b) some of the people you use force against will resist.

So I'll ask again: how many of your countrymen are you willing to imprison or purge, and how many government agents are you willing to sacrifice along the way, to see your utopian vision realized?  Hundreds?  Thousands?  Millions?

 

10% at that point the post traumatic stress

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 10:27.

would probably take down the rest of society (you've read gerrold?)

Thank you both very much for making the OP's point

Submitted by nickrud on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 19:02.

about the level of discourse available from too much of the 'stupid' on both left and right.

a fruitful use of your tiny little mind, lest you end up on the business end of one of those "penile substitute firearms"

 

The OP

Submitted by centerfire on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 20:02.

is a goddamned fool.

 

my main criticism of firearms for self defense

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 10:29.

is that they are singularly ineffective. people who try to defend themselves with one have a higher chance of getting hurt. Also, they are primarility offensive weapons. You need to know where your target is, be aware that there is danger, etc.

Unlikely to really protect you in any real danger.

traditionalists certainly believe that.

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 10:18.

don't kid. he's obviously not talking about Hayek.

Good old change.

Submitted by Jon Sandor on Wed, 01/21/2009 - 22:55.

Comunism was "change". Fascism was "change". The eugenics movement was "change". The 20th centuty is littered with corpses who were sacrificed to your precious"change".

Conservatives stand for intelligent change, change which does more good then harm, change wich is not change just for the thrill of it.

I've said it many times before, but the best thing about being a liberal is we always win in the end.

Are you still holding out hope for the restoration of communism? Liberals in the past were huge fans of that.

Liberals are such fans of "change" that liberalism itself is not the same two days in a row, and what they earnestly sought after at one stage becomes the evil they rail against a few years later on.

COMMUNISM was a traditional way of life in russian shtetls

Submitted by RisingTide on Thu, 01/22/2009 - 10:32.

sorry, that one's yours, not the liberals.

Dr. Brin would call fascism a return to the traditional "priests and lords" strategem.

CITOKATE, and god bless you. I believe that working together, we can make the change that our country desperately needs. We will need your advice on how to denationalize the banks.