The Problem of Obama’s Liberalism
by Mark Noonan on February 26th, 2008 at 06:11am
Victor Davis Hanson over at NRO’s The Corner:
Most Americans simply cannot imagine their president as the topic of a two-hour encomium by Farrakhan, or why an unrepentant terrorist like Ayers would have once been associated with him. Those are legitimate issues, and the Obama campaign needs to come up with a comprehensive defense against them before they arise: e.g., “All sorts of diverse people are attracted to various causes under the umbrella of social change; what distinguishes Obama is his singular devotion to working within the system and avoiding the extremism that plagues the movement.”
Until there is some systematic preemptive exegesis, I think more and more of these disturbing hard-Left embarrassments will turn up — none of them alone a problem; all of them in sum finally devastating.
Our leftwingers have convinced themselves that America has turned decisively leftwards and will embrace a leftwing President. If this is true, then so be it - but I don’t think it is. What this means for Obama is that he’s going to be running in a center/right America as a liberal/left politician. As long as Obama can keep it to high sounding rhetoric, all is well - but just as soon as Obama is forced down into the nitty gritty of politics, his liberalism will prove an obstacle to winning.
Americans are tired of Iraq - but do Americans want to lose in Iraq?
Americans are tired of the mess in health care - but do Americans want socialised medicine?
Americans are tired of endless government debt - but do Americans want tax increases, or would they prefer spending cuts?
These are the sorts of questions we are going to answer between now and November and while Obama can, perhaps, answer them in a way which leads to his being sworn in on January 20th, 2009, the plain fact of the matter is that it won’t be easy - especially not easy against a seasoned campaigner like John McCain, who is popular, highly respected and has a vastly more substantial resume’ than Obama.
Click here to create an account on Blogs For Victory and post comments!
February 26th, 2008 at 6:52 am
Here’s another one for Obama from the London Times Online…
UK TimesOnline- Mansion ‘mistake’ piles the pressure on Barack Obama (February 26, 2008)
February 26th, 2008 at 7:18 am
100 billion dollars a year.
That is how much off shore tax havens are sheltering.
Obviously, the middle class does not have the resources to open a tax haven in Europe or the South Pacific. Only the rich have a need for these tax dodges, and they were the ones the benefited the most from Bush’s tax cuts.
We don’t need to increase taxes or cut services. We just need to stop the rich from hiding their assets from the IRS.
The link below is a bill that will stop this illegal activity. Guess who co-sponsored it?
http://www.senate.gov/~gov_affairs/index.cfm?Fuseaction=PressReleases.View&PressRelease_id=1418&Affiliation=R
February 26th, 2008 at 8:23 am
“Our leftwingers have convinced themselves that America has turned decisively leftwards and will embrace a leftwing President.”
Obviously, if America IS or HAS “turned decisively leftward” the Democrat candidates would openly declare themselves to be Liberals, or at the very least liberals. But they run and hide from the word.
Likewise, they try to hide or disguise the fact that their policies, when viewed on the political spectrum of left to right, are so far left of center that they can accurately be defined as Socialism.
I submit that America has suffered two changes which affect its leftward voting trend. One is the movement of the mass media from journalism to agenda support, and the other is an increasing ignorance of many Americans regarding the true base positions of either party, knowledge being replaced by knee-jerk emotional reactions to demagogues.
The second is directly related to the first, with the addition of our educational system also playing an important role.
But our schools not only do not teach history and what we used to call “civics”, they often teach things which are simply not true. An uneducated, or even poorly educated, voter will not have the ability to analyze the statements of any candidate to be able to determine where on the political spectrum that candidate’s positions lie.
A perfect example is the conviction of so many that fascism is a right-wing philosophy. This is a fallacy, but it is “conventional wisdom” and is used to convince the ignorant that a position which favors conservatism is a position which favors fascism.
If the Left truly believed that Americans openly and knowingly want a Socialist regime, they would act on that belief, and openly acknowledge the true definition of their philosophy and goals.
The fact that they try to disassociate themselves with the “Liberal” identification, and instead try to obfuscate the matter by using terms like “Progressive” is proof that they know that if they were honest about their agenda they would lose votes.
BTW, CW, the thread is about Obama’s liberalism and long-term and deep connections with elements that are either radically Leftist or anti-American, or both.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:32 am
Liberalism is taking us down a road toward Socialism and Communism.
If you read up, thats how the Soviet Union came into existence, the “Peoples” party in China, and the current regime in Venezuela.
When it all comes down to it, the educational system was a State power until some decades back when the Federal Government got involved. Since that point, our schools have been getting worse. Sure, its right that the Feds require equal opportunity in education, but that didnt give them the right to take over the whole shootin’ match. One thing I strongly agreed with Fred Thompson about what the Fed’s needed to get out of Schools and let the States and the Parents run it.
Obama talks out of his patootie. He is charismatic, but so is Hugo Chavez, and Azerbajimazin, and so was Hitler. He is, and will continue, to say anything his campain managers want him to say, that they think people want to hear.
Target audience is more important to these people than topic’s. Take the Health Care Issue as an example. Every time the Democrats get into hot water, they bring this up. Its been this way since JFK. By playing on sympathy, compasion, and hope, they manipulate people into following the game. The problem is, health care never gets fixed. Been that way for half a century now. WHY? Because Insurance companies pay big bucks to political campains. Instead of pointing the finger at the real problem, they scheme with the rich to create a vehicle (universal health care as a requirement to buy insurance) instead of regulating the Insurance Industry that is fleecing the people they serve, taking 31% of the Insurance premiums we pay (over 21% higher in the US than any other nation). So the Democrats really dont care about sound fiscal policy and legitimate business interests, because they turn thier heads the other way while all this is going on, being pawns to lobby and special interests in exchange for financial contributions.
These people dont have any idea how to run the country. Most liberals are at a loss to explain why all of these high level elected officials cant get it right. They just behave themselves and follow “whatever sounds good”. Well, socialism is one step closer to communism. What do you think happened in Cuba? and the only difference between Cuba and Iran is Allah.
Wake up people. Its time to stop being sheeple.
February 26th, 2008 at 11:13 am
A perfect example is the conviction of so many that fascism is a right-wing philosophy. This is a fallacy, but it is “conventional wisdom”
Yeah, all of those scholars and historians and people who spend many years studying fascism–what do they know?!? With their research and their facts. Those don’t count, ‘Ranty declares! Sure, they might be factually correct and supported by the data and all that other stuff, but proving your position with facts is just liberal BS. It doesn’t feel right to ‘Ranty, therefore it must be a fallacy. Yeah, that’s the ticket. Besides, Jonah Goldberg wrote a book that not even fellow right-wingers will cosign–that proves it!
Outside of an actual forensics team debate, I’ve never seen somebody so eager to stake out the position in direct opposition to the facts and defend it to the hilt. I’m sure Bob Altemeyer would love to have you come in for analysis.
February 26th, 2008 at 11:33 am
“Our leftwingers have convinced themselves that America has turned decisively leftwards and will embrace a leftwing President.”
Honestly - who cares what leftwingers think? The real problem for Rebublicans are what all those folks between the leftwingers and the rightwingers think - because THEY are the folks who decide elections. America doesn’t need to “turn left” to vote for a Democrat this time around. The middle just needs to be ready for a change.
I’m fairly certain that moderates are thinking this country needs a change in direction. Any change. Change that makes us forget about the last 8 years as soon as possible. Does McCain offer that?
February 26th, 2008 at 11:45 am
A moderate by definition is someone that doesn’t know enough or care enough to take a position.
Obama on the left; McCain on the right; Moderates on a campaign to stir up apathy.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:37 pm
Tract, chill. Just take a deep breath, maybe take a pill, and chill.
So what if there has been a “consensus” which has branded fascism as a right-wing movement?
I once made my comment about fascism being on the left side of the spectrum and got much the same response. When I pointed out that the word “Nazi” comes from the name of the fascist party in Germany, tne National Socialists, the response was “so the word Socialist HAPPENED to be in their name”.
I kid you not. It just HAPPENED but had no meaning, was not in any way a reflection of their politics.
There have been many versions of far-left politics, and they have not always gotten along. When there was a conflict between the socialism of the USSR and the socialism of Germany, the Bolsheviks branded the German socialism as being “right-wing”.
As I said, the determination that facism is a right-wing construct is a cherished lefty fallacy. I knew this long before Johah Goldberg wrote his book, as did many others.
He comments in his book that the definition of facism has been a matter of debate for a long time now. But he goes on to give specific details about its origins on the Left.
So, tract, you can sputter all you like but you can’t change history or facts.
You assert, about Goldberg’s book, “..not even fellow right-wingers will cosign…” Did Mr. Goldberg go out and seek “right-wingers” to “cosign” his book? What does that mean, anyway? I have heard of “cosigning” a loan, for example, but a book??
Tract, you seem to have a personal animus toward me. You love to attack me personally, hurling insults, attempting to demean me personally rather than address my comments. Your style toward me is not to debate the issues but to bully me, to intimidate me. You have remembered what most never paid any attention to—my political journey from the left to the right—and it evidently rankles, as you still bring it up when it has not been mentioned by me for quite some time.
You even appropriate some of my language in your personal attacks—I refer to “Ranty Rhodes” and you twist my name so you can call me Ranty. I often referred to particularly virulent radical Left posts as sounding as if they were spraying spittle in their vehemence, and you used the same terminology about something I said.
‘Fess up, Tract—this is not the first time we have crossed paths, or ideological swords, is it? I have retained my name, not needing to hide behind other identities to return to this blog–though I did use another name, briefly, on another blog, a while back. But you are pretending to be someone else, while going after me with a blind and gleeful vengeance.
??????????
You’re just too wound up over what I have said recently, too deeply affected by my true personal story of —- to put it in a way that is sure to rile you—my political redemption, and too much a collector of things I have said to just be a casual lefty commenting on my recent posts.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
“Moderates on a campaign to stir up apathy” - What exactly does that mean?
You are wrong about moderates. Moderates both know and care deeply about issues and also take strong positions. Moderates just don’t join a “team”. They vote for the candidate who, on the balance, offers the best policies and solutions for their goals.
Put another way, I would find either side’s utopia to be utter hell, so my job is to make sure that neither side ever achieves it.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
“Moderates take strong positions”
Or, I might be ambivalent about that, but at least I don’t commit!
HAHAHAHAHA … yer killin’ me, Smalls!
February 26th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
But our schools not only do not teach history and what we used to call “civics”, they often teach things which are simply not true.
Wow, you do realize Spook made this same claim just a few days ago and was not able to back it up with any actual evidence. Maybe you could provide some real evidence of this.
How many schools do you visit every year Alimranta? How many history classes have you sat in to determine exactly what is being taught to students? How many history textbooks have you gone through to determine this?
What convinced you this was happening Almiranta? What evidence did you use to draw this conclusion?
February 26th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
FoolYou, Schools teach evolution and science. Science presents a different perspective on society than the bible. Evolution could poke holes in the 7 day theory. So, schools are therefore teaching kids things that are simply not true. Quite simple really. If you don’t question anything and do as your told.
February 26th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
But now that Tract has brought it up, I do recommend Goldberg’s book. I am only about 75 pages into it, but it is very interesting reading.
It discusses the various definitions given to the term fascism over the decades, and the origin of the term in Mussolini’s Italy. He points out that Italian fascism was clearly a left-wing construct, clearly a branch of socialism—and much beloved of liberals in the United States, seen as a paradigm of ideal government. This is all fully and completely documented in the book.
He also points out that it took Hitler to introduce anti-Semitism to fascism, and that prior to Hitler’s rise there were a disproportionate number of Jews involved in Italian fascism.
He says, to introduce Chapter 2–”Adolf Hitler: Man of the Left” —
“Was Hitler’s Germany fascist? Many of the leading scholars of fascism and Nazism–Eugen Weber, A. James Gregor, Renzo De Felice, George Mosse, and others—and answered more or less no. For various reasons having to do with different interpretations of fascism, these academics have concluded that Italian Fascism and Nazism, while superficially similar and historically bound up with each other, were in fact very different phenomena. Ultimately, it is probably too confusing to try to separate Nazism and Italian Fascism completely. In other words, Nazism wasn’t Fascist with a capital F, but it was fascist with a lowercase f. But the fact that such an argument exists among high-level scholars should suggest how abysmally misunderstood both phenomena are in the popular mind, and why reflexive rejection of the concept of liberal fascism may be misguided.”
So much for your claims of academic consensus.
“This is the monumental fact of the Nazi rise to power that has slowly been airbrushed from our collective memories: the Nazis campaigned as SOCIALISTS. Yes, they were also nationalists, which in the context of the 1920s was considered a rightist position, but this was at a time when the “internationalism” of the Soviet Union defined ALL nationalisms as right-wing.”………………………historically, nationalism was a liberal left-wing phenomenon. The French Revolution was a nationalist revolution, but it was also seen as a left-liberal one for breaking with the Catholic Church and empowering the people. German Romanticism as championed by Gottfried Herder and others was seen as both nationalistic and liberal. The National Socialist movement was part of this revolutionary tradition.”
It is typically simple-minded leftist cant to refuse to understand the complexity of political labeling, to refuse to put such labels into the context of the times, and to hijack a term which has negative connotations and then use it as a polticial weapon, freely applying it to any group which it wants to discredit.
Which is what happened when Socialists wanted to attack the right, and decided to label Hitler’s fascism as “right-wing”, in the face of its historical roots and its true philosophies.
February 26th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Schools routinely teach our children that Columbus, for example, was really a racist who practiced genocide. They teach that Bush is a war criminal. They teach, or have taught, that Americans purposely killed Native Americans by giving them blankets carrying smallpox.
Some schools have taught that World War II was the natural and justified revolt of Japan against American imperialism.
They have taught that America was losing an unjust war in Viet Nam.
I do not have children, but I have friends with children in schools ranging from pre school to college, and they talk about the sheer garbage their children are being taught and the difficulty of being able to present enough facts to counter the indoctrination which passes for education.
I refer you to David Horowitz as one source of information on what passes for education these days, and of course you can google Ward Churchill and/or the Boulder High School geography teacher who spent much of his classroom time instructing his students on how George Bush is a war criminal.
FYT, it is not necessary to “visit schools” to know how upset many parents are at what their children are being taught. It is not necessary to read school texts to know that some students are failed because they do not agree with the political indoctrination put out by their teachers. If you are not aware of these things happening, you are not paying attention.
How many schools do YOU visit, how many texts do YOU read?
And SAR is exhibiting the typical psuedo-humor of the radical Left, but really just giving us a peek into a particularly narrow-minded and hostile pathology.
When and if you guys are willing to debate facts and the real world, get back to us…..
February 26th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Timmy - I’m glad you are having so much fun!
You seem like a simple man, so I’ll try to make this simple for you. You can take a strong position on an issue (like immigration, campaign finance reform, or abortion) without declaring yourself a conservative or a liberal, or declaring allegiance for a party. Moderates often have some positions which align with the left and others which align with the right. What’s so funny about that to you?
February 26th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Twice fooled,
Speaking as a former High School teacher, who works at a State University, with a daughter who graduated high school and currently attends a state university; I can state without fear of contradiction that Spook and Almiranta are absolutely correct in their assessments. I have personally read from the books provided including the study guides used by the history teachers.
Also, in reviews by academicians such as Chester E. Finn, Jr. demonstrate the bias and lack of academic credentials contained in most US history lessons and classes sponsored by the state:
Now, provide evidence to the contrary
February 26th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Mark - when you speak about “The Problem of Obama’s Liberalism”, are you making a case to conservatives, liberals, or the folks in between? If it’s the folks in between, do you assume the description “liberal” has a strong negative connotation - almost as though merely uttering it makes an argument on its own. It certainly seems as though you do, and if so, I’d rethink your assumptions.
February 26th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Here’s six of the most popular books used in public schools to teach US History, and their evaluations from an independent group of scholars.
I believe you owe Spook and Almiranta an apology.
February 26th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Alm,
My post earlier would in most cases sum up a typical response on this site. Regardless, I’d like to see you prove to me the first 3 paragraphs of your post #14.
Das,
Using 9/11 in my opinion is not exactly the best way to get your point across on this matter. Considering that day and all reports since have been clouded in such controversy and supposed conspiracy how can a text book get an accurate representation other than to inform students that it did happen. What’s more, the repercussions should be more previlant. I do agree the education system is flawed, but there are national standards for education which must be followed. This will not of course prevent a teacher from being objective and pushing their opinions on their students.
It is not possible to teach students every aspect of american history, theres simply to much information so just the basics are covered. If the student takes up an interest in something then naturally they will per sue it further. This is the whole purpose of middle school to highschool is it not?
February 26th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
XTRA,
So, you’re saying that moderates can have “strong opinions” without the benefit of consistency or core beliefs? Moderates can opine on diverse subjects which should have, as a foundation for belief, a set of core principles that guide in the decision making process; but instead have a loose affiliation of concepts based on how influenced you can be by the last person to whom you’ve engaged?
How’s that workin’ out for ya’?
February 26th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
SOME,
I’m not going to debate you on a set of facts; if you want to understand Almiranta’s post you need only read the critiques I’ve provided.
It is also a fact that the large majority of public school history teachers didn’t major in history, most didn’t even minor in the subject relying instead on the text provided which they didn’t have a say in selecting.
It is not possible to offer a fully comprehensive compendium as a resource for teaching; but that resource should be accurate; historically and objectively. History books used today are neither.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Workin’ out great for me - thanks!
And yes, I can be very consistent in my beliefs on individual issues. I can be steadfast in my support of abortion rights or my belief in laissez-faire government. Collectively however, my beliefs need not align with those of conservatives or those of liberals in order to be sincere. You can if fact have a core set of principals which don’t correspond to a complete left or right wing ideology.
I think what you are attempting to do is to reject postmodernism, which is a valid argument; however my point is about the need to recognize that with the political moderates goes the election. If you don’t figure out a way to convince them to vote your way, you’re not going to win any elections. Worrying about what liberals think is a waste of time - they’re never going to vote for a Republican.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Das,
I’ve skimmed through that link. The ratings for accuracy, historical soundness and lack of bias are the strongest in most of the books. The first two books ‘American Journey’ and ‘American Nation’ both received fairly decent ratings and reviews. Considering the books were also rated on graphics, interest level and Organization. No where did I read that any of the books give false information about history. Not enough specifics sure, but nothing about falsifying history which is what Alm, is infact saying. So I’ll ask again, can you please provide me with facts to support such claims as post #14 please.
One more thing, as a teacher you should know when handing out assignments and research projects which are fairly common in a history course, the text books do not provide sufficient information. So the student it forced to use other means to gather that information. Furthermore, text books are designed as a guideline, used to set direction, but not to be taken as the be all end all knowledge of history.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Hi everyone!
Crrrrraaazzzzy “liberal” SteaM here to entertian you :)
Mark,
You said:
Good question! Yet, I am a bit hesitant to give my feedback until I fully understand one thing.
Please explain to me, in terms of the War in Iraq, what “victory” means.
Thank you.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
I don’t think a moderate should be making declarative statements; 46% of self-described “liberals” voted for Rudy Giuliani for NY governor. 26% of self described “liberals” voted for Arnold Swartzenegger for governor. 41% of self described “liberals” voted for Romney for governor; and last but not least; 34% of self described “liberals” voted for Reagan for President.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Timmy,
I agree. Moderates shouldn’t even be allowed to speak unless spoken to. Bunch of whiners…. can’t even pick a side.
pffft.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Timmy,
I have to ask. Where did you get those percentages? I am from Boston. In 2002, Romney won 49-44. I would find it VERY hard to believe that 41% of liberals voted for him.
I’m not calling you a liar or anything, but those numbers seem a bit much.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Joe,
Timmy gets his numbers via The Pat Robertson God Phone.
February 26th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
SteaM,
I also would like an answer to your question in post #24. Call me crazy but I remember there was this big deal on an aircraft carrier with Bush in a Flight suit and a banner that read ‘Mission Accomplish’. So I too am confused, I thought mission accomplished meant victory… Thats in the past though, so it’s not relivent is it?!?!
February 26th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
You obviously are a product of public schools; the “graphics” graded as “Do the graphics and sidebars in the text contribute to the readers’ interest and understanding of history”
a. The graphics reinforce the text (10)
b. The graphics are occasionally valuable (5)
c. The graphics are irrelevant and a waste of paper (0)
“no where did I read …”
That’s because you didn’t “read” the findings;
February 26th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
SAR,
Indeed. I have to say though that one good thing Don Rumsfeld did as SecDef was to take that stuff out of the speech. He was unable to get the banner taken down though.
According to Bob Woodward Rumsfeld felt strongly that “mission accomplished” was not appropriate to say yet.
February 26th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Das,
Along with Shortcomings were also Merits. You have copied and pasted various shortcomings from 5 of the books here and have in fact yourself ‘misrepresented’ the findings of the report.
From my previous post:
…as a teacher you should know when handing out assignments and research projects which are fairly common in a history course, the text books do not provide sufficient information. So the student it forced to use other means to gather that information. Furthermore, text books are designed as a guideline, used to set direction, but not to be taken as the be all end all knowledge of history.
One of the benefits of public school I guess, everything is not spoon feed to you.
February 26th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
SteaM,
So Rumsfeld disagreed with Bush that the mission wasn’t accomplished yet… what a kooky lefty liberal. (sarcasim)
February 26th, 2008 at 4:19 pm
I am a Liberal and I say so both in public and on my blog. I also use the term Progressive to describe the difference between my politics and the politics of conservatives which I consider regressive in many ways.
As far as the use of the word Liberal to describe Obama as my research head posted so well today I feel too that the word “liberal” is conservative code for a word they’d like to call Obama.
Anyone seen the national polls that put Obama and McCain together one on one? Pretty big spread but yes there’s still a long way to go.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Diane,
I saw that McCain vs. Obama poll.
Anyone else excited to see these two debate?!
February 26th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
“Americans are tired of Iraq - but do Americans want to lose in Iraq?”
Our agenda there is illegitimate. We are the aggressors and the Iraqi’s want us to leave. At this point it is not about what Americans want. It is about what Iraqis want.
This false concern for democracy is simply a means to get a foothold in the Middle East.
As ye sow…
February 26th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
As I said, the determination that facism is a right-wing construct is a cherished lefty fallacy.
Yeah, you keep saying it, but you never, you know prove it. Because you can’t. You never even cite any evidence for your claim. Again, because you can’t. Meanwhile, pretty much everybody who has studied fascism agrees that it is a right-wing construct. This bothers you deeply for some reason, and you have personally decided–absent any facts–that it simply cannot be true.
So, tract, you can sputter all you like but you can’t change history or facts.
I’m not the one trying to; I’m the one mocking you for trying to. If you can’t parse the difference there, that’s your problem.
When I pointed out that the word “Nazi” comes from the name of the fascist party in Germany, tne National Socialists, the response was “so the word Socialist HAPPENED to be in their name”.
This is my favorite because it’s something you’d think was being said as hyperbole, as parody…but no. You are not at all joking.
Tell me then, ‘Ranty, you do call North Korea a democracy, right? After all, the full name of the country is the People’s Democratic Republic of North Korea–it’s right there in the name, and that is evidently enough proof for you.
I have no “personal animus” toward you, by the way. How could I hold animus toward somebody I find so amusing? I mock you–over the course of addressing your claims, something you say I don’t do–because you hold yourself up to be mocked by repeatedly accusing everybody else of committing your sins. You ramble on about the “emotional, hysterical left” that can only call names, then you make emotional, hysterical posts calling, for example, Diana Powe “Diana the Red” not because of any professed communism on her part, but because it makes you feel better or as though you have played some sort of trump card. You are what you say everybody else is.
I see you’ve noticed that I often use your own words against you; you fail to realize why. I do it to highlight the feebleness of your arguments and also your hypocrisy as described above. I use your words in order to show their foolishness.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Wow, you do realize Spook made this same claim just a few days ago and was not able to back it up with any actual evidence. Maybe you could provide some real evidence of this.
Hey FYT dipshit, in the thread you’re referring to I offered to gather a half dozen 5th through 12 grade history texts from around my area of northeastern Indiana and write a guest post for B4V based on my analysis, and I asked if that would be acceptable to you. All I got was crickets. Now it appears that Bane has done my homework for me, and we still get nothing but crickets from you.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
[...] The Problem of Obama’s Liberalism [...]
February 26th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
I didn’t realize you were so easily angered Spook. My bad. You can do whatever analysis you want, you don’t need my approval. I was merely trying to point out that you didn’t have any evidence to back up your claim, and you admitted to that. I was done with you.
Almiranta has failed to provide any evidence as well. Almiranta will never admit to that, but it is the case.
The problem is that both Spook and Almiranta don’t just claim that history books and classes are not doing a good enough job and should be better, they believe there is an actual conspiracy behind all of this to indoctrinate children at all levels of education. They have convinced themselves that this is the only way anyone could ever choose to vote for a liberal (and of course the evil media has something to do with this in their minds).
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If a simpler claim was made then simple evidence like Bane has provided could be sufficient. But Spook believes this happens at all levels of education and for the purpose of not allowing children to know of failed liberal policies so they will be willing to vote for someone that subscribes to that same policy. Almiranta also believes this is done to trick voters into choosing a liberal, because they won’t be educated enough to know where a politician lies on the political spectrum.
This is the conspiracy they claim is true. Zero evidence has been provided to show any such conspiracy actually exists.
February 26th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Can hardly wait until things in Senator Obama’s liberal belief system (and current platform) get called to the carpet like his attempt at revocation of the 2nd Amendment. He believed it in the 1998 election cycle and it is well disguised but present in his current platform. If Senator Obama is the Democrats pick for the big dance—once this stance is known–not only will moderates flee to vote for anyone else but democrats outside of LA & NYC will as well.
February 26th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
I’m just a researcher but I think I have a better grasp on the whole who is more like the Nazis thing that played out way up the comment thread. In Germany in the post WWI era there were several political parties of note before the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei [NSDAP] came into prominence. In 1933 the Deutsche Demokratische Partei [German Democratic Party] the left most wing of the Fortschrittliche Volkspartei [Progressive Party] was banned by the Nazis. In the same year the Deutschnationale Volkspartei [German National People’s Party], rising from the remains of the Freikonservative Partei [Free Conservative Party] and the right most elements of the Nationalliberale Partei [National Liberal] formed a coalition government with the NSDAP
“The National Liberals came to be closely associated with the interests of big business. Increasingly threatened by the growing strength of the Socialists, the party gradually became more conservative, although it was generally split between a more liberal wing that sought to strengthen ties with the dissident liberals to their left, and a right wing that came to support more protectionist policies and close relations with the Conservatives and the imperial government.”—Wikipedia
All other conservative parties were banned as well after the 1933 formation of a NDSAP dominate Reichstag. I would posit then that since even reactionary conservatives like the young Froschperspektive writers of the German Conservative revolution which was gaining popularity around the time of the Munich Beerhall Putsch were rabidly persecuted by the Gestapo throughout the war years, that the Nazi political entity was something new that existed not within liberal modalities of center left, left or far left nor those of center right, right or far right. The NDSAP was for the most part a full on corruption of all the worst elements of a totalitarian state and is not a proper basis to try to compare the state of politics in Germany from 1933 through 1945 CE to the polarization of political parties within the United States that has taken place since 1979. What Jonah Goldberg has done is to try to impart a taint to the American center left and left that historically cannot apply. This does not merely fail to qualify as historical scholarship what Goldberg has written is at best the opinion of one man being paid to demean a widely held political and social ideology. In this he fails miserably just as the American right and far right [which unlike the NDSAP is composed of those with large capital fortunes, middle class workers and the great bulk of the protestant clergy] failed in its attempt at pursuing a “permanent majority” in Congress. This too would have been something new in American politics.
As easy as it is to try to paint the most heinous anti-democratic government ever on the face of Terra as being cast in the same mold of your current political enemy the comparison is shoddy and truly rings hollow.
Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil!
February 26th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
availability heuristic - a rule of thumb, heuristic, or cognitive bias, where people base their prediction of the frequency of an event or the proportion within a population based on how easily an example can be brought to mind. In these instances the ease of imagining an example or the vividness and emotional impact of that example becomes more credible than actual statistical probability. Because an example is easily brought to mind or mentally “available”, the single example is considered as representative of the whole rather than as just a single example in a range of data.
You all have to forgive people like Alma, Das, and Spook. They operate out of this type of mindset and are apt to believe things because that is what they are told and it fits their twisted view of things. You can find facts that disprove gravity if you like but that doesn’t mean gravity doesn’t exist. If you want to make lame duck absurd comments like “taught that Bush is a war criminal” you need something called consensus not twisted generalities.
February 26th, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Oh, Tract, you simply ignored the references I gave which do very clearly point out that there has never been a true consensus of opinion among academics regarding the assignment of either left-wing or right-wing orientation of fascism.
You just say there was, and that it proves that fascism is right-wing, and that is that. The Tract has spoken! And then he was amused. And then he rested. And he called it good.
Even Fredrick Schwartz, who goes on to show a certain leftist orientation when he claims that Goldberg’s book was “an effort to try to impart a TAINT on the American center left…” is very clear that there is absolutely no solid basis to identify German Nazi fascism as a right-wing political policy. He says: “I would posit then that since even reactionary conservatives like the young Froschperspektive writers of the German Conservative revolution which was gaining popularity around the time of the Munich Beerhall Putsch were rabidly persecuted by the Gestapo throughout the war years, that the Nazi political entity was something new that existed not within liberal modalities of center left, left or far left nor those of center right, right or far right. The NDSAP was for the most part a full on corruption of all the worst elements of a totalitarian state and is not a proper basis to try to compare the state of politics in Germany from 1933 through 1945 CE to the polarization of political parties within the United States that has taken place since 1979. ”
Let’s look at that key phrase again: “….the Nazi political entity was something new that existed not within liberal modalities of center left, left or far left nor those of center right, right or far right. ”
Which is pretty much what Goldberg says in his book. It’s just that once Goldberg tackles the thorny issue of German Nazism and its impact on the perception of the term “fascism” he then goes on to a scholarly and well-researched discussion of the true origins of fascism, aside from the distortions of that philosophy as represented by Hitler.
And the origins are soundly and solidy leftist.
If one could set aside knee-jerk emotional reactions to certain words, one could accept the assertions of both Schwartz and Goldberg —-that Nazism was not an accurate example of fascism nor is it possible to define it or the terms “left” and “right” by the ways those terms are used today. And then it would be possible to examine the true origins and philosphies of fascsim outside of Nazi Germany.
Goldberg’s point is not to try to “taint” anyone with the term but to remove the taint imposed upon it by those who have tried to use the term to generate that emotional knee-jerk reaction I mentioned above. It is simply an attempt to rationally examine fascism and to see where it fits on the poltiical spectrum.
It is those who have arbitrarily assigned such a negative (and false) meaning to the term who are now so rabidly trying to defend their error.
February 26th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
It is fascinating to be reading both Thomas Sowell’s “A Conflict of Visions” and Jonah Goldberg’s “Liberal Fascism” because both offer scholarly and objective analyses of the most basic dynamics of liberalism and conservatism, without taking sides, without making value judgments, and so far at least without getting into modern politics and political identities. I’ve been striving for years to dig through the muck of popular definitions, of “conventional wisdom” and of partisan politics to get down to the basics, and these two books are of great help.
What is most interesting is that the more I learn about the origins of what now form our political orientations, the more firmly grounded I feel in my innate conservatism, because it is increasingly clear to me that it is not based on identity politics, or the negativity of the “anti” attitude I see so much here (against a lot but unclear on what they are FOR) but on true perceptions of how I see the world.
I’ve thought for quite some time that many of our political identities would shift if we could just step back from our affiliations and the assumptions that come with them and just look at the real issues, and these two books are valuable in their ability to do just that.
February 26th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Uncommon, while I am sure you impress the heck out of naive and ignorant fan, (Mommy?) your pseudo-intellectualism falls far short of being convincing to anyone who actually can read, can accurately process what is read, and can draw independent conclusions. Nice cut-and-paste skills, though.
I live in Colorado and spent several hours last spring listening to actual tape recordings of a Boulder high school geography teacher instructing his class that George Bush is a war criminal, as the topic was discussed at great length over a period of several days. Actual recordings of actual classroom lectures, accompanied by actual interviews with the actual student who did the recordings. Of a man hired to teach GEOGRAPHY who, instead, used much of his classroom time to rant and rave and instruct his students in his wrong-headed, inaccurate, and wierdly twisted world view, under the guise of education.
I do not invent, nor do I give a flip about whether or not you find my points of discussion convincing. I come here to discuss actual issues and actual points of view, not to worry about how dedicated ideologues react to what I have to say. While I am open to genuine points of view, and respect seriously thought-out positions, I don’t find that you and your ilk offer anything but hyper-emotional spasms of venom directed at anything that does not fall into your very narrow, very biased, and very limited scope. It is an honor to fall so far outside that rather unpleasant fever swamp of bias and loathing.
I am sometimes intrigued by what, exactly, sets you radicals off, but mostly by the determination on the part of your political orientation to do whatever is necesary to deny facts.
Everyone who follows the sad tale of the decline of American education, who is seriously searching for practical ways to start educating our children instead of merely indoctrinating them into political belief systems, who is dismayed by the sheer ignorance of the average American student, has been made aware of examples of horrible, inaccurate, and even misleading teaching all around the country. You may have heard of charter schools, and/or pilot schools—-efforts of frantic parents to force public school systems into offering at least a few schools which actually TEACH. You may have heard of school vouchers—-another desperate attempt to bring actual education into the reach of those other than the affluent.
Over the years we have read excerpts from biased or simply inaccurate textbooks, been exposed to interviews of students who have been penalized for not falling into lockstep with radical Liberal professors, read and seen television coverage of Leftist efforts to block conservative speakers from speaking on college campuses—in general, this is not a secret. It’s just that you agree with the positions we find offensive, but rather than admit that, you try the foolish and transparent effort at misdirection by pretending that not being able to cite those examples when challenged is somehow proof they do not exist.
It would be a step toward intellectual honesty to just admit the truth—that you know I am right, but that you think the things that bother me are really steps in the right direction.
I think it is interesting that those of you who defend the teaching that is done also defend the positions those teachings advance—in other word, you are fine with indoctrination as long as it is indoctrination into your own world view.
Tell you what—you find a current text book which teaches that this is a great country, founded on principles of freedom and the inherent dignity of man, a nation responsible for the freeing of millions upon millions of people from oppressive regimes…you find a textbook which is open and honest about the strengths and successes of the United States of America, and you come back here and tell us where to find it. We may not be able to use that one book—if it exists at all—to support a claim of good education in this country, but it will be a hopeful sign that the entire nation is not going to hell in a Liberal handbasket.
February 27th, 2008 at 12:14 am
The GOP sees campaigning against a possible nominee Obama in different terms:
Well, there’s two ways to look at this. One, “top Republican strategists” are so befuddled on how to not be racist or sexist that they need focus groups to give them some lessons. Alternatively, they want to be as absolutely close to being racist or sexist as they can without being perceived as such. Very nice.
February 27th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Twice fooled,
Both you and your alter-ego Assembly have tried, quite unsuccessfully to move the goalposts while demanding a strict adherence to the original concept.
Spook and Almiranta have stated that History as taught is inaccurate and incomplete. There is a bias to the methodology and that bias is in favor of liberalism and other failed socialist policies. Those are facts supported by the independent committee of scholars of all political stripes that reviewed the teaching materials used in US public school classrooms.
That you both claim that the material is simply weak and not purposefully deceptive is incredible; but, I’ve learned that liberals refuse inconvenient facts; like the fact that the best of the books presented are deliberately biased by all objective analysis. The “score” of the books give an aggregate of a C- grade on all objective levels.
You have further compounded your obstinate tome by asserting that the materials provided are merely guidelines displays your complete lack of objectivity. From the foreword of the report;
I’d have a modicum of respect if you just admit you’ve been bested; apologize to Spook and Almiranta, and move on to condemning Diana for her obvious slap at Bill Clinton and his inability to criticize Obama-rama without coming across as racist. Damn those Republicans for trying to be sensitive to the issue that may have cost Hilary the nomination.
March 3rd, 2008 at 1:38 pm
why do you not bring this to the tv- radio and new pprint media- this is FAR too important for the public not to know- make these pages emailable to email accounts to get the word out too!!!! we do not need this evil person and his evil ties in the white house particularlly at this point in time when things are so crucial. get the word out to all multi media and emailers so they can distribute this information. call in to raido station talk shows also good!!