As we were firing explosives into the air on Monday, celebrating a small band of rebels that revolted against their leader during a time of war, I thought about the subject of authority. One of the major differences between conservative and liberal thought is the respect and deference to voices of authority. The quote "My President, Right or Wrong" is a great example. As respectful and appropriate as it sounds to many right-wingers, it sounds dangerous and anti-America to many on the left.
This distinction appears to have been repeated over the past 150 years. In the 1860's, Southern Democrats felt free to create their own country because of major splits in attitudes and values, while Republicans were adamant that the President is the ruler of the nation whether you agreed with him or not. In the 1960's, it was Democratic leaders that were willing to undermine the authority of local governors and mayors to enforce desegregation and remove institutional racism, while the Republicans were deferential to those in charge. Likewise, it was left-leaning hippies who protested against the Vietnam War, while the more conservative element supported the administration's moves, even when the administration was Democratic. Perhaps these attitudes stem from the religious bases of the two sides, as I discussed in April in "Pietistic Republicanism". The Republican-leaning pietistic religions rely on strong leaders and rhetoric, while the Democrat-leaning liturgical religions rely on personal interpretation of written law.
Of course, none of this explains where the "My President, Right or Wrong" bumper stickers on SUVs were when Clinton was president and right-wingers were calling him everything from "Slick Willy" to "Bubba" to "Billery". But that's an analysis for another day. Personally, I don't believe that the righties' hypocrisy on the issue of authority means they don't believe in it. For some reason, it didn't seem to apply to #42, but it continues to be a major rift in inter-party dialogue. Democrats usually live by the mantra, "Question Authority", while Republicans prefer "Respect Authority". Is it any wonder why Republicans are the ones talking lovingly about their fathers bringing out the belt while the Democrats are the ones who would rather use "time-outs" and other alternate discipline?
With the debut of the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, the late Roald Dahl has gotten a lot of press recently. Before you start wondering what on earth this has to do with Southern Democrats and the Vietnam War, were you aware that Dahl's books, including Charlie, Matilda, and James and the Giant Peach, are regularly targets of book banning in libraries and schools? Despite the absence of violence (except for the comic sort) and sex, many parents find these books to be highly objectionable. Why? They encourage children to question the authority of their parents. In Dahl's books, children are the heroes. Parents never are. However, Dahl's villains aren't exclusively parents, in the tired old "us vs them" genre. His villains are just as likely to be random adults, aunts, uncles, or even other children. In fact, a common theme in Dahl's books revolves around parents who have died or who are too beset by circumstances to be effective. Nevertheless, according to an article in the New Yorker, one parent looking to ban Dahl from elementary schools in Virginia said, "children misbehave and take retribution on adults, and there's never, ever a consequence for their actions." To many people, children talking back (or worse!) to adults is the worst possible offense. Children are bullying each other? Kids will be kids. Children are disrespectful to a grownup? Now we have a problem.
I'm not saying kids shouldn't respect adults. Everyone deserves respect, even adults. But the era of Father Knows Best is gone, if it ever really existed. Deferring to people simply because they're older than you or because they hold leadership positions in business or government isn't always the right way. Again, I'm not saying kids shouldn't be deferring to adults, just not for the simple reason that they're younger. They should defer to people who know more, who are actively working to help them, who are working to educate them. And always respect, the way any human should respect another. But the instant true authority disappears, so should nominal authority.
Many Republicans claim they lost any and all respect for Bill Clinton when his numerous affairs were revealed. Democrats argued that his personal conduct, while troublesome, had nothing to do with his military and economic and social policies. While incredibly misguided, I can understand when people make the decision to see the person instead of the office. That's why it confounds me when conservatives don't have the decency to respect the people who have taken a look at the multiple breaches of trust Bush has committed and have decided for themselves to separate the office from the man. What opponents of Dahl's books, like many conservatives, don't understand, is that the children in his stories aren't rebellious, they're independent. They evaluate actions based on the action, and not on the person performing it. This is what independent thinking is. It's not a rebellion against everything authority stands for. Dislike of Bush doesn't mean an instant repudiation against every one of his policies. Despite the high-profile battles between red and blue in Washington, a lot of lower-profile bills get passed with bipartisan approval. Otherwise intelligent Republicans will defend to the death the appropriateness of John Bolton as UN Ambassador or insist that the rationale from the start for the war in Iraq was the freedom of the Iraqi people. In response, Democrats have been "unifying", a word that means that despite their otherwise intelligence, they'll support partial-birth abortions and Palestinian terrorists. Somehow politics have become a winner-take-all game, and politicians are too scared to lose to actually govern. But instead of blindly obeying authority, instead of following Bush and Frist over the cliff, why can't we learn to question the rules? Why can't we follow our own consciencences and make our own decisions? The King is dead. Long live the King.
18 comments:
You don't have any kids, do you? I can see it now, when and if you do have kids, they will become just like the rest of the millenials, who are given an equal voice in families these days. They won't be able to function well in the workplace. I couldn't disagree more about children questioning the authority of their parents. Up to a certain age, what the parent says goes, right or wrong. And I personally think that it is because I see Bush, the man, rather than Bush, the office, that I still believe so strongly in him and in his ability to lead our nation.
Conservatives may not have liked Clinton, and they may have denigrated his character (actually he did that all himself, say what you like about his leadership abilities, but no one gets accused of so many rapes and assaults unless there is some truth to it, the guy is scum), but they still considered him their president. I see no hypocrisy. No right wingers were walking around with signs saying, "Kill Clinton," or "He's your President, not mine." No, that sort of disrespectful rhetoric is all the left-wing nutcases.
Except for some far right religious people, I've seen no sign of blind loyalty to Bush. You seem to think if I support his Iraq stuff, it's because I'm blindly loyal, but it actually just means I agree with him. And when I disagree, like with his medicare drug crap, I bitch plenty, and so did tons of other conservatives.
Mike, perhaps you should speak to your beloved Sen. Santorum about not comparing people to Nazis and/or Hitler seeing as how he had a penchant for calling Democrats that when they wanted to exercise the right to the filibuster. Standing as the Democrats did, admitedly obstinately, in the way of a political nomination hardly warrants comparison to torturing and murdering 6 million people or brainwashing an entire nation to believe it was superior to anyone else. (I'll refrain from mentioning where hugging dead babies might fall on that scale.)
Furthermore, I would hardly call what Ken Starr did to President Clinton "respectful." To say nothing of the millions of dollars it cost American taxpayers. Most expensive blowjob ever. I just hope Monica was a pro...
The truth is, both side are skilled at slinging sand and other ill-advised epithets so it's ridiculous for you to act like Republicans have heaps of integrity when we're all guilty of attacks of verbal diarrhea.
What exactly did Ken Starr do? He uncovered the truth that Clinton had been lying about. That's a far cry from Dan Rather, who used made up docs to smear Bush. Now I'll grant you that Dems don't have a monopoly on ridiculous statements, but they definitely have a leading share of the market. The crap spewing from the mouths Durbin, Pelosi, Kennedy and Dean is beyond reasonable discourse, yet they continue to do it. Dean should have been censured (not censored, mind you) for saying that Republicans haven't ever done an honest days work, that they are all white christian males, and they are brain dead. I've seen no Republican politicians say anything that even approaches the immaturity and dishonor inherent in those statements. Heck, Trent Lott said far less, and he got kicked out of his position for it. WHy are the Dems getting free passes for what gets Republicans tkaen our of their leadership roles? Could it perhaps be a double standard?
I do have a kid. I want him to be able to think for himself. I don't want him blindly following someone just because "he's supposed to". I want him to be able to judge a situation for himself and decide if that person's judgement can be trusted. If I say something that he doesn't agree with, I want him to tell me. If he has a good reason why I might want to re-think things, then I do. Why not?
Here's why I want him to think for himself:
I don't want him getting into pack mentality. I don't want him following other children because they are older. He's a human being, not a sheep.
I don't want him being taken advantage of by an adult. Not all adults are lookingout for the best interest of children.
I don't want him working in a mindless, dead-end job. I want him to be an innovator and be able to be happy in what he does.
I don't want the system to be able to take advantage of him. Those in power often take advantage of those that have less power. I want him to be know when he is being wronged so that he can fight back and get out of those situations.
In essence, I teach him to think for himself in order to empower him. I want him to have control over his own life instead of him just weakly and blindly giving that control over to someone else.
Oh, and Scott, that last line about the King- that's from a movie? It seems familiar, but I can't quite put my finger on it. I know I'll kick myself when I find out.
Actually Mike, the US never formally declared war on Iraq.
That said, we clearly are in a war in Iraq. I consider myself American over a Democrat all the time, any time. Since when is my American freedom of speech to criticize Bush or the war un-American? Are you saying during a time of war I suddenly lose the rights that make me American?
Where is Ken Starr now, you ask? WHo cares? He was hired to do a job, which was to find if Bill Clinotn was a liar or not, and it turned out that Bill Clinotn is a liar. Only a liberal would think that Starr was a failure for not using his moment of fame to enrich himself and be famous. Some people with integrity just do what they are hired to do and go home. Sure, Clinton's legacy may be a blowjob, but that's not Starr's fault, that's Clinton's.
And Sylvana, do you want your child to grow up thinkig independently, do you want him to be able to become successful through hard work, do you want him to be beholden to no one but himself? Then why are you supporting the Democratic Party? Ted Kennedy himself said, "We are in a war against individuality." Yet people like you who want to think independently still support Kennedy and his ilk. I don't get it.
You know Ben, about the only thing that calms my nerves after reading the endless torrent of right wing lies is finding the truth behind the "facts" and "quotes" that make up their rhetoric. The right's strategy of bombarding you with BS works well, because few have the time or energy to dig into the sources of their misinformation. But you and others have pushed this "war on individualism" so much, I just had to research for myself where you are getting this from. Luckily, someone has already done this for me:
http://www.usa-reise-tipps.de/board/post/39218/OT:_BR,_Boortz_is_toast.html
Before you gawk that this is a German site, and so it clearly must be full of left wing, liberal, German Bush-haters, please actually read it and follow the links within. I followed both:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/2/7/203530.shtml
The above is a Boortz article. Now for the checkmate, from the Library of Congress, Congressional Record for the 107th Congress, Senate Resolution 202 from Sen. Kennedy dated Feb 04, 2002:
"Whereas, at a time when our entire country is banding together, the Patriots set a wonderful example of self-sacrifice and unity, showing us all what is possible when we work together, believe in each other, and collaborate for the greater good;"
Hmm...Feb 2002...shortly after Sep 11, 2001...country banding together...greater good...teamwork...Patriots team winning superbowl. How on earth does Boortz and his right wing sheep (individuals??) take this statement so far out of context??
If you can find Boortz's alleged Kennedy quote from an official source, please let me know. Until then, stop spreading the right wings message of fear and loathing.
Ok, I'll grant you that the actual quote was doctored, a far as I can tell, though I see no reason to trust your quote any more than anything else. You didn't provide a link, and even if you did, it wouldn't eb the first time a congressional record was changed because a congressman wanted to remove himself from what he said.
That said, one misquote doesn't change the agenda the Dems are pushing. I'd have to say that Howard Dean saying all Republicans are brain-dead white male christians who have never done an honest day's work is an example of fear and loathing. When a conservative mentions terror, and actual threat that has killed many, it's fearmongering, but when a liberal says Bush is evil and trying to take away our freedoms, of which there has been no real example given, that's not fear and loathing?
Basically your point is that I quoted one thing incorrectly and thus I should shut up. Did you say the same about Dan Rather when he used fake documents? What about Newsweek when their source retracted? You have a double standard where only people that disagree with you should be held acocuntable. Why don't you comdemn Durbin for his malicious comparison to Hitler and Pol Pot? Ah, but he's a liberal, so he can do whatever he wants and get away with it. Like the Dems who condemned Delay for taking trips on other people's money, but then dropped it like a hot potato when it was pointed out that they do the same thing. It's only bad when a conservative did it, liberals can do no wrong. I get chastised all the time for never disagreeing with Bush, even though I frequently do, btu I can't remember the last time I've seen you or Scott disagree with anything done by liberals. Talk about sheep.
Did you know that tax revenues are up BIG this year? Are you going to admit you were wrong when you derided Bush's tax cuts and said it's ridiculous to be cutting taxes with a big deficit? Perhaps you'll admit that conservative free market/low tax strategies actually work, as it has been proven time and time again? No, you won't. You'll never admit that anything a conservative has done worked out well, because you, Dave, are a sheep.
Ben you are the laziest debater I have ever seen, which makes these arguments with you so frustrating. You pull a standard piece of rhetoric out of your bag, I dispel it because I get sick of you referring to falsifications, and you dismiss my facts and move on to attack me for something else. If you cannot defend your statements, retract them! I will answer your points in order, so nothing gets left off. First, I did not provide a link to the Congressional Record because there is no way to do this (I tried, but to get the result you have to conduct a search). I gave you all the details to easily find Kennedy's quote by searching the record. And where do you get that a congressional record was altered? Where's your basis for that blanket statement? This is an official record from the Library of Congress, unlike your quote from a right wing DJ. Who do you think is more trustworthy?
As far as this misquote, it's the entire basis to your argument that Dems are waging a "war on individuality". So tell me now, where do you get this notion that Dems are waging this war?? The name calling thing I will grant you; welcome to politics. We've been calling each other names for decades. Nothing new here. But my point was your claim of a "war against individuality" does not even exist.
And I don't have a double standard. For every example you gave, those people have been punished and criticized extensively already. I don't talk about them because it's all over the place and there's no point in me adding my 2 cents. I respond to your points and the right's because the right is always louder and makes all sorts of statements that are so false and way out there, that most people don't even know how to respond. When I shoot down your arguments, you come back with a torrent of personal attacks. I would rather spend my time defending myself and shooting your points down than adding to cases like Dan Rather that are already proven and done with.
To your last point, again I ask you to prove where on earth you get this from. I have actually agreed with Bush several times recently, just look at posts on this blog and mine. I agreed with his new, revised energy policy, and I agreed that we should not immediately withdraw troops from Iraq. But I guess because I am a liberal and disagree with him more than I agree with him, you assume I must always disagree and that all liberals must always disagree. Grow up! Liberals, just like conservatives, are adults and have unique opinions. I call myself liberal because I am more liberal than conservative, but this doesn't mean I always agree with everything liberals say or do.
On to your tax point, another point you have been posting constantly. It would make sense that tax revenues are up, we are no longer in recession. But are you talking about state or federal tax revenue? I assume federal since you mention Bush's tax cuts. This article from today's NY Times states that state revenues are indeed way up, but federal revenues have declined, BECAUSE of the tax cuts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/08/national/08states.html
Now, it refers to 2004 revenues....I haven't seen any 2005 figures, and it's still too early to say what the end result will be in 2005. Where are your figures to back up your points? I still think the tax cuts did nothing for the economy other than increase our deficit and make the rich happier. The economy has come back more because of low rates than tax cuts. Tax cuts don't encourage spending the way low rates do; with low rates, businesses are encouraged to stop saving and borrow more to increase spending. If free markets work so well, why has manufacturing continued shedding jobs?? Read the breakdown of the monthly job reports, it has always declined for manufacturing. Thanks to free markets. I'll give credit when credit is due, but again you cannot even prove that federal revenues have gone up, so how can you claim tax cuts helped increase revenues when revenues declined??
Dave, I conceded the point on the quote. I'm not 100% sure I was wrong, but I conceded the point. I guess you skipped over that part, which is funny since it was the first line.
Calling me a sheep is not a personal attack, but it is a personal attack when I call you one?
Durbin was criticized, but ws he held accountable? Did any other Dmeocrats say, Hey Durbin, shut up? Did they say that to Dean? No.
The right is always louder? Ever read a freaking newspaper, Dave? Almost every major newspaper reads just like a liberal primer.
Of course manufacturing jobs are declining. We manufacture less. If this was the 50's, you'd be complaining about all those phone operators that are losing their jobs because of automatic connection equipment. Of course you don't bother to mention that net jobs have gone up, or at least they did in June. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050708/ap_on_bi_go_ec_fi/economy
As far as the war on individuality, I'll need more time to gather my facts if you really want to debate it. It's a longer argument than a couple of pithy sentences. I do, however, wish you'd stop accusing me of making personal attacks while you make personal attacks. You're like the Democrats who said that Bush was using scare tactics to make people think they weren't going to get their social security benefits if changes aren't made right before they say that Bush wants to take away benefits from old people.
Your link about tax revenues doesn't work, but your arguement makes no sense. Lower interest rates increase spending, but lower taxes don't? Either way it's extra money for businesses to spend. Why would they put money they got from tax cuts in to savings accounts, when the money they save from lower interest rates is being spent? That's dumb. Anyway, check out the 80s. Carter had tax rates up to 70% on some brackets, and the economy was in the crapper. Reagan lowered those rates and the economy bounced back big time. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Taxes/wm182.cfm
I looked further and found what I think is the article you mentioned on state tax revenues. Yes they are up. The article I found said nothing about federal tax revenues, though. Here's one:
http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0305.pdf
Go down to page five and you will see that tax revenues are way up compared to this time last year. At the same time, interest rates have gone up, so don't use that BS point.
That's a funny way to concede a point by saying you concede but then stating that my main source of info, the Library of Congress, is not a trustworthy source.
As far as the personal thing, I called Boortz's supporters sheep. I did not single you out Ben, or call you a sheep, as you did to me, which makes it personal. Not that I care much about name calling, but that is a personal attack.
As far as Durbin or Dean, you and others criticized them plenty. I didn't disagree with you, if I did I would say something. I disagreed with some of the things you said, but agreed that sometimes Dean goes over the top.
Yes I read newspapers, mainly the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, and occasionally USA Today, which is why I quoted from the NY Times. I could see why you say they have a slant, based on where they place articles in the paper, but factually the articles are correct. No blatant lies like Boortz or other private interest groups.
I know net jobs went up, my point was that free trade has hurt mfg jobs. That's ok to a degree, but I don't think it's good to keep outsourcing everything and lose our expertise. We are quickly becoming a service economy.
Good job finding that gov stat. You're right, revenues have increased so far in 2005. Hopefully the trend will continue, but it's too early for you to declare Bush's tax cuts were the best thing since sliced bread. Not sure why the link didn't work for you, I pulled it from Google and it works fine.
During Carter's administration, interest rates were sky high as well not to mention the oil crisis was far worse than today. True, rates have gone up but not much relative to historical rates.
What baffles me is how Congress can agree to spend so much money to impeach a man for sexual impropriety but doesn't seem to give a rat's ass about the fact that our current fearless leader is running our deficit into the ground. After yesterday's bombing attacks in London, Congress will now try to re-examine the forthcoming Homeland Security bill that is coming up. Chuck Schumer for one is announced a plan to try to increase the allotment for public transportation fourfold. The trouble is, there is no money to do that with. Because the budget is in total crisis. I realize that spending money in and of itself is not a crime, but I'd argue that putting the country on the brink of fiscal crisis is far more detrimental to its psyche than doing inappropriate things with a cigar. And the argument that Clinton got what he deserved for lying just doesn't sit with me when Bush held that obscene press conference last week to try to convince everyone that things are hunky dory in Iraq. More soldiers die each year than the one before. Call me crazy, but that is far from "ok;" it's far from "Mission Accomplished." He also tried to spin that the Patriot Act was effective because half of the 400 people detained under it so far have been convicted. The truth is that only 39 of those convictions have been remotely related to terrorist activities.
Sometimes, I feel badly for Bush because when you see him extemporize on his own (see: his speech at the G-8 yesterday after the bombings happened) then you realize that he's totally spoon-fed everything he says. He's admitted to not reading the papers or keeping up with the news unless someone tells him about it. I suppose we can hardly expect a man who won't readily educate himself about the country he is responsible for running to really be all that effective in terms of fiscal policy, but that doesn't mean he should be let off the hook.
As far as I am concerned, Bush's legacy will consist of two things:
1) An outrageous deficit;
2) Lots of really idiotic and useless hassle in airports along with a Roy G. Biv way of rating "terror" threats that even Tom Ridge is on record as admitting it's a bit much.
As for why people are rejecting liberalism, well, I'd say that it's directly related to what started this whole string. People do not learn to question or criticize the things they are told. They turn on the 6:00 news and eat it the fuck up. No questions asked. Or, they're offered a bunch of obfuscation that is just too hectic to bother sorting through. Or, they're intimidated by being told that gays will take over America if we don't watch our backs and people don't really know exactly what that means, but it sounds big and bad and scary, so they vote down referenda to let gay people get married without ever having even laid eyes on a homosexual.
Finally, Ben, Trent Lott directly insulted an entire demographic (i.e. black people) by saying that Strom Thurmond did lots of good things with them Dixiecrat folk and that we'd be better off now if he'd have been able to continue his reign of racial discrimination. It's one thing to sling insults at fellow Senators; it comes with the territory. But if you believe that insulting 15% of the American population doesn't warrant some kind of reprimand, then you're as bad as Lott himself.
Ben- I don't want my son to have to "work hard" I want him to be successful by working smart. Success in this country is not correlated with how hard you work.
And as far as him being "beholden to no one but himself", I never said that. I believe that people should look out for each other. I don't believe in the every man for himself mentality. I would hope that he would be willing to help out those that are less fortunate than himself and/or people who need his help, even if that means that he has to make some sacrifices. It's what Jesus would do.
Trent Lott was removed from his position for his comments. The mainstream media was basically ignoring it until a few CONSERVATIVE blogs, led by Instapundit and Andrew Sullivan kept harping on it. GOP or not, they thought his comments were horrible and he should be punished for it. He was, and by his own party's leadership. Durbin, on the other hand, is getting nothing but excuses from other Dems, who refuse to censure him.
Dave, I am a big Boortz fan, so if you're calling his listeners sheep, then you are insulting me. And as far as whether something is on the record or not, ever watch CSPANN? You'll hear people say the phrase, "Please romoven that remark from the record," or "stricken that from the record" all the time. A senator says something dumb, and he doesn't want to be associated with it anymore, so he has it stricken from the record. As I said, I will concede the point, as I'm 90% sure you are right about the misquote.
Of course if you check the Congressional Record, you'll see plenty of evidence of connections between Saddam and Al Queda, as well as plnety of WMD's found in Iraq. But that gets ignored. As far as the economic stuff goes, I like how you'll jump through hoops to avoid giving any credit to Bush for the good stuff, but are ready to condemn for the bad stuff. I'll agree with everyone that says the government is spending too much. Maybe if we cut out medicare and medicaid and cut education spending.... Not because I don't care about education, but because the more money we spend on it, the worse the schools get, so maybe we should try something else besides throwing money at the problem. Vouchers might help.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aWHbMYS3rEvY&refer=us
Post a Comment