George Will must be feeling frisky [Archive]

mardi gras skin

January-16th-2011, 01:30 PM

Larry

January-16th-2011, 01:48 PM

Trying to avoid getting into an analysis of Will's article, I'll observe that I've seen Krugman pieces that I thought were exceptionally well reasoned and well written. Yes, I've also seen some real stinkers and some outright lunacy, too.

Feel the same way about Will.

(No, I can't really think of a shining example of either, right now. I simply remember times when I've read something they've written, and had those emotions.)

HailGreen28

January-16th-2011, 02:20 PM

And I like it. A little more politicial "fight" like this from both sides of the political spectrum is exactly what I want.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/14/AR2011011404663.html

The idea of American exceptionalism is obnoxious to progressives, who, evidently unaware of the idea's long pedigree (it traces to Alexis de Tocqueville) and the rich scholarship concerning the idea, assume it is a crude strain of patriotism. America, Tocqueville said, is unique because it was born free - free of a feudal past, free from an entrenched aristocracy and established religion.

The American Revolution was a political, not a social, revolution; it was about emancipating individuals for the pursuit of happiness, not about the state allocating wealth and opportunity. Hence our exceptional Constitution, which says not what government must do for Americans but what it cannot do to them.

Americans are exceptionally committed to limited government because they are exceptionally confident of social mobility through personal striving. And they are exceptionally immune to a distinctively modern pessimism: It holds that individuals are powerless to assert their autonomy against society's vast impersonal forces, so people must become wards of government, which supposedly is the locus and engine of society's creativity.

I love these high high browed slap downs. I know the left isn't afraid to be smug either. Anyone want to recommend a George Will on the left that I can read more often? I'm down one candidate in Krugman and I'm looking for some candidates to fill his spot.That's oratorical greatness, not smugness. Love him or hate him, he's a master at getting good ideas across.

You want smugness, one of the wittiest things I've seen was on the Colbert Reporrrr, where George Will was asked something like who was smarter him or Sam Donaldson, and Will replied (paraphrasing): "If volume was the fount of knowledge, Sam would be. But it's not, he's not, and I am."

For something I disagree with Will on, I still like his description of football (Will is a die-hard baseball #1 fan): "Football combines the worst two things of american society. Committee meetings, and violence."

For more towards the left, Bill Maher has some good stuff. "We have the Bill of Rights. What we need is a Bill of Responsibilities. "

mardi gras skin

January-16th-2011, 02:32 PM

Trying to avoid getting into an analysis of Will's article,

You're restraint is admirable. :)

Burgold

January-16th-2011, 02:37 PM

Just to be a jerk... how come conservatives are okay with being exceptional but hate when Americans are elite.

Duckus

January-16th-2011, 02:43 PM

Just to be a jerk... how come conservatives are okay with being exceptional but hate when Americans are elite.

:ols: :ols:

An exceptional country whose citizens demand it leaders to be "regular folk." Strange indeed.

HailGreen28

January-16th-2011, 02:57 PM

:ols: :ols:

An exceptional country whose citizens demand it leaders to be "regular folk." Strange indeed."Ordinary people are capable of extraordinary things." - Ronald Reagan

alexey

January-16th-2011, 03:45 PM

Founding fathers were all liberals. America is based on fundamentally liberal valuies. Only liberals are truly capable of really understanding and appreciating just how great America is. In other words, **** You George Will, you lying sack of partisan hackery.

SnyderShrugged

January-16th-2011, 03:46 PM

alexey

January-16th-2011, 03:52 PM

someone doesnt understand the difference between a classical liberal and a modern one.
yeah that somebody must be forgetting that modern liberals are really all about a huge government that controls eveything, takes away people's money, feedom, and social mobility, supports everybody, discourages creativity and initiative, etc.

HailGreen28

January-16th-2011, 04:03 PM

yeah that somebody must be forgetting that modern liberals are really all about a huge government that controls eveything, takes away people's money, feedom, and social mobility, supports everybody, discourages creativity and initiative, etc.And conservatives are all about feeding the rich, starving the poor, and making planet Earth uninhabitable, LOL.

Really wish everybody would stick to defining THEMSELVES, without fingerpointing or rolling their eyes at the other side while doing so. Then we could get so much good done on the things we agree on.

But study and experience prove, that negative advertising and creating "enemies" sells. Both ways. And god forbid if the "other side" is trying to be the "unifier". Can't have that!!!!11111oneoneone "He's such a divider!!!!!!11111111"

alexey

January-16th-2011, 04:06 PM

And conservatives are all about feeding the rich, starving the poor, and making planet Earth uninhabitable, LOL.

Really wish everybody would stick to defining THEMSELVES, without fingerpointing or rolling their eyes at the other side while doing so. Then we could get so much good done on the things we agree on.

But study and experience prove, that negative advertising and creating "enemies" sells. Both ways. And god forbid if the "other side" is trying to be the "unifier". Can't have that!!!!11111oneoneone "He's such a divider!!!!!!11111111"
Exactly. That's why people like George Will need to stfu.

mjah

January-16th-2011, 04:14 PM

"Ordinary people are capable of extraordinary things." - Ronald Reagan
Pretty sure Reagan didn't invent that sentiment -- so there's little point in putting his name next to it, as if it's somehow reflective of real-world GOP (so-called "conservative") governance.

The Founding Fathers largely were exceptional men for their day, and certainly intellectually "elite." Not regular folks.

George Will is feeling frisky because he's wearing a freshly pressed and creased pair of blue denim pants. Casual attire gets the ol' blood moving to his bathing suit area.

SnyderShrugged

January-16th-2011, 04:21 PM

yeah that somebody must be forgetting that modern liberals are really all about a huge government that controls eveything, takes away people's money, feedom, and social mobility, supports everybody, discourages creativity and initiative, etc.

not even sure how this fits the context of our conversation, but whatever makes ya feel good man.

You mentioned the founders being liberals, and I corrected you that many were whats termed as "classical liberal". nothing more, nothing less.

Corcaigh

January-16th-2011, 04:22 PM

"Ordinary people are capable of extraordinary things." - Ronald Reagan

Such as the El Mozote massacre.

Shining City my ass :ols:

mardi gras skin

January-16th-2011, 04:24 PM

Exactly. That's why people like George Will need to stfu.

"I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."
_Barack Obama

If Palin had said something like that we would have called her dumb.

George Will was correct in his assessment that progressives (at least one important progressive) apparently don't understand the meaning of the phrase.

Corcaigh

January-16th-2011, 04:31 PM

George Will was correct in his assessment that progressives (at least one important progressive) apparently don't understand the meaning of the phrase.

Until the Republican-controlled Congress starts to limit government, making it the first to do so, his article rings of empty bull****.

Burgold

January-16th-2011, 04:37 PM

Just to be a jerk... how come conservatives are okay with being exceptional but hate when Americans are elite.

Huh, I was hoping at least someone would disagree with me. Apparently it's true.

Hubbs

January-16th-2011, 04:40 PM

Just to be a jerk... how come conservatives are okay with being exceptional but hate when Americans are elite.

I can't stand that ****. Combining the three branches, there are 545 people who ultimately control the most powerful government in the history of the world. You're damn right I want them to be elite.

Founding fathers were all liberals. America is based on fundamentally liberal valuies. Only liberals are truly capable of really understanding and appreciating just how great America is. In other words, **** You George Will, you lying sack of partisan hackery.

What in the world are you talking about? That came out of nowhere.

mardi gras skin

January-16th-2011, 04:46 PM

Huh, I was hoping at least someone would disagree with me. Apparently it's true.

American Exceptionalism has nothing to do with being elite.

Until the Republican-controlled Congress starts to limit government, making it the first to do so, his article rings of empty bull****.

Had you read the article, you would have found that George Will agrees with you about modern Republicans.

Conservative senators passing through the Capitol reception room should ponder the portrait of Ohio's Robert Taft (d. 1953), who was conservatism when it stressed congressional supremacy. America was born in recoil against an overbearing executive's "repeated injuries and usurpations" (the Declaration of Independence); modern conservatism was born in reaction against executive aggrandizement, first by Franklin Roosevelt, then by his acolyte Lyndon Johnson.

But beginning in 1968, Republicans won five of six and then seven of 10 presidential elections, and experienced rapture with Ronald Reagan. Then they lost their wholesome wariness of executive power. Today, conservatives should curl up with a good book by a founding editor of National Review - James Burnham's "Congress and the American Tradition."

Corcaigh

January-16th-2011, 04:56 PM

Had you read the article, you would have found that George Will agrees with you about modern Republicans.

If he did, why did he specifically name Obama and Pelosi in the article, and not mention the behavior of the previous White House which openly mocked the idea of being accountable to Congress?

Answer: because Will is a shameless partisan hack like the rest of them.

HailGreen28

January-16th-2011, 04:58 PM

Exactly. That's why people like George Will need to stfu.Way to miss the point.

Pretty sure Reagan didn't invent that sentiment -- so there's little point in putting his name next to it, as if it's somehow reflective of real-world GOP (so-called "conservative") governance.

The Founding Fathers largely were exceptional men for their day, and certainly intellectually "elite." Not regular folks.

George Will is feeling frisky because he's wearing a freshly pressed and creased pair of blue denim pants. Casual attire gets the ol' blood moving to his bathing suit area.It's a quote. A good one. Obama has similar. And why gloss over that compared to the class culture in the UK and the time, the founding fathers were beneath the gentry. About Will, why make ridiculous caricatures of people?

It's okay, mjah, you can be "purple" now. Right?

Such as the El Mozote massacre.

Shining City my ass :ols:Oooh. Nice pull. Yes, because the FMLN, Shining Path, and the whole situation in central america was so rosy.

BTW - That's not what "Shining city on a hill" was about. But way to play negative politics from the 80's. Feel like judging both sides by the same standards? Or are you willing to go all the way back to blaming one ameoba for seperating for another, if you think you can spin it right?

mardi gras skin

January-16th-2011, 05:06 PM

If he did, why did he specifically name Obama and Pelosi in the article, and not mention the behavior of the previous White House...

Or Clinton or Reagan or Carter or...

whiff!

You have many good reasons to consider George Will a partisan hack. You missed on this one.

Back on topic...Larry is the only one to recommend a liberal partisan hack and I'm no longer interested in Krugman. Any other recommendations?

Burgold

January-16th-2011, 05:11 PM

American Exceptionalism has nothing to do with being elite.

?????

How can you be exceptional without being elite? Aren't they pretty synonymous?

Don't we want to be the elite military power
have elite soldiers and marines
the elite car maker
have elite workers and designers
the elite software designers
the elite chip makers
the elite minds

I guess you can believe in eceptionalism and not want to be elite, but only if you want to be exceptionally bad.

HailGreen28

January-16th-2011, 05:15 PM

Or Clinton or Reagan or Carter or...

whiff!

You have many good reasons to consider George Will a partisan hack. You missed on this one.

Back on topic...Larry is the only one to recommend a liberal partisan hack and I'm no longer interested in Krugman. Any other recommendations?How about Bill Maher?

DjTj

January-16th-2011, 05:16 PM

"I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."
_Barack Obama

If Palin had said something like that we would have called her dumb.

George Will was correct in his assessment that progressives (at least one important progressive) apparently don't understand the meaning of the phrase.I agree that Obama's off-the-cuff statement, out of context from his other statements he made during that trip, does not really reflect the correct meaning of "American exceptionalism." He was really responding to the way that the more crass elements of the conservative movement use "American exceptionalism" rather than the way that de Tocqueville used it.

I think a good statement of the liberal position on American exceptionalism is this one from Joe Conason:
Touring the ancient Ottoman capital of Istanbul, Mr. Obama stood as a living refutation of extremist propaganda before he spoke a single word. Son and grandson of African Muslims, he symbolizes what is often called “American exceptionalism”—the durable belief that the United States is the world’s hope to escape the old and bloody divisions that have been so ruinous for humanity over the centuries.

He rose through an open and democratic process, despite the legacy of racism and the vicious smears that denigrated his Christian faith while depicting him as a secret adherent of radical Islam. His middle name, uttered with a sneer by bigots during the campaign, is now an important asset (especially among the Shia in Iran, Iraq and elsewhere). He personally embodies the message that America bears no ill intentions toward Muslims or their nations.

The previous administration’s inability to broadcast that message effectively was among its most salient and least noted failures. While American policy in the Mideast has often angered Muslims—not without reason in places from Israel to Iran—the United States has other and more inspiring stories to tell as well. American soldiers were dispatched to protect the people of Kosovo from their Serbian oppressors, who portrayed the conflict there as a centuries-old clash between Christianity and Islam.

Meanwhile, millions of Muslim-Americans live peacefully here, under the protection of a Constitution that guarantees their religious freedom. And when those rights have been violated, fellow Americans of every persuasion have come to their defense.

No doubt Mr. Obama meant to emphasize those aspects of American life in his Istanbul speech, addressing Turkish students and young people across the developing world, who long to believe again that the United States stands for equality, fairness and decency. That belief was impossible to sustain during a decade of war, destruction and torture. Now the burden is on the president to revive latent admiration for our country and our values.

Mr. Obama’s diplomatic efforts resonate with special strength in Europe as well as across the Mideast, Africa and Asia precisely because he does not claim that his own beloved nation is without fault or flaw. He doesn’t pretend that American exceptionalism means American perfection. When he rebukes anti-American prejudice abroad, as he did at a town hall meeting in the French city of Strasbourg, his credibility is enhanced by honest acknowledgment of our mistakes. http://www.observer.com/2961/extremist-s-nightmare

There is a collection of point and counterpoint on American exceptionalism here: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/American-Exceptionalism-A-Nicer-Way-to-Say-Obama-Isnt-One-of-Us-5955

---------- Post added January-16th-2011 at 06:18 PM ----------

?????

How can you be exceptional without being elite? Aren't they pretty synonymous?Exceptional is just different. As you say, it is possible to be exceptionally bad.

From a liberal think tank:
Let me make it clear that exceptional does not mean superior, contrary to what many Americans believe, and contrary to what many non-Americans believe we believe. Rather, exceptional means different. It means an instance that breaks with a general pattern.http://www.brookings.edu/events/2008/0423_america.aspx

mardi gras skin

January-16th-2011, 05:21 PM

?????

How can you be exceptional without being elite? Aren't they pretty synonymous?

The formation of our country was an exception to the rule. American Exceptionalism doesn't suppose that we are an elite country, just that we are a different kind of country.

Bush and Obama have both butchered the topic and many progressives rail against a faulty understanding of the topic.

Burgold

January-16th-2011, 05:26 PM

The formation of our country was an exception to the rule. American Exceptionalism doesn't suppose that we are an elite country, just that we are a different kind of country.

Bush and Obama have both butchered the topic and many progressives rail against a faulty understanding of the topic.

That's impossible. Liberals are elite and therefore have a superior understanding.

(I really am in a rattish mood)

twa

January-16th-2011, 05:29 PM

?????

How can you be exceptional without being elite? Aren't they pretty synonymous?
.

like this?
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7383628.html

Burgold

January-16th-2011, 05:34 PM

Sounds like someone with an elite mind and an elite work ethic to me, twa.

DjTj

January-16th-2011, 05:36 PM

Back on topic...Larry is the only one to recommend a liberal partisan hack and I'm no longer interested in Krugman. Any other recommendations?I think Krugman is the clearest counterpoint to Will, but if you want others, I already gave you Joe Conason on the exceptionalism issue, and you might also consider Joe Klein and Jonathan Alter.

They each wrote some partisan and slightly controversial articles about the Tuscon tragedy recently:

http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/10/the-impact-on-obama-s-presidency.html
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2041535_2042315_2042170,00.html
http://www.observer.com/2011/opinion/enabling-crimes-insanity

DRSmith

January-16th-2011, 05:43 PM

Why is it no one will honestly admit the greater America got the larger it's government became and the more it's spending increase

It seems to me America is where it is because of the federal government

mardi gras skin

January-16th-2011, 05:45 PM

you're a saint, DjTj. thank you.

just read the Alter piece and this jumped out at me:

We can never know exactly what hate speech produces, but why risk its interaction with underlying mental illness?

I made some similar comments to Bang regarding violence in his his cartoons but that didn't go over so well. :ols:

Larry

January-16th-2011, 06:25 PM

The formation of our country was an exception to the rule. American Exceptionalism doesn't suppose that we are an elite country, just that we are a different kind of country.

That may be the classical definition that's used among Harvard faculty.

But in my experience, show me somebody from the last 10 years who's using the phrase "American exceptionalism", and I'll show you a Republican who's arguing that the US had the right to kidnap people and torture them because we're better than they are, and anybody who disagrees hates America.

Just like, if you show me somebody who claims he supports "limited government", I'll show you someone who claims that the US Constitution allows the government to torture people, as long as we do it overseas, and that the government has the authority to monitor every communication in the entire world. But who thinks that somebody (else) should eliminate welfare, Medicare, and Social Security, and every agency which regulates corporations.

---------- Post added January-16th-2011 at 07:28 PM ----------

Why is it no one will honestly admit the greater America got the larger it's government became and the more it's spending increase

It seems to me America is where it is because of the federal government

Short answer: Correlation does not equal causation.

(Although I do think you could argue that history proves that a growing federal government certainly hasn't hurt America.) (Leastwise, not till now.)

---------- Post added January-16th-2011 at 07:29 PM ----------

I made some similar comments to Bang regarding violence in his his cartoons but that didn't go over so well. :ols:

You one of them radicals who hates Road Runner cartoons, too?

DCSaints_fan

January-16th-2011, 06:53 PM

I love these high high browed slap downs. I know the left isn't afraid to be smug either. Anyone want to recommend a George Will on the left that I can read more often? I'm down one liberal in Krugman and I'm looking for some candidates to fill his spot.

Noam Chomsky comes to mind. Here is his Z page: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky

mjah

January-16th-2011, 10:01 PM

It's a quote. A good one. Obama has similar. And why gloss over that compared to the class culture in the UK and the time, the founding fathers were beneath the gentry. About Will, why make ridiculous caricatures of people?

It's okay, mjah, you can be "purple" now. Right?
Nice try and nice canards, but you're taking far more insinuation from my post than it actually contained. And it would seem that you're doing it on purpose. ;)

About the Founding Fathers: I was referring to their collective intellectual position in the colonies, in which case your point about the social structure of the UK isn't quite so important. And anyway, the FFs had many close social and family connections to gentry; as a group they didn't suffer from any great lack of status. Status helped them tremendously, although ultimately IMO it was the balance of their intellectually "elite" beliefs that led to a truly great form of self-governance.

Yet it is (as one might expect) specifically intellectual, not so much social, "elitism" to which I personally witness talk-radio-fueled local knucklehead after local knucklehead taking objection. Social doesn't enter into it. (They try to get their kids INTO those social circles -- as long as their kids don't get educated with "those people!")

As for Will: You may have missed his senior-moment column all about blue jeans. You know, the one titled "Demon Denim." Despite Will's attempts to make it humorous, he earned himself a lifetime of "ridiculous caricature" for that one. I went far easier on him than others have, so you can relax.

By the way: if you want to take that earlier post of mine as somehow "not purple," then your perceptive skills might be IDEALLY suited for my awesome new club. See sig for details, and be sure to ask me about the Space Shuttle! :thumbsup:

SkinsHokieFan

January-16th-2011, 10:10 PM

I think the Sara Palinaztion of the right, over the past 2 years, has completely corrupted the concept of American exceptionilsm.

This is the most unique nation in the history of the world. As was discussed previously, having a Constitution that limits the power of government, rather then grants them, is one of the greatest civil rights victories in the history of the world.

If you wish to read a ****ed up Constitution, feel free to spend a day reading the 250 page plus Constitution of Pakisan :)

As for the OP and Will's paragraph, spot freakin on.

Baculus

January-16th-2011, 10:45 PM

I didn't find that Will article to be very convincing, nor exceptional, for that matter. He wasn't even accurately framing the argument, since liberals don't have issue with an America that is "free of a feudal past, free from an entrenched aristocracy and established religion." In fact, liberals wholly embrace these concepts since they are well, liberal.

Conservatives don't own the Constitution, nor do they have a clean record of adhering to it. As it is, the Constitution has been modified on a several occasions, as the Founding Fathers imagined would inevitably happen.

You just can't use "exceptional" as a modifier and act as if that is the "American Exceptionalism" that everyone understand it to be. To some on the Right, American Exceptionalism means that (1) America can do no wrong, and (2) anything is acceptable, including war and exploitation, with this in mind. It is one thing to say "America has a unique history" and another to say "America is greater than all other countries, and we must do whatever it takes to retain our supremacy." Because that is a slippery slope into the sort of nationalism opposed by paleocons, championed by neocons, and which ends with interventionist, entangling foreign polices.

That is the sort of American Exceptionalism which liberals find to be arrogant -- a self-centered hubris.

---------- Post added January-17th-2011 at 05:15 AM ----------

"I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism, and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism."
_Barack Obama

If Palin had said something like that we would have called her dumb.

George Will was correct in his assessment that progressives (at least one important progressive) apparently don't understand the meaning of the phrase.

If anything, I think conservatives have just as much twisted the meaning of the phrase.

Here is the passage where Alexis de Tocqueville uses "exceptional": "The position of the Americans is therefore quite exceptional, and it may be believed that no democratic people will ever be placed in a similar one." What does that mean? That those American (especially the Puritan English-in-descent) settlers, with their energy, industriousness, practicality, with an entire continent into which they could grow, were in a very good position. A unique position. An exceptional position.

It is clear that the meaning of this phrase has changed over the years, by those who supported Manifest Destiny, for those that supported a more muscular foreign policy (Spanish American war and onward), and by those who want to promote the "City on the Hill" Reagan-esque sort of America.

Predicto

January-17th-2011, 12:30 AM

Baculus explains it well.

I should add that I met George Will once, and he was an unpleasant and officious little :pooh: toward me, just like you would expect him to be. :)

Hubbs

January-17th-2011, 12:35 AM

I think the Sara Palinaztion of the right, over the past 2 years, has completely corrupted the concept of American exceptionilsm.

Wait, you think two years has dramatically changed a notion that's existed for pretty much the entire history of the country?

This is the most unique nation in the history of the world. As was discussed previously, having a Constitution that limits the power of government, rather then grants them, is one of the greatest civil rights victories in the history of the world.

If you wish to read a ****ed up Constitution, feel free to spend a day reading the 250 page plus Constitution of Pakisan :)

As for the OP and Will's paragraph, spot freakin on.

I actually think the brevity of the Constitution is one of its most important traits.

Predicto

January-17th-2011, 12:45 AM

Wait, you think two years has dramatically changed a notion that's existed for pretty much the entire history of the country?

No, the past few years of angry sloganeering have totally distorted a notion that has existed for the entire history of the country, making it into something that it never was before. Even Ronald Reagan's shining city on a hill was an appeal to hope and the great potential of the USA.

The past few years have seen the GOP turn that idea into "the US is so exceptional that we can do whatever we want, anything we do is inherently good and correct because we did it, we are always the good guys in any dispute no matter how it started, it is unpatriotic to question any actions by our side, we don't even have to be civil to other countries, OMG Obama BOWED to the Saudi King !!!!!111!!1!!" That is the "Palinization" of a once great idea, if you will.

Baculus

January-17th-2011, 12:59 AM

No, the past few years of angry sloganeering have totally distorted a notion that has existed for the entire history of the country, making it into something that it never was before. Even Ronald Reagan's shining city on a hill was an appeal to hope and the great potential of the USA.

The past few years have seen the GOP turn that idea into "the US is so exceptional that we can do whatever we want, anything we do is inherently good and correct because we did it, we are always the good guys in any dispute no matter how it started, it is unpatriotic to question any actions by our side, we don't even have to be civil to other countries, OMG Obama BOWED to the Saudi King !!!!!111!!1!!" That is the "Palinization" of a once great idea, if you will.

Precisely.

Words obviously change and adjust in meaning, but if conservatives are going to make claims to what something means, especially if they are trying to place it in historical context, then they should be accurate about it. I think this goes back to a conservative effort to claim ownership of this country's history and its documents, because liberals "just aren't American" and "don't understand America like we do." Which, going back to Palin, is virtually something she has said before.

mardi gras skin

January-17th-2011, 03:42 AM

Noam Chomsky comes to mind. Here is his Z page: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky

I forgot about Chomsky! Thank you. FYI, my church operates on a Chomsky/Libertarian Socialism model so I love the concepts. But I'm skeptical that many of his ideas work beyond a relational sphere of interaction though I would be excited if principals could work on a greater scale. All that to say, thanks DCSaints, Chomsky is exactly the kind of thinking liberal I want to read, disagree with, understand, and be changed by. :)

The past few years have seen the GOP turn that idea into "the US is so exceptional that we can do whatever we want, anything we do is inherently good and correct because we did it, we are always the good guys in any dispute no matter how it started, it is unpatriotic to question any actions by our side, we don't even have to be civil to other countries, OMG Obama BOWED to the Saudi King !!!!!111!!1!!" That is the "Palinization" of a once great idea, if you will.

I'm amazed that you are so willing to give away such an important concept to Pain and her type. Obama and Palin both have butchered the concept but this batch of politicians are blips. The idea will endure.

Riggo-toni

January-17th-2011, 07:03 AM

G. Will is one of the last intellectual old school conservatives left in a right wing dominated by blowhard parrots spouting off talking points like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck et al.

Larry

January-17th-2011, 07:59 AM

PeterMP

January-17th-2011, 08:33 AM

When I was in high school, I liked Will. Then I started to learn some more things, and I realized that most of Will's columns were full of half truths and intellectual dishonesty that most people wouldn't recognized and couched in fancy words to further help hide them.

The little snippet in the OP is no exception (I didn't bother to read the whole column):

Tocqueville saw American exceptionalism in two manners:
1. The relationship between the nature of God as observed in America and freedom, where freedom was directly granted from God and could not be usurped by the government.

2. The lack of an Aristocracy as related to inheritance of great amounts of wealth trough multiple generations.

http://agonist.org/numerian/20101225/and_while_we_are_on_the_subject_of_christmas_a_wor d_about_the_estate_tax

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cdf/onug/detocq.html

The modern right's (which wants to see the modification of inheritence laws that help create an "aristocracy" through passed on wealth and uses religion more in the context of that in France in Tocqueville's day to limit freedoms and control populations) view of American exceptionalism has nothing to do with Tocqueville's and to refer to Tocqueville in the context of a conversation about the modern right's view on American exceptionilism is intellectually dishonest.

Madison Redskin

January-17th-2011, 08:37 AM

G. Will is one of the last intellectual old school conservatives left in a right wing dominated by blowhard parrots spouting off talking points like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck et al.

I wouldn't necessarily put Limbaugh and Hannity in the same class with Beck. George Will, Bill Buckley (RIP), and Antonin Scalia are/were intellectual heavyweights of the right. Limbaugh and Hannity might not be geniuses and they might say stupid ****, but they're fairly smart. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are simply stupid, notwithstanding the fact that they can get people riled up.

As for the OP, I can't say that I disagree with any of Will's points. If only the right had more people like Will.......

alexey

January-17th-2011, 08:56 AM

Will has repeatedly and shamelessly lied about global warming. One must adopt very low standards in order to classify him as an "intellectual heavyweight".

Corcaigh

January-17th-2011, 09:23 AM

Will has repeatedly and shamelessly lied about global warming. One must adopt very low standards in order to classify him as an "intellectual heavyweight".

George Will is a liar and a partisan hack. Nothing more.

Madison Redskin

January-17th-2011, 09:39 AM

George Will is a liar and a partisan hack. Nothing more.

I respectfully disagree. George Will is very conservative, but he's broken ranks with the official GOP line on a number of occasions. For example, in 2006, Will openly called the Iraq War a civil war and he repeatedly called for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq.

As for alexey's post, I am not familiar with his position on global warming.....off to google.

zoony

January-17th-2011, 09:51 AM

I agree quite a bit with the original article. A pet peeve of mine is people cherry-picking what they want from other nations to support their "America sucks at _____" platform.

I think our greatest strength as a nation is our upward (and downward) mobility between the classes. That is simply not possible in most of Europe. The elite have controlled things for hundreds upon hundreds of years... and it came cheap to them. All it cost them was universal health care and extended unemployment benefits. The population is just fine... check that... THRILLED with being of service.

...

---------- Post added January-17th-2011 at 10:56 AM ----------

and r.e. Palin and the current GOP, I'd like to point out there is a fine line between American Exceptionalism and American Ignorance.

KAOSkins

January-17th-2011, 10:07 AM

Here's your example of the non-elitism of the Founding Fathers, a group of Revelutionary War veterans (and their first born sons only?) that still exists today. There is American Nobility of a sort. Franklin apparently thought it was a bad idea. Wasn't he as close to a modern liberal as we had back then?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_of_the_Cincinnati

The concept of the Society of the Cincinnati was originated from Major General Henry Knox. The first meeting of the Society was held in May 1783 at a dinner at Mount Gulian (Verplanck House) in Fishkill, New York, before the British evacuation from New York City. The meeting was chaired by Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Hamilton, and the participants agreed to stay in contact with each other after the war. Membership was generally limited to officers who had served at least three years in the Continental Army or Navy but included officers of the French Army and Navy above certain ranks.

Later, membership was passed down to the eldest son after the death of the original member. Present-day hereditary members generally must be descended from an officer who served in the Continental Army or Navy for at least three years, from an officer who died or was killed in service, or from an officer serving at the close of the Revolution. Each officer may be represented by only one descendant at any given time, following the rules of primogeniture. ( The rules of eligibility and admission are controlled by each of the 14 Constituent Societies to which members are admitted. They differ slightly in each society and some allow more than one representative of an eligible officer.)(It was this aspect, that of primogeniture, which caused the society initially to be controversial, as primogeniture was associated with the rules governing European nobilities.)

Stadium-Armory

January-17th-2011, 10:07 AM

Madison Redskin

January-17th-2011, 10:16 AM

I don't consider the idea of American exceptionalism as being owned by, or as a description of, the right - as we know it in the context of today's politics. It was not born of our conservatism. In fact, the founding fathers were liberals for their day, and this ideal - that we are different than other nations because of our history - can only be born out of "liberal" thinking. Case in point, today's republican party is opposed to equal rights for gays and lesbians, which is in outright conflict with American exceptionalism.

I guess it depends on how you define American exceptionalism. I think that conservatives tend to buy into American exceptionalism, as it's traditionally understood, far more than liberals. In many (but not all) liberal circles, you will be scoffed at if you fly an American flag in front of your house, talk about getting teary-eyed during the national anthem, or otherwise profess your love of country. I have a big problem with that.

I also have a problem with the right's tendency to blast anyone that dares to highlight problems with our country. I love my country and think that it is indeed exceptional in many respects. However, I also think it's ridiculous to think that it's perfect or to ignore problems we faced in the past or are facing now.

Burgold

January-17th-2011, 10:23 AM

Philosophically, I've believed that the truly exceptional were the ones who admitted their flaws and warts. It's those lacking confidence and afraid of their abilities or history who are unwilling to admit mistakes. Thus, when it comes to American Exceptionalism I've always thought that those who include criticism are the ones that truyly believe America is exceptional and those that don't believe much more in nationalism than exceptionalism.

JimboDaMan

January-17th-2011, 11:21 AM

I should add that I met George Will once, and he was an unpleasant and officious little :pooh: toward me, just like you would expect him to be. :):ols::ols:

With highwater pants and argyle socks, the kind of kid who volunteered to clean the teacher's blackboard erasers. :ols:

PeterMP

January-17th-2011, 11:40 AM

I guess it depends on how you define American exceptionalism. I think that conservatives tend to buy into American exceptionalism, as it's traditionally understood, far more than liberals.
I think his point is that this isn't true. The right has redefined American exceptionalism so that it means something different than it did 100 years ago.

If you read early writers on American exceptionalism, like Tocqueville, it is difficult to see how the modern political right's policies have anything to do with what he was talking about.

American exceptionalism at the time was not at all related to flying a flag or professing love for ones country. People discussing American exceptionalism at the time, didn't discuss any of those things.

American exceptionalism wasn't a "crude strain of patriotism", but that's what it has been turned into.

Madison Redskin

January-17th-2011, 12:10 PM

I think his point is that this isn't true. The right has redefined American exceptionalism so that it means something different than it did 100 years ago.

If you read early writers on American exceptionalism, like Tocqueville, it is difficult to see how the modern political right's policies have anything to do with what he was talking about.

American exceptionalism at the time was not at all related to flying a flag or professing love for ones country. People discussing American exceptionalism at the time, didn't discuss any of those things.

American exceptionalism wasn't a "crude strain of patriotism", but that's what it has been turned into.

Understood. I was talking about "American exceptionalism," as it's understood today. I suppose I should have not used the word "traditionally" in my prior post.

DRSmith

January-17th-2011, 01:51 PM

I wouldn't necessarily put Limbaugh and Hannity in the same class with Beck. George Will, Bill Buckley (RIP), and Antonin Scalia are/were intellectual heavyweights of the right. Limbaugh and Hannity might not be geniuses and they might say stupid ****, but they're fairly smart. Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin are simply stupid, notwithstanding the fact that they can get people riled up.

As for the OP, I can't say that I disagree with any of Will's points. If only the right had more people like Will.......

As for the OP, I can't say that I disagree with any of Will's points. If only the right had more people like Will.......[/QUOTE]

Limbaugh and Hannity egg on and five platforms to people like Palin and Bachman

Heck Hannity gave thousands to Bachman and had her on his show several times

And Hannity keeps his listeners woefully uninformed

Take his whole I never got a job from a poor person

How does he get money now?

Advertisers

Where do they get their money from?

Poor people who buy the products who then take the money that pays for the advertisements on his show.

HailGreen28

January-17th-2011, 03:32 PM

Nice try and nice canards, but you're taking far more insinuation from my post than it actually contained. And it would seem that you're doing it on purpose. ;)

About the Founding Fathers: I was referring to their collective intellectual position in the colonies, in which case your point about the social structure of the UK isn't quite so important. And anyway, the FFs had many close social and family connections to gentry; as a group they didn't suffer from any great lack of status. Status helped them tremendously, although ultimately IMO it was the balance of their intellectually "elite" beliefs that led to a truly great form of self-governance.

Yet it is (as one might expect) specifically intellectual, not so much social, "elitism" to which I personally witness talk-radio-fueled local knucklehead after local knucklehead taking objection. Social doesn't enter into it. (They try to get their kids INTO those social circles -- as long as their kids don't get educated with "those people!")Wrong. Great thinkers, yes. But elitism had little to do with the FF. And yes as colonists the FF were second class to gentry in the home country. While they feared rule by mobocracy, their ideals of people being endowed with inalienable rights, and a government based on a constitution LIMITING government, puts them firmly on the "populist" even "radical" side of their time.

Rather than intellectual elitism in papers between peers, two of the more prominent thinkers back then made many of their statements as part of the lower-class "media" to the masses back then. Ben Franklin in his newspapers. Thomas Paine in his pamphlets.

As for Will: You may have missed his senior-moment column all about blue jeans. You know, the one titled "Demon Denim." Despite Will's attempts to make it humorous, he earned himself a lifetime of "ridiculous caricature" for that one. I went far easier on him than others have, so you can relax.

By the way: if you want to take that earlier post of mine as somehow "not purple," then your perceptive skills might be IDEALLY suited for my awesome new club. See sig for details, and be sure to ask me about the Space Shuttle! :thumbsup:Geez, why are you getting all upset about this article? Mjah, you're doing more demonizing than in the article. Agree or disagree with the author, there's good stuff in there.: LINK (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/15/AR2009041502861.html)

"the modern trend toward undifferentiated dressing, in which we all strive to look equally shabby."

"Long ago, when James Dean and Marlon Brando wore it, denim was, Akst says, "a symbol of youthful defiance." Today, Silicon Valley billionaires are rebels without causes beyond poses, wearing jeans when introducing new products."

"Jeans come prewashed and acid-treated to make them look like what they are not -- authentic work clothes for horny-handed sons of toil and the soil. Denim on the bourgeoisie is, Akst says, the wardrobe equivalent of driving a Hummer to a Whole Foods store -- discordant."

If that article is worth "a lifetime of caricature", what do you think of Barack "I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." Obama, or John "Across this country this is the agenda I have set before my fellow prisoners. And the same standards of clarity and candor must now be applied to my opponent." McCain?

Again, sooooo "not purple" on your part, mjah.

Burgold

January-17th-2011, 03:34 PM

But elitism had little to do with the FF.

Of course, it did. Not only were they the elite of their time... why do you think they set up the electoral college or said that only folks who owned property could vote? Elitism!

HailGreen28

January-17th-2011, 03:47 PM

Of course, it did. Not only were they the elite of their time... why do you think they set up the electoral college or said that only folks who owned property could vote? Elitism!Not back then. Compare that to the House of Lords. I said "of their time."

DRSmith

January-17th-2011, 04:18 PM

Not back then. Compare that to the House of Lords. I said "of their time."

They were still very educated men

The problem is what is called elitism now, educated people are not elitest because of being education even if they are called such.

What is happening in the Republican party is pretty much the same thing I see happening in the labour movement.

You have your loud mouths who say all sorts of things people want to hear and make promises that can not be had and they get elected into positions then they come up against reality and those who know how the world works.

Instead of aknowledging their own short comings they call others names accuse others of being the elites looking down on the common folk.

Larry

January-17th-2011, 04:20 PM

Not back then. Compare that to the House of Lords. I said "of their time."

Unfortunately, your attempt to claim that they weren't elite consists of "Well, compared to the Duke of York, . . . "

You been to Mount Vernon? How many Americans, do you figure, lived in houses like that, back then?

Hubbs

January-17th-2011, 04:27 PM

HailGreen28

January-17th-2011, 04:32 PM

Unfortunately, your attempt to claim that they weren't elite consists of "Well, compared to the Duke of York, . . . "

You been to Mount Vernon? How many Americans, do you figure, lived in houses like that, back then?LOL "Duke of York" (that was a good one, touche)

I think there were plenty of plantation homes that big back then. Rich sure, but to the common man, George Washington was more folk hero than elitist.

Larry

January-17th-2011, 04:36 PM

Actually, I may have thought of a shorter, more sound bite way of expressing things.

"American exceptionalism" does not mean "America is the exception to all rules, laws, and morality. Because of our superior morality, and our belief in limited government."

Burgold

January-17th-2011, 04:37 PM

LOL "Duke of York" (that was a good one, touche)

I think there were plenty of plantation homes that big back then. Rich sure, but to the common man, George Washington was more folk hero than elitist.

In many ways, Washington was the anti-elitist... what they were building was phenomenally important to him and if you go to Mt. Vernon they have all sorts of notes and records that indicated that Washington was careful not to buy certain things because he felt it would damage the office and the idea of Democrasy that they were building, but don't be fooled... Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hancock were without question the elite minds of their time and elite in other ways. More, as I said the whole notion that not every American could be entrusted with the vote, but that elections would need to be decided by a council of property owning betters (IE electoral college) or that general votes also shouldn't go to everyone, but only landed people... was an elitist concept.

They believed that property owners were superior.

Larry

January-17th-2011, 04:43 PM

In many ways, Washington was the anti-elitist... what they were building was phenomenally important to him and if you go to Mt. Vernon they have all sorts of notes and records that indicated that Washington was careful not to buy certain things because he felt it would damage the office and the idea of Democrasy that they were building, but don't be fooled... Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Hancock were without question the elite minds of their time and elite in other ways. More, as I said the whole notion that not every American could be entrusted with the vote, but that elections would need to be decided by a council of property owning betters (IE electoral college) or that general votes also shouldn't go to everyone, but only landed people... was an elitist concept.

They believed that property owners were superior.

I think you may be going somewhat too far, there, Burg.

I'm seeing parallels to the folks who argue that the FF's didn't abolish slavery when they founded the country, therefore they were all evil.

The Framers really bent themselves over backwards, trying to create an ideal nation. The fact that now days, we expect better, doesn't diminish their intents or their accomplishments.

Baculus

January-17th-2011, 05:14 PM

I know a lot of us are scrambling to say good things about Will because he is one of the few intellectualized pundits from the Right, but I am still trying to figure out why this article is so fanastic. All he did was repeat what I have heard for decades -- "America is exceptionally great!" -- while using the phrase to bash progressives over the head with it.

Yeah -- such keen and fresh insight! But not really . . .

What would have been keen, fresh insight if Will had found a way to express exceptionalism in the manner in which we can all agree -- as Americans. In fact, he did this when he talked about America as being "free of a feudal past, free from an entrenched aristocracy and established religion." But, in Will's words, that is "obnoxious" to some progressives . . . even though his statement is untrue.

Will behaves as if there hasn't been an underbelly to American history -- racism, classism, exploitation of the disenfranchised such as child labor, slavery, no voting rights for blacks and women, etc. He and other conservatives can talk all they want about an idealized constitutional republic and Rule of Law, but that doesn't change the historical issues which had to be addressed, which happened sometimes over the opposition of conservatives. A recent example would be Sen. Mike Lee (UT), who believes that federal child labor laws are unconstitutional.

Let's look at the first loaded paragraph:

"Unlike most of the 111 that preceded it, the 112th Congress must begin the process of restoring the national regime and civic culture the Founders bequeathed. This will require reviving the rule of law, reasserting the relevance of the Constitution and affirming the reality of American exceptionalism."

I agree there have been constitutional issues for a while, but it certainly didn't start with the 111th Congress. This problem extends at least as far back into the Reagan years, when that administration illegally helped the Contras and traded arms with Iran (in violation of a Congressional decision). We can even go back much, much further to the Louisiana Purchase, which then Pres. Jefferson admit he couldn't find a constitutional means to actually approve the purchase, which he did anyway.

Will is saying nothing new that I can't read from a Tea Party website: Making claims to what the Democrats did ("health care reform is unconstitutional") while claiming to bring back "rule of law" and "rule by the Constitution," whatever that means to them. Are we also going to bring back the 3/5 clause? Oh, no? Oh, you mean the Constitution has been modified? But wait -- does that mean we're still operating under constitutional originality?

After writing a some blurb on small governance, Will states: "Two years into Barack Obama's presidency, we now know what he meant about 'hope' and "change" - he and other progressives hope to change our national character." Really? Because I have seen plenty of speeches where Pres. Obama positively highlights the American character, but Will is, again, making a spurious argument, which he doesn't even attempt to explain with any supporting arguments.

I believe this article is obviously intended for a certain target audience that already knows what Will is saying, which is the same argument we have heard for two years from opponents of the administration: "Obama is attempt to transform -- destroy -- this country into socialism."

Fresh and keen insight? Or a rehash of the same old song and dance?

The article ends with this sentence: "The electorate emphatically disagreed and created the 112th Congress, with its exceptionally important agenda." If you ask me, I think Will is putting too much into this last election. The incumbent party in such situations always loses seats and the economy hasn't grown fast enough. I just don't think people voted for the GOP because that party exemplifies exceptionalism, if the American citizenry can even agree on what that means.

You have to wonder, though, according to what Will is saying, why Pres. Obama won office in the first place with his party's platform. People knew that Obama with push for heath care and financial reform, so it isn't as if Obama produced some "red commie hand" from the deck which surprised everyone. But Will is surely loading up the 112th Congress with a lot of significance that I don't see, because there's not a lot difference from the current GOP platform and those that he decried as "losing their way."

This is what I get from the article: "America belongs to Republicans because they understand it, while progressives such as Obama want to change its national character." Basically, the article is just a slap in the face to the other side of the political aisle from a supposed conservative intellect.

I don't buy it.

Burgold

January-17th-2011, 05:23 PM

Baculus

January-17th-2011, 05:26 PM

I think you may be going somewhat too far, there, Burg.

I'm seeing parallels to the folks who argue that the FF's didn't abolish slavery when they founded the country, therefore they were all evil.

The Framers really bent themselves over backwards, trying to create an ideal nation. The fact that now days, we expect better, doesn't diminish their intents or their accomplishments.

Except, of course, for everyone who couldn't participate in the democratic process, but that was, of course, partially left to the states to determine who could or couldn't vote.

The FF created some great accomplishments, but their flaws, I believe, are worthy of study, as a demonstration to the social and economic forces of the day.

BTW, Will, in the article, said that "the American Revolution was a political, not a social, revolution." But this is untrue, because many disenfranchised Americans took the revolutionary words to heart, and it directly influenced the abolitionist movement and the suffrage/women's education movement as well as the Second Great Awakening which had a profound social (reformist) influence on this country. This was especially true in New England, where the American new national character created some remarkable changes in the decades following 1783.

Will wants to behave as if economic was the only factor in post-revolutionary America, but it wasn't -- like the rest his article, it is another oversimplification.

Henry

January-17th-2011, 05:45 PM

LOL "Duke of York" (that was a good one, touche)

I think there were plenty of plantation homes that big back then. Rich sure, but to the common man, George Washington was more folk hero than elitist.

It has been argued that George Washington was the richest man in America during the Revolutionary War. While that cannot be proven, he was certainly ONE of the richest. In the top .01 percent to be sure.

And here's an interesting article. Washington has been the second richest President we've ever had, behind Kennedy.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2010/05/net-worth-of-the-us-presidents-from-washington-to-obama/57020/

Larry

January-17th-2011, 05:51 PM

It's amazing the number of people, when someone points out that the Framers brought forth in this country a miracle of liberty and freedom, who feel obligated to come back with "Well, it wasn't perfect."

alexey

January-17th-2011, 06:01 PM

I guess it depends on how you define American exceptionalism. I think that conservatives tend to buy into American exceptionalism, as it's traditionally understood, far more than liberals. In many (but not all) liberal circles, you will be scoffed at if you fly an American flag in front of your house, talk about getting teary-eyed during the national anthem, or otherwise profess your love of country. I have a big problem with that.
I am honestly very much surprised to hear this. Is this based on personal experience? I always thought this "liberals hate America" stuff was mostly made up.

nonniey

January-17th-2011, 06:01 PM

If he did, why did he specifically name Obama and Pelosi in the article, and not mention the behavior of the previous White House which openly mocked the idea of being accountable to Congress?

Answer: because Will is a shameless partisan hack like the rest of them.

I see you still didn't read the article or even what mardi gras provided with his response.

---------- Post added January-18th-2011 at 12:07 AM ----------

?????

How can you be exceptional without being elite? Aren't they pretty synonymous?

Don't we want to be the elite military power
have elite soldiers and marines
the elite car maker
have elite workers and designers
the elite software designers
the elite chip makers
the elite minds

I guess you can believe in eceptionalism and not want to be elite, but only if you want to be exceptionally bad.

Actually, we have no problems being elite, as in the Americans are the elite it's just we've always had a problem with having an elite within our own society. In otherwords it's allright for us (Americans) to be the top dog (in everything) but we don't like it when some take that position with fellow Americans.

Burgold

January-17th-2011, 06:08 PM

I am honestly very much surprised to hear this. Is this based on personal experience? I always thought this "liberals hate America" stuff was mostly made up.

In my experience it is. Conservatives tend to love the trappings of America. Liberals tend to love America's ideals, values, spirit, and Constitution. Liberals love Freedom. Conservative hate Freedom (Fries). Can't be more conclusive than that.

nonniey

January-17th-2011, 06:14 PM

Noam Chomsky comes to mind. Here is his Z page: http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/noamchomsky

Well, I'd think he'd prefer someone that actually loves his country (and yes I think liberals or at least most liberals do) as opposed to someone, such as Chomsky who would prefer that the United States had never existed and hopes for the end of that existance as soon as possible.

G.A.C.O.L.B.

January-17th-2011, 06:21 PM

The new season of Bill Maher on HBO started this past weekend. I'm just posting this because it touches directly on the whole "elites" thing, starting at 2:42. Maybe it'll add something to the discussion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AriZDcyblbA

BTW, I'm tired of the whole Tea Party folk being called teabaggers thing. It was lame the first time it was done.

Larry

January-17th-2011, 06:35 PM

BTW, I'm tired of the whole Tea Party folk being called teabaggers thing. It was lame the first time it was done.

I'm tired of people who want the government to monitor all travel and communication in the world, to kidnap and torture people at will, and hold them forever without due process, saying "I'm for limited government", because they think that helping poor people buy health insurance from a private company is a Communist plot to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.

Don't think I'm gonna be getting my wish, either.

Baculus

January-17th-2011, 11:19 PM

BTW, I'm tired of the whole Tea Party folk being called teabaggers thing. It was lame the first time it was done.

The Tea Partiers, unfortunately for them, first used that term to describe themselves. It stuck. And you know how nicknames are once they are used. . . .

---------- Post added January-18th-2011 at 05:23 AM ----------

I'm tired of people who want the government to monitor all travel and communication in the world, to kidnap and torture people at will, and hold them forever without due process, saying "I'm for limited government", because they think that helping poor people buy health insurance from a private company is a Communist plot to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids.

Don't think I'm gonna be getting my wish, either.

I wouldn't hold my breath on that, but maybe some people will have an epiphany when the dust settles.

mjah

January-18th-2011, 12:37 AM

This post contains far more words than the subject deserves. Apologies, but it's my way. :pfft:

Wrong.
Sorry, but I am correct on that aspect of the Founding Fathers' legacy and your claim is simply less accurate. You don't need assistance from others to demonstrate that you are off-base, but in this thread you've certainly received that assistance in spades anyway! ;)

This kills me:

While they feared rule by mobocracy, their ideals of people being endowed with inalienable rights, and a government based on a constitution LIMITING government, puts them firmly on the "populist" even "radical" side of their time.
Thank you sir! Based on this and other bits in your post, it's splendid to see you acknowledge not only my original point (preceded by others in this thread), but also the follow-on point I made as I accompanied you on that unrelated social-status tangent of yours. Now we're back to acknowledging the FFs as the predominantly intellectual elites that they most certainly were, despite their often-privileged connections.

Much obliged. I guess we can consider this point closed then.

Rather than intellectual elitism in papers between peers, two of the more prominent thinkers back then made many of their statements as part of the lower-class "media" to the masses back then.
So your point is... they made heavy use of multiple forms of custom-suited communication to accomplish their goals? They used their formidable intellectual elitism to drive communication with each other, but utilized a different style on those occasions when they wanted to communicate their ideas to others? A principle which many of today's more prominent thinkers also closely follow?

Well, obviously I agree, as the FFs' deft combination of intellectual elitism with common touch was never at issue in the first place. That's another point closed. Most excellent.

Of course, your use of "Rather than" might be interpreted to suggest some greater "either-or" dilemma between high-minded intellectual elitism and mass communication. But surely anyone taking that away from your sentence would be making a grave mistake, no? Because such a belief would be absurdly inaccurate.

(Never mind that modern academics don't really hew to that "private communication" archetype with their important works anyway. Inquire at your local public university library for miles of proof.)

Geez, why are you getting all upset about this article?
Upset? No. Entertained? Oh, yes! Presume much? :pfft:

If that article is worth "a lifetime of caricature", what do you think of Barrack "I've now been in 57 states -- I think one left to go." Obama, or John "Across this country this is the agenda I have set before my fellow prisoners. And the same standards of clarity and candor must now be applied to my opponent." McCain?
Wait, so you believe a full George Will article equates to some spontaneous utterance from the mouth of a career politician? ;)

Surely you didn't mean to suggest that. Aside from making no sense at all, your McCain/Obama canard would make your continued defense of Will's lowest-decile work totally incomprehensible.

Perhaps it's fair to say that a slip of the tongue equals a slip of the pen. Will committed no slips of the pen in that article. And as proof of my commitment to that distinction, I won't subject you to "a lifetime of caricature" just because you misspelled the President's first name in the above quote. After all, it was unimportant: just a slip of the finger. :D

(You absolutely should perceive a huge grin as you read this, despite your apparent belief that I have something against Will or his work. I have no such agenda, but I'm happy to ridicule any lofty thinker's more misguided decisions.)

Again, sooooo "not purple" on your part, mjah.
Uh-huh. I'll happily accept the "not purple" criticism from someone who's in a position of repeatedly demonstrated credibility. Some examples of these folks can be found in this very thread. Hi guys! But sorry, no offense HailGreen: not from you. At least not in this thread. Be more forthcoming about your own biases and get your facts squared up a bit -- as I have -- and maybe you'll have a stronger position. I'm not trying to be a jerk here -- you're just throwing off your back foot.

[tl;dr: I know you are but what am I?]

DCSaints_fan

January-18th-2011, 12:57 AM

Well, I'd think he'd prefer someone that actually loves his country (and yes I think liberals or at least most liberals do) as opposed to someone, such as Chomsky who would prefer that the United States had never existed and hopes for the end of that existance as soon as possible.

Perhaps Chomsky is so critical of the U.S., precisely because he loves it .... or is at the very least least concerned for it.

I would say that he only wants to see the end of the US in the sense that he wants to see the end of all states ... though he has always been a bit vague on this point. I remember an interview he gave when asked about the Israeli-Palestian Conflict, whether he favored a one-or two state solution, he said something along the lines of wanting a "no-state" solution :)

Madison Redskin

January-18th-2011, 09:38 AM

I am honestly very much surprised to hear this. Is this based on personal experience? I always thought this "liberals hate America" stuff was mostly made up.

It is very much indeed based on personal experience. I think that younger liberals (at least many younger liberals I know) are somewhat likely to have some disdain for, or distrust, people who are too vocal in expressing a love of country. In my experience, they think that doing so amounts to nationalism/xenophobia. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that liberals hate 'Merica. I just think that some of them tend to look down on people who wave the flag a lot. That bothers me.

alexey

January-18th-2011, 09:57 AM

Stadium-Armory

January-18th-2011, 11:20 AM

It is very much indeed based on personal experience. I think that younger liberals (at least many younger liberals I know) are somewhat likely to have some disdain for, or distrust, people who are too vocal in expressing a love of country. In my experience, they think that doing so amounts to nationalism/xenophobia. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that liberals hate 'Merica. I just think that some of them tend to look down on people who wave the flag a lot. That bothers me.

To add to this point.. I think there is some skepticism that some (liberal or otherwise) might have with respect to flag waiving, but in my personal experience with this, it is not always unfounded. An occasion that comes to mind for me personally, was listening to an interview with Tommy Franks following his speech at the 2004 Republican national convention. I recall him saying something to this effect: "Your country above all else." , in the context of supporting the war in Iraq. It occurred to me at the time that this was misplaced patriotism. My country, above what is right and just? No thank you - I can use my own judgement to decide if something is right or wrong. It is precisely FOR love of country, and pride in who we are, that we should always ask questions. And that should not be confused with being un-patriotic, in my opinion it is the opposite.

Madison Redskin

January-18th-2011, 12:02 PM

It occurred to me at the time that this was misplaced patriotism. My country, above what is right and just? No thank you - I can use my own judgement to decide if something is right or wrong. It is precisely FOR love of country, and pride in who we are, that we should always ask questions. And that should not be confused with being un-patriotic, in my opinion it is the opposite.

I completely agree. Patriots will demand that their government to do what is right for the country, even if reasonable people disagree as to what is right and what is not. I also agree that too many conservatives ignore America's shortcomings. However, I think too many younger liberals ignore America's greatness and think that "booing America" is just as patriotic as voicing genuine dissent.

Stadium-Armory

January-18th-2011, 12:06 PM

I for one, love me some America!

Larry

January-18th-2011, 03:54 PM

I just think that some of them tend to look down on people who wave the flag a lot.

Perhaps it's because they've seen so many power-hungry politicians wrap themselves in it? :halo:

Madison Redskin

January-18th-2011, 04:04 PM

Perhaps it's because they've seen so many power-hungry politicians wrap themselves in it? :halo:

Many politicians are shady characters. Many politicians kiss babies. Therefore, people who kiss babies are shady characters.

Okay, people who kiss others' babies might be shady.

HailGreen28

January-18th-2011, 05:44 PM

This post contains far more words than the subject deserves. Apologies, but it's my way. :pfft:

Sorry, but I am correct on that aspect of the Founding Fathers' legacy and your claim is simply less accurate. You don't need assistance from others to demonstrate that you are off-base, but in this thread you've certainly received that assistance in spades anyway! ;)

This kills me:

Thank you sir! Based on this and other bits in your post, it's splendid to see you acknowledge not only my original point (preceded by others in this thread), but also the follow-on point I made as I accompanied you on that unrelated social-status tangent of yours. Now we're back to acknowledging the FFs as the predominantly intellectual elites that they most certainly were, despite their often-privileged connections.

Much obliged. I guess we can consider this point closed then.You know, in another thread, I commented on how some people losing an argument would resort to trying to claim victory on points, where they hadn't proven anything. And here you go with a boatload of posts to that effect. Since you aren't actually addressing my points, I guess all I can say is thanks for agreeing with me?

So your point is... they made heavy use of multiple forms of custom-suited communication to accomplish their goals? They used their formidable intellectual elitism to drive communication with each other, but utilized a different style on those occasions when they wanted to communicate their ideas to others? A principle which many of today's more prominent thinkers also closely follow?

Well, obviously I agree, as the FFs' deft combination of intellectual elitism with common touch was never at issue in the first place. That's another point closed. Most excellent.Glad we agree on that.

Of course, your use of "Rather than" might be interpreted to suggest some greater "either-or" dilemma between high-minded intellectual elitism and mass communication. But surely anyone taking that away from your sentence would be making a grave mistake, no? Because such a belief would be absurdly inaccurate.

(Never mind that modern academics don't really hew to that "private communication" archetype with their important works anyway. Inquire at your local public university library for miles of proof.)Oh for.... just when I think that you're thinking instead of knee-jerking, mjah! The point is important because of what support the FF were garnering, instead of garnering support the high class way back then. Hint: Ever hear of "letters of correspondence" between peers and organizations? Compare that to the paying audience of newspapers and pamphlets back then. It's not a black and white distinction, but still a stark difference. Again, thanks for conceding my points.

Upset? No. Entertained? Oh, yes! Presume much? :pfft:

As for Will: You may have missed his senior-moment column all about blue jeans. You know, the one titled "Demon Denim." Despite Will's attempts to make it humorous, he earned himself a lifetime of "ridiculous caricature" for that one. I went far easier on him than others have, so you can relax.

By the way: if you want to take that earlier post of mine as somehow "not purple," then your perceptive skills might be IDEALLY suited for my awesome new club. See sig for details, and be sure to ask me about the Space Shuttle!

This post contains far more words than the subject deserves. Apologies, but it's my way. :pfft:Oh the lady doeth protest too much, I think. In between these condescending posts, you're definitely butt-hurt by something about Will. I'm just wondering if it's personal, political, or you work for a jeans company.

Wait, so you believe a full George Will article equates to some spontaneous utterance from the mouth of a career politician? ;)

Surely you didn't mean to suggest that. Aside from making no sense at all, your McCain/Obama canard would make your continued defense of Will's lowest-decile work totally incomprehensible.

Perhaps it's fair to say that a slip of the tongue equals a slip of the pen. Will committed no slips of the pen in that article. And as proof of my commitment to that distinction, I won't subject you to "a lifetime of caricature" just because you misspelled the President's first name in the above quote. After all, it was unimportant: just a slip of the finger. :D

(You absolutely should perceive a huge grin as you read this, despite your apparent belief that I have something against Will or his work. I have no such agenda, but I'm happy to ridicule any lofty thinker's more misguided decisions.)No, but nice try at shifting the goalposts of this point. You referred to Will's article as a "senior moment" deserving "a lifetime" of caricature. I gave you some REALLY bad senior moments, and you try splitting hairs instead of staying consistent.

Ummm, yeah, I put an extra "r" in Barack's first name. That so affects the substance of what I posted. Corrected and thanks for being classy about that.... :rolleyes:

Uh-huh. I'll happily accept the "not purple" criticism from someone who's in a position of repeatedly demonstrated credibility. Some examples of these folks can be found in this very thread. Hi guys! But sorry, no offense HailGreen: not from you. At least not in this thread. Be more forthcoming about your own biases and get your facts squared up a bit -- as I have -- and maybe you'll have a stronger position. I'm not trying to be a jerk here -- you're just throwing off your back foot.Ummmm, thanks for agreeing with me since you never refuted my points. Have a nice day.

[tl;dr: I know you are but what am I?]I'm assuming a child of yours got on your PC, and added this. Again, have a nice day.

mjah

January-18th-2011, 06:33 PM

Still unable to admit your logical shortcomings? Well, at least you were able to specify your Joel-vs.-Mike preferences without stepping in it. If only you could have done the same in this thread. Too bad.

You know, in another thread, I commented on how some people losing an argument would resort to trying to claim victory on points, where they hadn't proven anything.

Just like you did, in that very post I'm quoting? Yep, that's a real shame. My posts had the benefit of actually having history and logic supporting them. Yours, not so much.

You know, in another thread, I commented on how some people think it's more important to "beat" the person they're debating with, rather then recognizing that it's often more useful to convince others -- lurkers, other posters, etc. -- of their points. Credibility with your facts and interpretations goes a long way toward that end. Acting deliberately dense does exactly the opposite. And here you go with a boatload of posts to that effect. Do you intentionally emulate every single thing you try to criticize in others, or is that just coincidence?

The rest of your post is largely worthless. Only a couple of things worth mentioning, and then only barely:

you're definitely butt-hurt by something about Will.
Nope. You're apparently just having trouble discerning between the fun I was having and the Serious Business you're trying oh-so-hard to wring from it. You'll just have to be wrong on this one.

Of course, you're a bigger fan of Will's than you're willing to admit -- that's the real "butt-hurt"ing going on here. Of course you won't own up to that, despite your continuous efforts to defend his work against wholly imagined Serious Business attacks. Hey HailGreen28, is that a Golden Helmet on your head -- or just a shaving basin? :pfft:

Ummm, yeah, I put an extra "r" in Barack's first name. That so affects the substance of what I posted. Corrected and thanks for being classy about that.... :rolleyes:
Anyone who read what I wrote, and then read what you wrote here in response, surely will laugh at you for this one. Just give up.

Again: criticize when you're better at it, and when you can be honest about it. A good set of history books will help you immensely too.

HailGreen28

January-19th-2011, 07:33 AM

Still unable to admit your logical shortcomings? Well, at least you were able to specify your Joel-vs.-Mike preferences without stepping in it. If only you could have done the same in this thread. Too bad.

Just like you did, in that very post I'm quoting? Yep, that's a real shame. My posts had the benefit of actually having history and logic supporting them. Yours, not so much.

You know, in another thread, I commented on how some people think it's more important to "beat" the person they're debating with, rather then recognizing that it's often more useful to convince others -- lurkers, other posters, etc. -- of their points. Credibility with your facts and interpretations goes a long way toward that end. Acting deliberately dense does exactly the opposite. And here you go with a boatload of posts to that effect. Do you intentionally emulate every single thing you try to criticize in others, or is that just coincidence?

The rest of your post is largely worthless. Only a couple of things worth mentioning, and then only barely:

Nope. You're apparently just having trouble discerning between the fun I was having and the Serious Business you're trying oh-so-hard to wring from it. You'll just have to be wrong on this one.

Of course, you're a bigger fan of Will's than you're willing to admit -- that's the real "butt-hurt"ing going on here. Of course you won't own up to that, despite your continuous efforts to defend his work against wholly imagined Serious Business attacks. Hey HailGreen28, is that a Golden Helmet on your head -- or just a shaving basin? :pfft:

Anyone who read what I wrote, and then read what you wrote here in response, surely will laugh at you for this one. Just give up.

Again: criticize when you're better at it, and when you can be honest about it. A good set of history books will help you immensely too.Concession(s) accepted on things that differentiated the FF from other leaders of their time, and the literary brilliance of columnists like George Will. Thanks! Hope you get over being upset soon.