Misidentifying the 'patriotism gap'
By Steve Benen Tuesday Mar 11, 2008 2:30pm
The night of the Iowa caucuses, during Barack Obama’s speech, the assembled crowd began shouting, “USA! USA!” TNR’s Frank Foer noted, “I don’t think I’ve ever heard a crowd of Democratic primary voters erupt in a spontaneous display like this…. Liberals who credibly bathe themselves in patriotism greatly increase their chances — and, in this case, prepare themselves well for running against John McCain.”
I’ve noticed that much of Obama’s message touches on explicitly patriotic themes, and has for several years. But today, Jonah Goldberg explains that it’s unsatisfactory, because Obama doesn’t specifically use the word “patriotism” enough.
“Unity is the great need of the hour.... Not because it sounds pleasant or because it makes us feel good, but because it’s the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country. I’m not talking about a budget deficit.... I’m talking about a moral deficit. I’m talking about an empathy deficit. I’m taking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother’s keeper; we are our sister’s keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny.”
So quoth Barack Obama in Atlanta on Jan. 20, but it might as well have been last week, so central is unity to his presidential campaign.... What is fascinating here is not the sentiment, but what’s missing from it. The P-word.
To invoke patriotism seriously is to brand yourself either an old fogy or a right-wing bully. If Obama spoke about patriotism with the sort of passion he expends on unity, many would take him for some sort of demagogue.
It’s possible I’m insufficiently patriotic to fully understand the argument — I think I love my country, but I’m not sure if I meet the right’s standards. Goldberg seems to be arguing that the left’s problem isn’t that we're unpatriotic, but rather, that we don’t talk about patriotism enough. Presumably, if the left used the “P-word” more often, conservatives would have more confidence in our loyalties.
Or something. With Goldberg, it's sometimes hard to follow the argument.
He added that, in this post-Vietnam era, the left “amputated itself from full-throated patriotic sentiment.” He added, “One cannot credibly talk of love of country while simultaneously dodging the word and concept of patriotism.... [O]ne cannot sufficiently love one’s country if you are afraid to say so out loud.”
It’s rather bewildering. The column isn’t about patriotism, or honoring the nation’s highest ideals, or acting in such a way as to protect the nation’s values, traditions, and institutions; it’s about rhetoric.
In this sense, a politico can give a rah-rah speech, and wrap himself in the flag, while opposing American civil liberties, stifling dissent, and supporting policies like torture and the elimination of habeas corpus. But so long as this person uses the “P-word” and wears the stars and stripes are on his lapel, there’s a “patriotism gap.”
It’s good to know. Patriotic beliefs are nice, but talking about patriotic beliefs is vital.
Login or Register to post comments.
BUSH'S 3 A.M. PHONE CALL
Ring 1, Ring 2........ Ring 8
"Hello?"
Voice On Phone: Mr. President?
Laura: Hold on
George wake up.... George...
Wake up George... GEORGE!!!
W: What?
L: It's the phone, you know, the one you always hope never rings.
W: Damn. Alright give me a minute (heads to bathroom)
VOP: Mr. President? It's very urgent
L: Hold on, he has to drain the horse. Speaking of horses, did you ever hear my horse joke that I made at the correspondence dinner?...
Seven minutes later
VOP: Yes ma'am, that's very funny, But I do need to speak with the President.
L: Well o.k. GEORGE!!!
One minute later
W: Do you realize what time it is?
VOP: Yes sir but
W: It's 10 after 3
VOP: I know sir but
W: C,mon spit it out. And it better be good
VOP: Sir, there is a nuclear bomb in New York that is set to go off in one hour.
W: (Long pause) Well, (Longer pause) What do want me to do about it, call Jack Bauer? heh heh heh
VOP: Sir?
W: Or better yet let's move it to New Orleans. heh heh heh
VOP: Sir, we have less than an hour.
W: O.K. O.K. Uhmmm, well (Longest pause)... This sounds like a case for "Usual Protocol".
VOP: "Usual Protocol" sir?
W: Yes, "Usual Protocol".
VOP: What's that?
W: Let it explode and call me in 3 days.
Click
"I think I love my country, but I’m not sure if I meet the right’s standards."
The right has no standards. Whatever level of patriotism a liberal displays, it will be criminally low compared to the Right's expectations.
The only P-word associated with Jonah is "pantload"
I thought it was very clear. Only the GOPness is patriotic.
Sounds realistic, Peter. It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world we're living in.
Iowa's flush with Ethanol subsidies. I'm not to surprised they were chanting USA USA!
This from the crowd who think Patriotism is wearing a pin on their jacket?
The more they try to diss Obama the more popular he'll get.
Obama wants to Unify and that is what America wants and needs.
Gawd, they are pulling shit out of their tired asses.
GTFOOH
repug patriotism is counting the dead bodies.
Orwell explains that the Party could not protect its iron power without degrading its people with constant propaganda. Yet, knowledge of this brutal deception, even within the Inner Party itself, could lead to disgusted collapse of the State from within. For this reason, the government uses a complex system of reality control. Though Nineteen Eighty-Four is most famous for the Party's pervasive surveillance of everyday life, reality control means that the population of Oceania — all of it, including the ruling élite — could be controlled and manipulated merely through the alteration of everyday thought and language. Newspeak is the method for controlling thought through language; doublethink is the method of directly controlling thought.
Dale @ 2:
Exactly!
bwahahaahaa... jonah goldberg, oh man, that is rich...
I don't know why anyone pays any attention to Jonah Goldberg. He's not smart enough to be called stupid.
Slightly OT -- C&L, please don't fail to post Ferraro's Al Campanis-like defense to GMA's Diana Sawyer of her plainly racist series of remarks over the past 24 hours.
Here's the Good Morning America link --
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Vote2008/story?id=4435376&page=1
Goldberg wouldn't know patriotism if it bit him n his pseudo-intellectual ass!
Makes me think of the bumper sticker:
"Blind faith in bad leadership is not patriotism"
♣Bangkok Bob♣ @ 7:
I'm not a praying man....but I am praying now that America gets this man in the WH!!!!
This is something that not only this country needs...but the rest of the world needs also...the LAST thing this nation, and the planet needs is another 4 years of Neo-Con incompetence.
Someone needs to ask the psuedo-patriotic Goldberg just exactly how he supports America. The chickenhawk right doesn't want to pay any taxes. They don't want to serve in the military. So, in what way are they supporting America? Explain it to me, please.
I think Goldberg is absolutely right. But then again, I'm brain dead.
Steve Barber @ 12:
:) LOL!
DC @ 15:
Yeah, that's jingoism, ain't it?
Patriotism is love of country. It is not jingoism.
The right has managed to redefine words to suit themselves, but this one has a very thin veneer. One young right wingnut I know said he wouldn't give up his private sector pharmacist job to answer the call when the military is short of pharmacists with the dismissive, "There's nothing in it for me." Even our current CINCUS was AWOL through much of his military obligation because service was inconvenient. Darth said he had better things to do than serve. These are the assholes who wrap themselves in the flag and claim only they are patriots.
I am a patriot - they are nothing more than self serving little
a 2008 presidentital candidate knows what patriotism is
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1LhCch-JEo
a group of Iraq war veterans know what patriotism is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wh4XGmfJo4
We have no idea what to call this:
http://thinkprogress.org/?s=bush+dances
or this:
http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?s=bush+jokes
I think Obama could appeal to even more Americans by pointing out the strengths of America, the beauty of every state, our good people, our hope that America will be great again because of our compassion for others, our diversity, our creativity, our interest in others in the world. The untapped strength of America's people. Patriotism, like love, is about cherishing and protecting, if need be, what one holds precious.
Patriotism is far more than a word. And it certainly isn't a flag lapel pin.
Neither the warmongering of the neo-"right" nor the collectivist slavery of the left is patriotism. A true patriot understands and stands for freedom.
What, the same guy who trotted out the stupidest phrase known to man: LiberalFascism?
Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick.
Patriotism is thelast refuge of the Scoundrel, the Church is second, if that doesn't work there is always Switzerland or South America.
For someone who is not from your country (I'm from Denmark) chanting USA, USA,... seems, I'm sorry to say, as bizarre behavior. Same with the notion of patriotism (some might say nationalism), that you always have to confirm yourself that USA is the greatest country in the world.
Dem: "Do you like my American flag pin?"
Repub: "It sure is small. What're you ashamed of?"
Dem: "Did you hear me saying the 'Pledge of Allegiance?'"
Repub: "Barely. What're you ashamed of? Do you not know all of the words?"
For republicans, loud means proud.
Patriotism is love of country. It is not jingoism.
Yup. 'Zactly. And Mr. Goldberg has served his country exactly how, again.
He's saying conservotards are duller than a piece of wet toast and need things explained very slowly and with small words. Or very loudly with jingoistic phrases that they can learn to parrot easily. The scary 'lefties' expect people to understand concepts and tend to speak using a vocabulary that far surpasses the sixth grade level of most conservotards.
liberalHUSSEINmoderation @ 16:
I'm not a praying man either, but amen to that. (whatever the f*ck amen means)
I'm not in the US, but I can tell you that everywhere I go, be it Thailand, Brunei, Indonesia, India plus all the Europeans I run into traveling through here... They are all hoping to see Obama win.
Dale @ 2:
Because being republican is the minimum standard
I consider myself patriotic. After all, I haven't fled the country yet have I.
After seven years of an administration (and supporters) who touted patriotism as unquestioning loyalty to the administration and the party rather than the Constitution or to the United States of America and who questioned the patriotism of those who dared criticized the decision to go to war or the decisions of the government, I am certainly ready for a dramatic change in direction. I long for a restoration of democracy and respect for the people of this nation.
The problem with Jonah Goldberg and cohorts is that they lack an understanding or an appreciation of what true patriotism really is. These are the same people who gage someone's patriotism of lack thereof by whether or not that person spent $2.99 on a made in China lapel pin of the U.S. flag. Patriotism comes cheap, apparently, really CHEAP.
krisken @ 25:
Communism and socialism is commonly accepted as being on the "left" or "liberal" side of the "spectrum", but somehow people like you decide that fascism is "right-wing". The reality of it is that fascism and communism are essentially equal.
This left/right conservative/liberal bullshit serves no purpose other than dissension among those who might otherwise band together to oppose government oppression. We should oppose it on all levels -- whether the government is killing innocent foreigners, using force and threats to extract money from Americans, spying on our communications, destroying the dollar, subverting foreign governments, 'fixing' prices, etc. These are all evil and all part of the *same* system -- they are not opposites on some imaginary left/right scale, and we don't have to choose a side between some of these evils or others. We should oppose them all.
I would love to ask Mr. Goldberg if he talks enough about being hetrosexual. And if he does not talk enough about being hetrosexual. Is he hetrosexual?
♣Bangkok Bob♣ @ 32:
Oh man...no pressure, right? LOL!
Nobody on the Right even meets the Rights standards for being a good patriot. Hell if you look at history even Reagan isn't very Reaganesque.
Nobody can meet the Rights standards because they are not meant to be met, the standards are only in place so they can tell their base how unpatriotic their opponents are.
The "left" or "Liberals", whatever you want to label those people have Patriotism down and know exactly what it is in meaning. Patriotism is not about submitting yourself to a regime that continues to take away your civil liberties because of some threat. Nor is it Patriotic to blindly support a military that has no choice but to carry out those orders, be they criminal acts or otherwise, given to them by that same regime. The people that call that sort of thing Patriotic are serfs or peasants and can also be found in places like North Korea. They would rather support that criminal regime's actions and smile out of fear than hold that regime accountable. What these people are doing by chanting "USA" is taking a stand and demanding change. That takes courage to do and they get that courage from people like Obama.
patriot @ 36:
Your ideas intrigue me. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Wasn't it Bill Maher who said something like:
Being patriotic is like having a big dick. If you have to brag about it, it's probably not true.
Should have shown courage and demanded change when the USSC overruled the people and installed Bush.
It sure would have saved us a lot of trouble.
Goldberg who wears the patriotic stains of Cheetohs orange and Mountain Dew green on his massive gut wouldn't know a patriot if he sat on him. The pea brain of NRO is intimidated by Obama because he is all that Doughy will never be: smart, charismatic,and successful.
knud @ 27:
WHAAAAAT!!!!
The Danes don't see america as the greatest country EVER?!?!?!?!
ATTACK!!!!
/snark off
seriously though, it interesting the way a large subset of america NEEDS (like a crystal meth bump) to hear, say and be assured that america is 'the best country ever', and there is no comprehension that other nationalities might not necessarily agree (to say the least). its as if these americans weren't constantly bombarded with this propaganda then their own doubts might cause them to doubt their militant jingoism. and we just can't have that, can we?
When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying the cross.
Patriotism is proud of a country's virtues and eager to correct its deficiencies; it also acknowledges the legitimate patriotism of other countries, with their own specific virtues.
The pride of nationalism, however, trumpets its country's virtues and denies its deficiencies, while it is contemptuous toward the virtues of other countries. It wants to be, and proclaims itself to be, "the greatest," but greatness is not required of a country; only goodness is.
“USA! USA!”
Has nothing to do with patriotism.
It is what organizers have their zombies chant to drown out Protesters.
It is an old Pat Robertson trick from his 1992 campaign that was copied by everyone that year and since.
krisken @ 41:
Your ideas intrigue me. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I don't have a newsletter, but you might find http://www.lewrockwell.com a good source of articles and news. Read their archives and keep up with the latest news. I'd also recommend doing quite a bit of reading, such as Milton Mayer's 'They Thought They Were Free', John T. Flynn's 'The Roosevelt Myth', and G. Edward Griffin's 'The Creature from Jekyll Island'. You will not regret it, unless you really believe that "ignorance is bliss"...
Screw Goldberg he is pathetic. Why do I have to prove my patriotism to this idiot when I served my country for 4 years during the Viet Nam War and I'm sure this coward never got a day of training or any kind of Military Experience.... FUCK HIM VERY MUCH !!!
Samson- @ 45:
Part of it is now that a large percentage of Americans have one foot in the family room and one in the gutter they are starting to wake up out of their coma a little bit.
.
Please keep in mind, Johna Goldberg doesn't know what fascism is yet has published a book claiming to know it, intimately.
He calls Liberals, Fascists. Not because of our ideology of equality and freedom, but because of our ideology of freedom in equality.
o.0
.
Oil prices pass 110 dollars for first time. $110.20
Well woopie doooooooooo
"Patriotism" is a label, its meaning a subjective value to those who brag that their flag lapel pins show they're proud of America.
As someone once said, " 'My country, right or wrong,' is like saying, 'My mother, drunk or sober.' "
Sorry,
Should have spelled "it" Jonah.
L.A. Confidential @ 43:
huh? that was 8 years ago. who are you referring to?
knud @ 27:
Nationalism is in many ways the opposite of patriotism. It was nationalism (among other things) that gave us Nazi Germany. It was patriotism that gave us the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and a government designed to be protect the rights of individuals, not interfere with our lives.
Nationalism indeed is much closer to socialism than patriotism in that both are aspects of collectivism. That much is evident even in the Obama quote at the top of this page. Obama is a collectivist, not a patriot; and so are Bush and McCain.
Why is talking about patriotism so important to Goldberg? Cause he's all talk.
As for why my sorry a** isn’t in the kill zone, lots of people think this is a searingly pertinent question. No answer I could give — I’m 35 years old, my family couldn’t afford the lost income, I have a baby daughter, my a** is, er, sorry, are a few — ever seem to suffice.
– Jonah Goldberg
killthepoor @ 54:
Thats the point.
Oh, Jonah Goldberg, when aren't you an ill-informed douche bag??
L.A. Confidential @ 51:
Yes, and the dollar has just hit a new 52 week low of 72.42 today on the dollar index.
patriot @ 55:
Blah blah blah Libertarian diatribe, blah blah....
IgnoranceIsNotBliss @ 34:
If it's to regroup, rethink, replan, retake and restore...then rejoice...fleeing the country can be patriotic.
patriot @ 47:
I don't have a newsletter, but you might find http://www.lewrockwell.com a good source of articles and news. Read their archives and keep up with the latest news. I'd also recommend doing quite a bit of reading, such as Milton Mayer's 'They Thought They Were Free', John T. Flynn's 'The Roosevelt Myth', and G. Edward Griffin's 'The Creature from Jekyll Island'. You will not regret it, unless you really believe that "ignorance is bliss"...
I have to admit.... I too am intrigued by this...thanks!
Jonah Goldberg, whose reaction to Hurricane Katrina was to mock its victims, embodies the moral and empathy deficits Obama talks about.
Remember this?
"ATTN: SUPERDOME RESIDENTS – I think it's time to face facts. That place is going to be a Mad Max/thunderdome Waterworld/Lord of the Flies horror show within the next few hours. My advice is to prepare yourself now. Hoard weapons, grow gills and learn to communicate with serpents. While you're working on that, find the biggest guy you can and when he's not expecting it beat him senseless. Gather young fighters around you and tell the womenfolk you will feed and protect any female who agrees to participate without question in your plans to repopulate the earth with a race of gilled-supermen. It's never too soon to be prepared."
So, for him to lecture *anyone* on *anything* is ludicrous on its face. The accident of Goldberg's birth allows him to float on the top of the conservative pundit bowl, but he's still nothing but a turd.
moondancer @ 60:
Blah blah blah Libertarian diatribe, blah blah....
"Blah blah blah freedom blah blah blah Please, O state, protect my ears from liberty!"
Joementum @ 56:
I love that quote from Goldberg. He basically said what we all know he is, a coward. All of the excuses that he can come up with will never hide that fact and "Patriotism" is all he has to cover it.
Right. But then if Liberals used the "p" word, the prolem would be that we needed to say it while hopping on our right foot and patting our tummies. This is a game we can only win by reframing--not be listening to Foer or filth like Jonah Goldberg.
liberalHUSSEINmoderation @ 62:
I have to admit.... I too am intrigued by this...thanks!
Ugh....Ron Paul crap all OVER that site....a little warning please...intrigued no mas!
lilybelle @ 66:
forgive typos--i.e., "prolem" for "problem" and "be" for "by." Guess I'm just not patriotic enough to spell.
This is probably the most ridiculous argument I ever heard, please don't spend anymore time on him. It is such a complete waste, just like his proposal. He really believes that the average person is as uneducated as himself and therefor only will trust politician who constantly wave the flag or state nonsensical so-called patriotic slogans. Maybe that was true in the Middle Ages where Goldberg finds all his ludicrous arguments. I'm waiting for him to suggest that you are not a true American patriot unless you should down in front of the President and kiss his little pinky.
I don't know. I don't understand the argument that to be patriotic you must wear a US flag pin on your lapel, either.
But hey, they bitch about it a lot. They are a bunch of the do as I say, and not the do I as I do kind of crowd, I think.
I hate to say it but the GOP is right when it comes to many of the American people. You don't have to have family values, just say you do. You don't have to hunt, just claim you do like the famouse small varmit hunter Mitt Romney. For years the GOP has been getting votes not by banning abortion or banning gay marriage, they just say they will and religious idiots believe what they are told. After all, the only way anyone would accept religion is if they are the type of person that believes whatever they are told. If Obama wants these people to believe he is a patriot he had better tell them.
Followers of religion are just that, followers. Strolling behind the lead sheep they are oblivious to the existence of individual thought. These people will not look at Obama's actions to judge wether or not they think he is a patriot, they will go with what they are told. Why do you think they follow loud mouths like O'reilly and Limbaugh. These "newsman" do not give facts and let the sheep decide, they tell the sheep what to think and the sheep follow them.
Johan @ 69:
Basically, that is what he is asking people to do right now. Later on though, as we see from history and current regimes, it will soon become a requirement.
patriot @ 55:
hogwash.
circular argument based on flawed logic.
oy...
liberalHUSSEINmoderation @ 67:
Ugh....Ron Paul crap all OVER that site....a little warning please...intrigued no mas!
Oh, no, Ron Paul! Please tell me, just what is it you're afraid of?
His desire to keep the government out of your home and your pocket?
Or maybe it's his principled stand against the Iraq war?
Or his efforts to educate people about the failing economy and its underlying causes?
Or maybe it's the fact that he doesn't fall in with almost every other politician in believing and teaching that government debt can solve all our problems?
Or perhaps it's his belief that we have the right to decide with whom we'll do business, and on what terms?
Or his little idea that our government shouldn't be building and destroying foreign nations?
Or maybe it's his opposition to the increased erosion of our privacy through a national ID card system?
I'd be quite interested to hear your response telling us which of these terrors frightens you most.
Johan @ 69:
Hehehe...little pinky....
Not sure why Goldberg didn't bring it up, but here's one instance where Obama mentioned patriotism:
"A party that presided over a war in which our troops did not get the body armor they needed, or were sending troops over who were untrained because of poor planning, or are not fulfilling the veterans' benefits that these troops need when they come home, or are undermining our Constitution with warrantless wiretaps that are unnecessary?
"That is a debate I am very happy to have. We'll see what the American people think is the true definition of patriotism."
lilybelle @ 68:
Heh! Spellins fer kawmies anyhow! ;)
amazing -- how can no one mention how words like "freedom" and "patriot" have almost been ruined by the overuse and orwellian doublespeak that has been going on for the last 7 years. think: the Patriot Act ... Operation Enduring Freedom... What a load of horsepoo! You can love your country and all the things that make your country great without beating people over the heads with the verbage (especially when the verbage are lies!) Jonah is a fool and I can't believe people still pay him to write his drivel. It's people like him who make me ashamed to be an American, honestly. I hope we all get smart soon.
Samson- @ 73:
circular argument based on flawed logic.
oy...
Considering your lack of a substantive comment or any justification of your claim, I can't say much in reply.
patriot @ 64:
"Blah blah blah freedom blah blah blah Please, O state, protect my ears from liberty!"
Lets change the meaning of ALL words so we can associate isms to anything we want. We can say Fascism and people will think of Islam, we can say Liberalism and people will think of Nazis, we can say Communism and people will think of Social Security, we can say Patriotism and people will think of glory and winning, we can say Libertarian and people will think of being rich and happy.
ALL GLORY TO RON PAUL!!
I am almost as sick of hearing Libertarian BS as I am hearing about Hillary Clinton.
Goldberg's "column isn’t about patriotism, or honoring the nation’s highest ideals, or acting in such a way as to protect the nation’s values, traditions, and institutions; it’s about rhetoric." Exactly. It's about the appearance (or the sound), not the substance. It's why Goldberg, and the rest of them, can invoke patriotic pretty-words to justify state sanctioned torture and the evisceration of The Bill of Rights. It's like they made a stream of pigheaded decisions to remain forever dense.
Yeah, the right has become a victim of the Frank Burns Effect. If an american doesnt engange in jingoistic chest-beating, are they really americans?
"Mr, when that flag goes up that pole every morning, I go with it!" --Frank Burns
That line was once a joke, today it's the organizing principle behind talk radio. Little brains pretending that every day is normandy beach, and they get to star in the movie version in their heads.
patriot @ 55:
Just a quick lesson:
Patriotism - pride in one's nation
Nationalism - belief that identity as member of a nation is most important aspect of identity
Socialism - system by which wealth distribution is controlled by the community
Patriotism and Nationalism could be called synonyms but socialism is not really the same as either. I think the foreign kid has a point. I remember at a party in high school a group of about 8 brothers and cousin were suddenly in a group bragging to each other that the Peterson boys were the best. They were all pretty big guys and you could tell it wouldn't be long before they decided to prove this claim. Soon the two largest Petersons were beating on a couple guys while their brothers and cousins cheered them on. It seemed pretty stupid to the rest of us. That is probably how the rest of the world sees U.S. Political rally chants and U.S. warlike foreign policy. U.S.A....U.S.A...
RayC @ 80:
Lets change the meaning of ALL words so we can associate isms to anything we want. We can say Fascism and people will think of Islam, we can say Liberalism and people will think of Nazis, we can say Communism and people will think of Social Security, we can say Patriotism and people will think of glory and winning, we can say Libertarian and people will think of being rich and happy.
ALL GLORY TO RON PAUL!!
I am almost as sick of hearing Libertarian BS as I am hearing about Hillary Clinton.
That's an interesting comment, and it shows your lack of understanding of politics, history, and economics at a meaningful level. We don't need to change the meanings of words -- we need to think about the reality behind events, rhetoric, policies, etc. We need to look at various societies throughout history -- Nazis, Soviets, Romans, Greeks, American, British, Islamic, etc. -- and see the common threads of tyranny. We need to figure out how to stop government oppression at all levels. I don't know which "side" of this farcicle debate you prefer to line yourself up on, whether you support blowing up Iraqis or intimidating and stealing from Americans, but neither is the side of freedom or patriotism.
You say you're sick of hearing BS. Well, get past the BS being fed to you by and get some real substance in your thought.
liberalHUSSEINmoderation @ 67:
Ugh....Ron Paul crap all OVER that site....a little warning please...intrigued no mas!
Wait, you really clicked the link! I was only kidding! Just because someone pretends to know what they are talking about doesn't mean they really know what they are talking about.
Media Matters has a great debunk
of this as well, since unsurprisingly, Jonah is factually wrong in addition to arguing a scurrilous thesis.
As for patriotism versus nationalism and jingoism, I have to go with Orwell:
By “nationalism” I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled “good” or “bad.” But secondly—and this is much more important—I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism. Both words are normally used in so vague a way that any definition is liable to be challenged, but one must draw a distinction between them, since two different and even opposing ideas are involved. By “patriotism” I mean devotion to a particular place and a particular way of life, which one believes to be the best in the world but has no wish to force on other people. Patriotism is of its nature defensive, both militarily and culturally. Nationalism, on the other hand, is inseperable from the desire for power. The abiding purpose of every nationalist is to secure more power and more prestige, not for himself but for the nation or other unit in which he has chosen to sink his own individuality…
It is also worth emphasizing once again that nationalist feeling can be purely negative. There are, for example, Trotskyists who have become simply enemies of the USSR without developing a corresponding loyalty to any other unit. When one grasps the implications of this, the nature of what I mean by nationalism becomes a good deal clearer. A nationalist is one who thinks solely, or mainly, in terms of competitive prestige. He may be a positive or a negative nationalist—that is, he may use his mental energy either in boosting or in denigrating—but at any rate his thoughts always turn on victories, defeats, triumphs and humiliations. He sees history, especially contemporary history, as the endless rise and decline of great power units, and every event that happens seems to him a demonstration that his own side is on the upgrade and some hated rival is on the downgrade. But finally, it is important not to confuse nationalism with mere worship of success. The nationalist does not go on the principle of simply ganging up with the strongest side. On the contrary, having picked his side, he persuades himself that it is the strongest, and is able to stick to his belief even when the facts are overwhelmingly against him. Nationalism is power-hunger tempered by self-deception. Every nationalist is capable of the most flagrant dishonesty, but he is also—since he is conscious of serving something bigger than himself—unshakeably certain of being in the right.
That pretty much sums up the liberal versus movement conservative divide, as well.
To think Goldberg gets paid to write these "patriotic" articles.
patriot @ 84:
That's an interesting comment, and it shows your lack of understanding of politics, history, and economics at a meaningful level. We don't need to change the meanings of words -- we need to think about the reality behind events, rhetoric, policies, etc. We need to look at various societies throughout history -- Nazis, Soviets, Romans, Greeks, American, British, Islamic, etc. -- and see the common threads of tyranny. We need to figure out how to stop government oppression at all levels. I don't know which "side" of this farcicle debate you prefer to line yourself up on, whether you support blowing up Iraqis or intimidating and stealing from Americans, but neither is the side of freedom or patriotism.
You say you're sick of hearing BS. Well, get past the BS being fed to you by and get some real substance in your thought.
By doing exactly what you say? All hail the flying spaghetti monster!
Why the hell are my comments quoting like a mentally challenged monkey?
What my conservative friends (I sound like McCain) can't seem to wrap their minds around is the differences in which Democrats and Republicans seem to love their country.
Republicans love their country like a young child loves their parent - they see no faults and think they can do no wrong.
Democrats love their country like a parent loves their young child - the bond is as strong as any that exists but they will never stop encouraging, and expecting more of their child. And they will come down hard on their child when that child knowingly does wrong.
patriot @ 74:
Oh, no, Ron Paul! Please tell me, just what is it you're afraid of?
His desire to keep the government out of your home and your pocket?
Or maybe it's his principled stand against the Iraq war?
Or his efforts to educate people about the failing economy and its underlying causes?
Or maybe it's the fact that he doesn't fall in with almost every other politician in believing and teaching that government debt can solve all our problems?
Or perhaps it's his belief that we have the right to decide with whom we'll do business, and on what terms?
Or his little idea that our government shouldn't be building and destroying foreign nations?
Or maybe it's his opposition to the increased erosion of our privacy through a national ID card system?
I'd be quite interested to hear your response telling us which of these terrors frightens you most.
Well, I suppose I could tell you...but really, what's the point? He dropped out of the race did he not?
Those are all good things you mentioned to be sure, but he never really went into exactly HOW he was goin to accomplish any of these things did he? Granted, Paul did have my ear for awhile...but I started to hear things that sent red flags flyin. Like abolishing the IRS...sounds great...but how then will the govt make ends meet? Close the borders...suuuure, why not? How then will our nation produce anything with out cheap immigrant labor? How can we afford to send the illegals back?
JONAH - "Jonah, one of the most celebrated of the Old Testament prophets, earned his fame just as he did God's disfavor by disobeying the Deity. As punishment, he was thrown overboard during a great storm at sea and wound up, in the words of Ira Gershwin's lyrics for 'Porgy and Bess,' 'in the belly of the whale.' After three days in stygian darkness, he was regurgitated, presumably having learned his lesson. His misadventure has given our language the word 'Jonah,' meaning a person who carries a jinx, one who will bring bad luck to any enterprise. Appropriately enough, the name Jonah in the original Hebrew Yohnah meant 'the moaning one." From the "Morris Dictionary of Word and Phrase Origins" by William and Mary Morris (HarperCollins, New York, 1977, 1988).
The moaning one. How apropos.
krisken @ 89:
nationalism
Batocchio @ 86:
So, is chanting USA, installing large military bases in other countries and constantly claiming you the greatest nation in the world a characteristic more typical of nationalism or patriotism. Let's look in the mirror and see what reflects, without bias.
krisken @ 89:
Jonah Goldberg would call that being patriotic. In Goldberg's mind its always patriotic to mimic the chimp.
Samson- @ 93:
Dammit, I spit coke onto my laptop. You know how hard it is to clean these keys?
Joementum @ 3:
Prick. Pudgy litlle prick.
As simply as I can put it: Jonah Goldberg is a self-important asshole, and an idiot.
A doubleplusungood combination, to be sure.
Kyle @ 83:
Patriotism - pride in one's nation
Nationalism - belief that identity as member of a nation is most important aspect of identity
Socialism - system by which wealth distribution is controlled by the community
Patriotism and Nationalism could be called synonyms but socialism is not really the same as either. I think the foreign kid has a point. I remember at a party in high school a group of about 8 brothers and cousin were suddenly in a group bragging to each other that the Peterson boys were the best. They were all pretty big guys and you could tell it wouldn't be long before they decided to prove this claim. Soon the two largest Petersons were beating on a couple guys while their brothers and cousins cheered them on. It seemed pretty stupid to the rest of us. That is probably how the rest of the world sees U.S. Political rally chants and U.S. warlike foreign policy. U.S.A....U.S.A...
On a superficial level, you make some good points. Sure, patriotism is love of one's country. But what does that actually mean? Does love drive one to hate his neighbor? No. Does love of my country mean I want my country to take my money from me and other Americans and use it to bomb another country? No. True love of country is love of what really makes the country -- the people -- not the government. Patriotism is therefore the love of liberty, as liberty is essential for the people. You cannot love your country while at the same time praising either pre-emptive attacks on another country or high taxes for purposes of redistribution, because both are slavery. Please, study history. Study economics. Study the American Revolution. Study how every plan of increased government regulation, power, and control has failed to protect the liberties of the people. Then look at this world and ask yourself whether you really believe what either the "left" or the "right" tells you.
Your one-line summaries of nationalism and socialism make my point for me.
You say that nationalism is the "belief that identity as member of a nation is most important aspect of identity" and socialism is a "system by which wealth distribution is controlled by the community". Do you fail to see the common thread between these -- the degradation of individual worth? It is the idea that an individual person does not have value except so far as he belongs to a group. That the rights of individuals is not worth preserving, but can be set aside if our "leaders" decide that it's for the "common good of society".
Kyle @ 94:
I would say that is more like imperialism. I wonder if the Romans used to chant "Roma! Roma!" all the time?
krisken @ 85:
Wait, you really clicked the link! I was only kidding! Just because someone pretends to know what they are talking about doesn't mean they really know what they are talking about.
Hehe Yup, I surely did! I was hoodwinked! Bamboozled!!!
krisken @ 88:
By doing exactly what you say? All hail the flying spaghetti monster!
Yes, by doing exactly what I say: educating yourself and using your brain. Imagine that.
Kyle @ 94:
Nationalism, with a side of Imperialism...
"I’ve noticed that much of Obama’s message touches on explicitly patriotic themes, and has for several years. But today, Jonah Goldberg explains that it’s unsatisfactory, because Obama doesn’t specifically use the word “patriotism” enough." Steve Benen comments.
This the great tragedy of the American right-wing nuts. By refusing to recognize our great patriotism the right exiles themselves from reason and from any sympathy or support, on my part, when they cry for help.
Theirs is a blighted world-view of us vs. them, eternally locked in a battle for marginal gains of oneupmanship. It is pathetic and it underscores the perverse twist of their original argument regarding the love of our culture and of the greater humanity and planet into hatred, manipulation, and duplicity.
patriot @ 102:
Yes, by doing exactly what I say: educating yourself and using your brain. Imagine that.
Being educated and agreeing with you are two very different things. Of course, I don't expect you to agree me off the bat. Educate yourself. ;)
If Obamma is going to use the "P" word (interesting way of putting it, Jonah) he needs to do some re-defining of the concept as it is currently exist in the minds of many. The way the word "patriotism' is used today, it has become an obscenity, because it is almost exclusively used only by those who are using the word as cover or as a justification for doing profoundly obscene things. The COP, the neocons, the corporatists have expropriated the word as their exclusive property, and have gone about the business of exploiting it per the dictates of their basic natures.
I can remember when the word patriotism was about the love of home, of community and of ourselves as a people. Most especially, the concept was synonomous with identifying onself with the lofty and worthy principles that this country was suppossed to be strugglng to meet, about evolving toward an ideal from one generation to the next. Patriotism meant being engaged over time as a people to live up to those idealistic principles, even though our failures were many. And, even though our failures were many, there was a general committment to achieve congruence with our ideals....to such ends that this committment became one of our defining features as a people. Our national history, despite is shameful eras, was thus a study in slow and often halting progress toward and ideal. It has always been a process of expanding our circles of inclusivity, often happening in spite of the best efforts of the worst of us. That's also a way of describing the building of unity. Obama is going to have to be explicit in remoinding us of that, if he is to lay claim to the word.
To me the word "patriotism" has become confused, probably deliberately, with the word "nationalism", and not only nationalism, but the kind of nationalism that would operate without limits or restraint, cancerous and unbridled. When the word "Patriotism" is acted outby those who currently claim exclusive rights to use the word, it becomes clear that it is done so as an extension of unbridled nationalism, as a concept-in-action of self-righteous predation and self-righteous bigoty, which is presented as if these things were virtues. And in the name of that brand of "patriotism" we go about the business of wreaking deliberate injustices to both ourselves and to all other citizens of the world. Using "patriotism" as the justification, grave, serial injustices and unjust predation become true virtues. But you cannot have injustice without provoking disunity,and when you work single-mindedly to provoke disunity, the inevitable endgame is strife and conflict. So long as you keep slinging out the word "patriotism", with all those nebulous good things that the word implies or connotes, too few people end up paying attention to what is really being done right in front of their faces, all of it in the name of patriotism.
It gets worse. To very many of those who buy into the now common use of the word, patriotism is pushed and accepted as a psuedo-religion. Only the true believer ends up getting admitted to the True Church. This only adds to the self-righteousness of its practioners and leads to even greater blindness to the harm and the wrongs that are committed in the name of what is now righteous "Patriotism". With a capital P. And, it ends up that the sacraments of this psuedo-religion inevitably end up being sacred doings which serve not the country, but only those who would be its elites. At the same time, true acts of patriotism become crimes and sins. God moves in mysterious ways, indeed.
Obama needs to clearly and lucidly differentiate between what patriotism is and isn't, and discuss it often, if he is going to use the word "patriotism". If he doesn't, it is going to seem like he is just another manipulator, preying upon people's better instincts, pressing buttons which cause many to suspend all critical thinking, pressing buttons which leave a great many highly susceptible to being willingly manipulated into serving causes that are unworthy and harmful to their own interests and well-being.
patriot @ 55:
Actually the nazis used the term patriotism. Take this famous quote:
"Why, of course, the people don’t want war. . . . Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship . . . voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
-- Hermann Goering, 1938
So this is a universal concept. You tried it yourself in time leading up to the Iraq war. If the debate is framed on "national sequrity", then the democrats will lose. You can't outpatriot McCain. I bet if Obama wins the primary, then he will lose the national election. It will be the most dirty campaign seen yet. We have already seen some of it. Obama is a muslim, Obama won't swear the Pledge of Allegiance,... doesn't matter it is fabricated. And of course, Obama lacks experience. But, we'll see. He first needs to beat Hillary and she controls the party. So there might very well be a retroactive change in party rules and a revote in Michigan and Florida.
liberalHUSSEINmoderation @ 91:
Well, I suppose I could tell you...but really, what's the point? He dropped out of the race did he not?
Those are all good things you mentioned to be sure, but he never really went into exactly HOW he was goin to accomplish any of these things did he? Granted, Paul did have my ear for awhile...but I started to hear things that sent red flags flyin. Like abolishing the IRS...sounds great...but how then will the govt make ends meet? Close the borders...suuuure, why not? How then will our nation produce anything with out cheap immigrant labor? How can we afford to send the illegals back?
No, he did not drop out of the race. This is a common misconception and yes, shockingly, it has been propagated by the media. He issued a statement that has been misinterpreted, but he and others have since corrected that misinterpretation. He has been quoted as explicitly saying he was not dropping out of the race, but I don't have the video URL offhand.
On the two points you mention:
1) Eliminate the IRS -- how will our government pay its expenses.
"how will the government make ends meet" -- surely you have not deceived yourself so far as to believe that the government actually ever does "make ends meet". The government has not made ends meet since Roosevelt -- we've been in perpetually debt since his huge spending crusades. The federal debt is enormous, not because our taxes are somehow too low, but because the government spends too much.
The personal income tax is not the government's only source of money, and does not even bring in a majority of government funds. More importantly, the simple fact is that a limited government of a free people will not have so many expenses to pay. We did not have the personal income tax or the IRS before 1913 and our government "made ends meet" just fine.
2) close the borders
I am not quite as much in agreement with this as with the economic and liberty concerns, but I see its merits and it is a defensible position. Also, many other politicians talk about dealing with this issue in ways that are much less rational.
How will we function without cheap immigrant labor? With less government intervention in our economy, we'd function just fine. One problem is when government sticks its hand in and starts setting prices and minimum wages. The other side is that government forces massive regulation on businesses, and the only businesses that can survive are the big ones, while the small ones are forced out. That's why big corporations *like* government regulation -- it reduces fair competition from the "little man".
Many are led by supposed "compassion" to call for increased minimum wages to help the poor, but they need to face reality. Manipulation of the economy by government doesn't help the poor, it only allows the rich to get further ahead while the poor are kept behind. It also pushes business out of America, since companies know they can get the Mexicans or the Chinese or the Taiwanese to work for less in their own countries. This doesn't help the poor -- it just destroys jobs for Americans.
George McGovern: United States Army Air Forces during World War II and served as a B-24 Liberator bomber pilot in the Fifteenth Air Force, flying 35 missions over enemy territory from bases in North Africa and later Italy, often against heavy anti-aircraft artillery. McGovern was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for saving his crew by crash landing his damaged bomber on a small Mediterranean island.
Jonah's Special Genius™ mind at work: McGovern wasn't a real patriot. A real patriot would have flown 40 combat missions. Besides, McGovern was a known fascist.
Ya just can't out genius the Special Genius™.
Democrats = Patriotic
Republicans = Idiotic
There are a lot of "otics" going around today... but i see little patriotic about...
sending americans into a needless war (iraq...iran...)
sending american money to outsourced companies (all those island tax shelters)
sending 37 million to live in poverty and hunger
VOTE OBAMA/RICHARDSON IN NOVEMBER...
krisken @ 106:
Being educated and agreeing with you are two very different things. Of course, I don't expect you to agree me off the bat. Educate yourself. ;)
You're welcome to attempt to 'enlighten' me, and I welcome meaningful, substantive arguments for your views, whatever they happen to be, but so far you've provided nothing of the sort.
knud @ 108:
Actually the nazis used the term patriotism. Take this famous quote:
...
So this is a universal concept. You tried it yourself in time leading up to the Iraq war. If the debate is framed on "national sequrity", then the democrats will lose. You can't outpatriot McCain. I bet if Obama wins the primary, then he will lose the national election. It will be the most dirty campaign seen yet. We have already seen some of it. Obama is a muslim, Obama won't swear the Pledge of Allegiance,... doesn't matter it is fabricated. And of course, Obama lacks experience. But, we'll see. He first needs to beat Hillary and she controls the party. So there might very well be a retroactive change in party rules and a revote in Michigan and Florida.
They used the term patriotism. They were not true patriots.
They also used the term freedom -- "arbeit macht frei", "work makes free" -- but does that mean that a concentration camp is equivalent to freedom? It is no more true that supporting the government's foreign wars is equivalent to patriotism.
Jonah Goldberg is a non-entity! Why do you continue to quote this schmuck?
The right wing extremists who by far are republiCONs are mostly unpatriotic.
Patriotic ACTIONS versus symbols is what counts and they fail miserably.
ZAS!
krisken @ 105:
Being educated and agreeing with you are two very different things. Of course, I don't expect you to agree me off the bat. Educate yourself. ;)
I too have been touched by the heaven that is his all mighty noodley appendage. Patroit you can re-write history all you want but with FDR new deal the world saw the greatest expansion of middle class wealth in history. Japan and Germany both benefited greatly from same well regulated capitalism after the war. Most of the rest of the industrialized world at this point has benefited and only when people with your libertarian, Milton Friedman, non regulated capitalism are in charge do the common man suffer while the rich reap the benefits.
patriot @ 109:
No, he did not drop out of the race. This is a common misconception and yes, shockingly, it has been propagated by the media. He issued a statement that has been misinterpreted, but he and others have since corrected that misinterpretation. He has been quoted as explicitly saying he was not dropping out of the race, but I don't have the video URL offhand.
On the two points you mention:
1) Eliminate the IRS -- how will our government pay its expenses.
"how will the government make ends meet" -- surely you have not deceived yourself so far as to believe that the government actually ever does "make ends meet". The government has not made ends meet since Roosevelt -- we've been in perpetually debt since his huge spending crusades. The federal debt is enormous, not because our taxes are somehow too low, but because the government spends too much.
The personal income tax is not the government's only source of money, and does not even bring in a majority of government funds. More importantly, the simple fact is that a limited government of a free people will not have so many expenses to pay. We did not have the personal income tax or the IRS before 1913 and our government "made ends meet" just fine.
2) close the borders
I am not quite as much in agreement with this as with the economic and liberty concerns, but I see its merits and it is a defensible position. Also, many other politicians talk about dealing with this issue in ways that are much less rational.
How will we function without cheap immigrant labor? With less government intervention in our economy, we'd function just fine. One problem is when government sticks its hand in and starts setting prices and minimum wages. The other side is that government forces massive regulation on businesses, and the only businesses that can survive are the big ones, while the small ones are forced out. That's why big corporations *like* government regulation -- it reduces fair competition from the "little man".
Many are led by supposed "compassion" to call for increased minimum wages to help the poor, but they need to face reality. Manipulation of the economy by government doesn't help the poor, it only allows the rich to get further ahead while the poor are kept behind. It also pushes business out of America, since companies know they can get the Mexicans or the Chinese or the Taiwanese to work for less in their own countries. This doesn't help the poor -- it just destroys jobs for Americans.
what it really all boils down to, when it comes to libertarian's arguments, is that--solely from my experience--libertarians have noble intentions but their positions, if ever enacted, would be detrimental to personal liberty, the environment, the economy and public health.
deregulation of industry has, with few exceptions, favored the corporations, hurt communities, individuals and, in the end, hurt the economy.
by castrating the regulatory power of the government, by believing in the myth of a "free" market and by allowing corporate power to become our overlord (more so than today) the libertarian's goals of attaining more personal freedom and a better economy will be a pipedream.
there is a separation of church and state. now, we must DEMAND a separation of corporation and state. the government can be reduced, through ending the BS war on drugs and the deceptive and meaningless war on terrorism.
again, i think the libertarians are honest in their sincere belief that their plan for america would be beneficial, i just think they are wrong.
republiCONs = right wing extremists
knud @ 108:
So this is a universal concept. You tried it yourself in time leading up to the Iraq war.
And no, I didn't "try it myself". Equating me with the government officials who are trying to take away my rights is employing that same fallacy of collectivism. It's the same reasoning as lies behind racism, by the way.
ugh, the quotes...
post #117 is now beyond confusing. ital/comment sections are dropping off, as krisken mentioned earlier.
thus, my part of the 117 post is as follows:
what it really all boils down to, when it comes to libertarian’s arguments, is that–solely from my experience–libertarians have noble intentions but their positions, if ever enacted, would be detrimental to personal liberty, the environment, the economy and public health.
deregulation of industry has, with few exceptions, favored the corporations, hurt communities, individuals and, in the end, hurt the economy.
by castrating the regulatory power of the government, by believing in the myth of a “free” market and by allowing corporate power to become our overlord (more so than today) the libertarian’s goals of attaining more personal freedom and a better economy will be a pipedream.
there is a separation of church and state. now, we must DEMAND a separation of corporation and state. the government can be reduced, through ending the BS war on drugs and the deceptive and meaningless war on terrorism.
again, i think the libertarians are honest in their sincere belief that their plan for america would be beneficial, i just think they are wrong.
"Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson (1775)
I love my country - but don't count me as one of those "my country right or wrong" folks. The problem with "conservatives" is that they can't separate the good from the bad, the wheat from the chaff.
I love America - but it is hard to be patriotic when America does things that are downright un-American. Like torture. Like Guantánamo. Like siccing dogs on civil rights demonstrators. Like using water cannons on our own citizens, who are using their Constitutional rights to press for change. Like having the National Guard shoot down university students. Like sequestering protesters at presidential events to so-called "free speech zones." I could go on and on.
America isn't perfect; we don't even live up to our own standards yet. It is a constant battle.
What Samson said (not just the italics and quoting part).
Goldberg and his patriotism. Hmmmm, who was it stated that "patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundal."?
patriot @ 119:
What are you talking about? By "you" I meant all americans were put in the situation of either supporting the war (support Bush) or being denounced for lack of patriotism and putting the country in danger. I don't know how you can possibly read that as equating you personally with governments officials.
*looks at the last few posts and laughs a bit*
RayC @ 116:
I too have been touched by the heaven that is his all mighty noodley appendage. Patroit you can re-write history all you want but with FDR new deal the world saw the greatest expansion of middle class wealth in history. Japan and Germany both benefited greatly from same well regulated capitalism after the war. Most of the rest of the industrialized world at this point has benefited and only when people with your libertarian, Milton Friedman, non regulated capitalism are in charge do the common man suffer while the rich reap the benefits.
"Regulated capitalism" is an oxymoron. Our curreny economy is to a large extent capitalist, but it is not capitalist. To "regulate" a capitalist system is to add aspects of socialism to that system. The result is what we call fascism, the "planned economy".
Please read a real history of FDR and the Great Depression and get past the hero-worship you've been fed. The reality is that the "great hero" ideal of FDR was built up during his presidency in much the same way as the images of Hitler, Mussolini, and Mugabe were been built up in their respective countries.
Roosevelt's New Deal did not bring prosperity, it only prolonged the depression. For several years during the depression, people had more jobs, the economy seemed to be doing better, etc., sure. But it all came crashing down and in 1938 the depression was as bad or worse as it was before Roosevelt came along. The depression would have been over by 1935 if the government had kept its hands out of it.
You appear to suffer the misconception that libertarianism is somehow Big Business, while failing to see that it's government regulation that puts little companies out of business. A free market and a free government would not have allowed the government to be the whore of big corporations as it currently is. These things are entirely in opposition to liberty and the free market. As another poster pointed out, "separation of corporation of state" is needed.
Samson- @ 117:
what it really all boils down to, when it comes to libertarian's arguments, is that--solely from my experience--libertarians have noble intentions but their positions, if ever enacted, would be detrimental to personal liberty, the environment, the economy and public health.
deregulation of industry has, with few exceptions, favored the corporations, hurt communities, individuals and, in the end, hurt the economy.
by castrating the regulatory power of the government, by believing in the myth of a "free" market and by allowing corporate power to become our overlord (more so than today) the libertarian's goals of attaining more personal freedom and a better economy will be a pipedream.
there is a separation of church and state. now, we must DEMAND a separation of corporation and state. the government can be reduced, through ending the BS war on drugs and the deceptive and meaningless war on terrorism.
Your arguments are entirely inconsistent with each other. First you say we need more government regulation, then you say we need "separation of corporation and state". I am in agreement with the latter, but I'm not sure that you are. With "separation of church and state", the government is not allowed to interfere in the matters of the church. So "separation of corporation and state" would prevent the government from interfering in private business, which you've just stated your opposition to.
Sorry patriot, but the last 4 years have shown exactly why we need regulations regarding companies in America. As soon as corporations control the stakes we see positions such as oil spills not being cleaned up (why should they if it's not cost effective?), people no longer have health insurance (not cost effective!), no more clean air, etc....
Corporations do not have morals, just pocket books. That is why regulations are required. Pure capitalism would destroy itself if it was implemented.
This is part of a trend to make Obama jump when they say jump like a trained puppy. So does the LAT believe in Goldberg that they paid him to sound so stupd?
I think Obama could lift the country and win the presidency if he'd JUST WEAR A DAMN LAPEL FLAG PIN.
Gosh, is that TOO MUCH to ask!?!?!
krisken @ 128:
Wrong -- what we need are more restrictions on government, not private citizens. Every great evil that people like you like to blame on big business is the result of government. The problem is that big businesses get special treatment by the government because they spend lots of money sending politicians on fancy trips and so on. It is not because big businesses are somehow "too free" to run their own affairs.
You say that big business does not have morals, but the more relevant fact is that big government does not have morals and is thus incapable of regulating business fairly. Regulation will always favor the rich and powerful, because these are the ones with the influence.
patriot @ 126:
"Regulated capitalism" is an oxymoron. Our curreny economy is to a large extent capitalist, but it is not capitalist. To "regulate" a capitalist system is to add aspects of socialism to that system. The result is what we call fascism, the "planned economy".
Please read a real history of FDR and the Great Depression and get past the hero-worship you've been fed. The reality is that the "great hero" ideal of FDR was built up during his presidency in much the same way as the images of Hitler, Mussolini, and Mugabe were been built up in their respective countries.
Roosevelt's New Deal did not bring prosperity, it only prolonged the depression. For several years during the depression, people had more jobs, the economy seemed to be doing better, etc., sure. But it all came crashing down and in 1938 the depression was as bad or worse as it was before Roosevelt came along. The depression would have been over by 1935 if the government had kept its hands out of it.
You appear to suffer the misconception that libertarianism is somehow Big Business, while failing to see that it's government regulation that puts little companies out of business. A free market and a free government would not have allowed the government to be the whore of big corporations as it currently is. These things are entirely in opposition to liberty and the free market. As another poster pointed out, "separation of corporation of state" is needed.
a fella by the name of adam smith would disagree with your insistence that capitalism can only exist in a regulation-free environment. as he favored regulation in some parts of the economy.
and, i for one, do not think that libertarians are pro-big business, i think big business is pro-libertarian.
krisken, you do not seem to understand the whole concept of property rights. You say that businesses would not clean up oil spills, but I am not arguing for the legalization of oil spills. To make that claim is ridiculous. Oil spills interfere with the rights of others, and thus big corporations do not have the right to leave them around. It's very simple -- why are you looking for inconsistences in my position which don't exist?
Neither would fewer people have health insurance without government force. In fact, people would have *better* health insurance with fewer restrictions on how they can use it. Don't forget that government regulations gave us the whole HMO mess which artificially restricts patient and doctor choice. And if health insurance was not "cost effective", then it would become cheaper because insurance companies want to make money, and it would then become cost effective and actually affordable.
I might comment more later, I have to head to class.
I of course disagree with you patriot.
Just saw in 2 grocery store tabloid that they found Obama secret Gay lover, national inquirer, and the Globe. It quote one of the lover that Obama wants him dead to hide his secret affair. These grocery store tabloid is blurring the line between reality and fiction. Real news getting closer to these tabloid. I think National inquirer has always been the same garbage, but FOXnews sure been trying to capitalize on the sensational muck that you find in the tabloid. Now it's just a matter of time before one of the national syndicated new show report it as real news, because it was found in another tabloid.
Samson- @ 132:
and, i for one, do not think that libertarians are pro-big business, i think big business is pro-libertarian.
If big business was pro-libertarian, they'd have bribed our way to freedom a long time ago. Instead we've been going the other direction for 100 years.
Stop giving these tools a bully pulpit! Enough talking points. Why do the lying conservatives hate America?
Vote Clinton or McCain or Nader;
NOT Hussein Osama-Bama, Al Qaeda's cell leader in the USA.
RMac @ 130:
Damn! might as well wear it like his bling, with a big fat gold chain around his neck. If perception is more important than the issue.
Conservatism doesn't rise to the level of a pimple on patriotism's ass. It never has. It is and always has been a red, white and blue fraud, perpetrated to justify greed, theft and murder.
127 patriot Says:
"Your arguments are entirely inconsistent with each other. First you say we need more government regulation, then you say we need “separation of corporation and state”.
you misunderstand.
our govt is run for corporations and by corporations. that is the state of affairs now.
and this needs to end.
no more revolving door between corporations and government.
no more industry insiders placed at the head of regulatory agencies.
no more legislation ghost written by industry lobbyists.
no more tax breaks, and tax loopholes for corporations, only then to have citizens foot the bill.
no more.
no more neoliberalism.
no more 'washington consensus.
no more.
and the libertarians want to give corporations complete freedom? fuck me, they already have it.
we need regulation of our food supply, or our drugs, of our environment, of our labor laws, of our banks, of our airwaves, etc. why? because without it the corporations will do what they are designed to do: make money at all costs. not only is that necessary for their bottom line, but it is also their legal responsibility to make money for their shareholders. this bodes well for corporations but, as history has shown time and time again, it can leave people in the lurch (putting it a nice way). and without a "democratically" elected institution made up of our peers, who should be held accountable to the will of the people, not the dictates of the market, we will be at the mercy of what ever profit scheme corporation XYZ decides to roll out.
and the one little ditty market fundamentalists always fail to mention: without some regulation the market would sputter, seize up, and fail.
imagine what would happen to consumer confidence without regulation. currently our regulations are being overseen by those that see things from 'patriot's' POV, and we can see the deleterious effects that has had on our life and health--from toys from China, to Rx drugs, to subprime lending, to rolling black-outs, etc.
ObamaBinLying @ 138:
Dude, check your keyboard. I think think one of your 10 cats just walked across it.
Time to separate Patriotism and P.A.T.R.I.O.T.ism
This is utterly ridiculous. Loyal Democrats and loyal Republicans are liars when they claim they are Patriotic. A true patriot serves their country and the ideas upon which it was founded, not a silly party.
I went to school with a kid name Hussein, I go to grocery store with a worker name Hussein, and I have a congregation member of a Christian church with a guy name Hussein. Gah get over it! there are 1000 with the same name. Broaden your world and realize that just because your name happen to be the same as a craze killer or dictator that it mean anything. I bet I could find a harden criminal that has one of your name behind bar.
I think all people who wear flag pins on their lapels are fascist conspirators to destroy America. I support anyone smart enough not to wear one. I think anyone stupid enough to agree with anything that half-wit Goldberg comes up with is a moron too. Remember who this tub of goo is. He is a poor student that graduated from a girls teachers college. Now he wants to be thought of as a intellectual heavyweight. He's got the latter part down, but is simply a dumbass. All his success is thanks to his mom. I think I'll start handing out tickets for ever mentioning his name again.
"Unity is the great need of the hour…. Not because it sounds pleasant or because it makes us feel good, but because it’s the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country. I’m not talking about a budget deficit…. I’m talking about a moral deficit. I’m talking about an empathy deficit. I’m taking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother’s keeper; we are our sister’s keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, we are all tied together in a single garment of destiny.”
Look, Senator...I don't need a f*cking preacher as my president...Just get the job done with the least amount of B.S. possible. Leave the philosophy to the televangelists and keep it as far away from me as possible.
Ok? Deal?
killthepoor @ 55:
United States Supreme Cons?
Hey, i've got some sources of good information that might clear things up for you "patriot": The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx & Frederick Engels and The Revolution Betrayed & The Permanent Revolution both by Leon Trotsky. You, like almost all of your countrymen suffer from the same cold war propaganda dictated redefinition of "Socialism" and "Communism". The world has been hostage to lies told 80+ years ago by Stalin.
So for everyone, i right a wrong too long enshrined: Communism is not an all powerful State directing it's citizens in common purpose. Communism is the end result of the State, all States and governments passing into extinction as all persons bring to realization their brother-/sister- hood and go about their lives in the perfect Liberty that "libertarians" like to go on about without having first created the conditions necessary for it to be enjoyed by all but a few. You're damned str8 this is Utopian! maybe impossibly so, but if you want to make "progress" by being a "progressive" what harm in setting the destination as high and as far as possible?
So in short it goes Capitalism--> Socialism--> Communism as a natural progression of the political democracy of Capitalism acquiring the economic democracy of Socialism as the need for compulsive forces such as policing and legal prohibitions shrink to nonexistence.
Yeah, not in our lifetimes, but have you ever noticed (i watch a lot of anime so i see it all the time) sci-fi movies set in the far future almost always present a post-national united Earth?
-comrade euthyfro, signing off for now
check out marxist.org for more
Comments were closed on the Ferraro subject, so...
Final thought on it: it needs to be said that Ferraro's comments are meant to make us ashamed of our differences at a time when we should be proud. She needs to be asked pointblank since she believes Obama is where he is now because (not in spite of) being black, and she herself was asked to be vice president in 1984 only because she's a woman, if then Hillary is where she is only because she's a woman and a Clinton to boot. So long as Clinton won't let her go, she should at least have to answer that, and if the answer is no, then tell us please what exactly the hell is the difference?
Login or Register to post comments.