OT – GOP is being carried to the extreme

[CricketOnTheHearth]

A most enjoyable discussion.

I have to agree with earlier comments by both sdgrrl and Zeitgeist– in ways, society has gotten both nicer and less polite. I guess I should put it, common courtesy, at least among whites, has waned while egalitarianism has greatly improved.

In my childhood in a white surburb in first half of the 60’s, there was indeed that civility. Teenagers always said “ma’am” and “sir” to adults, there was a dress code, and there was a place for everything (and everyone). It actually seemed rather stultifying in some ways. If you were a white male it was probably pretty nice, but as a white female child I realized pretty quick that a lot of doors were closed to me. I asked my parents at a pretty early age, “where are the women scientists?” and the only example they could come up with was Marie Curie. I can only imagine (I’ve heard stories) of what life was like for black and brown people of all origins at that time.

Then after 1965 things started opening up. In my school in the 2nd grade they allowed girls to wear pants for the first time, and suddenly I had full run of the playground equipment without having to worry about an embarassing “accidental revelation”. Dr. Leakey sicced his four women grad students on the four different great apes, and soon documentaries about Jane Goodall and Diane Fossey began to land on the TV. The Civil Rights Act was passed, the voting age lowered to 18, and many other changes that gave many more opportunities to those who had not had them before.

Speaking of “radicals”, in my childhood the following ideas were considered radical:
-women being able to apply to Yale and Harvard and be considered on their merits;
-women being allowed to run the Boston Marathon;
-a talented black tennis player;
-women and/or black newscasters;
-women and/or black judges, doctors, lawyers, scientists, veterinarians, Congresspeople, mayors, etc;
-girls’ sports covered in the newspapers at all, let alone with pictures;
-sports for girls beside cheerleading and tennis, period;
-and too many more to list here

For my growing-up years, it seemed like the doors opened just as I reached them. I would not have wanted to have been born even a year earlier than I was. Thank God for the feminists, civil rights activists, and all the others who forced those doors open.

At the same time, people also threw off some of the “chains” of politeness, and swear words, rudeness, and “acting out” became much more common. At first it seemed like a liberation from stultifying authoritarianism, but by now the flailing crass language about, overbearingness on the road, etc just seems needless and overdone to me.

The sexual revolution involved some badly-needed dialogue about family planning, compassionate sexual relations, rape, child molestation, etc… but also over-swung into heedless and careless promiscuity, the latter resulting in upswings in STDs, not to mention the spread of AIDS.

The ’80’s seemed to be a backlash, not just against the excesses, but also against the worthy gains of the 60’s and 70’s, with many propaganda efforts to push women back into the kitchen, etc. The ’90’s and ’00’s, thankfully, seem to have wrung most of the anti-egalitarian sentiment out of our culture.

Still, I did not believe that I would see so soon a solid female or solid black candidate for president, who had a credible chance of winning, let alone both at the same time. Even in 1990 Hillary would have been generally laughed off the playing field, as Geraldine Ferraro was in the ’80’s. So to see this election, and especially the primary, was absolutely brilliant to me. I had favored a different candidate, but still, watching the battle between Hillary and Obama was one of the sweetest times of my life, for what it meant– a woman and a black man competing, and being judged by, the content of their character.

[CricketOnTheHearth]

Regarding the rancor against Obama… What I see directed against Obama seems to be of the same flavor as what was thrown at Bill Clinton– except possibly a bit less shrill. Yes, you read that right– I was *amazed* at the intensity of hatred that was directed at Clinton upon his inauguration. It seemed like he hit the ground running through a mudstorm.

Since the tenor of the attacks feels the same to me, I wonder if it is really racism, or rather a venomous hatred of the idea of a Democratic president and all the Democrats stand for. The racism appears to me to be just another convenient handful of mud to pitch at Obama, not the main event here.

If anything, there even seems to me to be a bit of holding-back on the part of the right wingers here; clearly if they let fly all-out with racist attacks on Obama they would totally discredit themselves. They felt no such compunctions when attacking Clinton for his sexual misadventures, labeling him “Slick Willy” and so on. Or else, they *are* letting fly, but the big-media is not giving it as much coverage as the attacks on Clinton got.

Of course, some wits commented back in those days that Clinton was “our first Black president”. Hmmm.

[CricketOnTheHearth]

Regarding the rancor against Obama… What I see directed against Obama seems to be of the same flavor as what was thrown at Bill Clinton– except possibly a bit less shrill. Yes, you read that right– I was *amazed* at the intensity of hatred that was directed at Clinton upon his inauguration. It seemed like he hit the ground running through a mudstorm.

Since the tenor of the attacks feels the same to me, I wonder if it is really racism, or rather a venomous hatred of the idea of a Democratic president and all the Democrats stand for. The racism appears to me to be just another convenient handful of mud to pitch at Obama, not the main event here.

If anything, there even seems to me to be a bit of holding-back on the part of the right wingers here; clearly if they let fly all-out with racist attacks on Obama they would totally discredit themselves. They felt no such compunctions when attacking Clinton for his sexual misadventures, labeling him “Slick Willy” and so on. Or else, they *are* letting fly, but the big-media is not giving it as much coverage as the attacks on Clinton got.

Of course, some wits commented back in those days that Clinton was “our first Black president”. Hmmm.

[CricketOnTheHearth]

Regarding the rancor against Obama… What I see directed against Obama seems to be of the same flavor as what was thrown at Bill Clinton– except possibly a bit less shrill. Yes, you read that right– I was *amazed* at the intensity of hatred that was directed at Clinton upon his inauguration. It seemed like he hit the ground running through a mudstorm.

Since the tenor of the attacks feels the same to me, I wonder if it is really racism, or rather a venomous hatred of the idea of a Democratic president and all the Democrats stand for. The racism appears to me to be just another convenient handful of mud to pitch at Obama, not the main event here.

If anything, there even seems to me to be a bit of holding-back on the part of the right wingers here; clearly if they let fly all-out with racist attacks on Obama they would totally discredit themselves. They felt no such compunctions when attacking Clinton for his sexual misadventures, labeling him “Slick Willy” and so on. Or else, they *are* letting fly, but the big-media is not giving it as much coverage as the attacks on Clinton got.

Of course, some wits commented back in those days that Clinton was “our first Black president”. Hmmm.

[CricketOnTheHearth]

Regarding the rancor against Obama… What I see directed against Obama seems to be of the same flavor as what was thrown at Bill Clinton– except possibly a bit less shrill. Yes, you read that right– I was *amazed* at the intensity of hatred that was directed at Clinton upon his inauguration. It seemed like he hit the ground running through a mudstorm.

Since the tenor of the attacks feels the same to me, I wonder if it is really racism, or rather a venomous hatred of the idea of a Democratic president and all the Democrats stand for. The racism appears to me to be just another convenient handful of mud to pitch at Obama, not the main event here.

If anything, there even seems to me to be a bit of holding-back on the part of the right wingers here; clearly if they let fly all-out with racist attacks on Obama they would totally discredit themselves. They felt no such compunctions when attacking Clinton for his sexual misadventures, labeling him “Slick Willy” and so on. Or else, they *are* letting fly, but the big-media is not giving it as much coverage as the attacks on Clinton got.

Of course, some wits commented back in those days that Clinton was “our first Black president”. Hmmm.

[CricketOnTheHearth]

Regarding the rancor against Obama… What I see directed against Obama seems to be of the same flavor as what was thrown at Bill Clinton– except possibly a bit less shrill. Yes, you read that right– I was *amazed* at the intensity of hatred that was directed at Clinton upon his inauguration. It seemed like he hit the ground running through a mudstorm.

Since the tenor of the attacks feels the same to me, I wonder if it is really racism, or rather a venomous hatred of the idea of a Democratic president and all the Democrats stand for. The racism appears to me to be just another convenient handful of mud to pitch at Obama, not the main event here.

If anything, there even seems to me to be a bit of holding-back on the part of the right wingers here; clearly if they let fly all-out with racist attacks on Obama they would totally discredit themselves. They felt no such compunctions when attacking Clinton for his sexual misadventures, labeling him “Slick Willy” and so on. Or else, they *are* letting fly, but the big-media is not giving it as much coverage as the attacks on Clinton got.

Of course, some wits commented back in those days that Clinton was “our first Black president”. Hmmm.

[Aecetia]

Allan,

What say you about the Poland Czechoslovakia issue regarding saving money at their expense. Shades of Chamberlain, hailed as bringing “peace to Europe” after signing a non-aggression pact with Germany. So we piss a bunch of money away on bail outs for contributors to his campaign like Deutsche Bank, BOA, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Bros., Credit Suisse, J.P. Morgan, Fannie Mae, et al. and betray our allies. I think this is cowardly.

[Aecetia]

Allan,

What say you about the Poland Czechoslovakia issue regarding saving money at their expense. Shades of Chamberlain, hailed as bringing “peace to Europe” after signing a non-aggression pact with Germany. So we piss a bunch of money away on bail outs for contributors to his campaign like Deutsche Bank, BOA, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Bros., Credit Suisse, J.P. Morgan, Fannie Mae, et al. and betray our allies. I think this is cowardly.

[Aecetia]

Allan,

What say you about the Poland Czechoslovakia issue regarding saving money at their expense. Shades of Chamberlain, hailed as bringing “peace to Europe” after signing a non-aggression pact with Germany. So we piss a bunch of money away on bail outs for contributors to his campaign like Deutsche Bank, BOA, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Bros., Credit Suisse, J.P. Morgan, Fannie Mae, et al. and betray our allies. I think this is cowardly.

[Aecetia]

Allan,

What say you about the Poland Czechoslovakia issue regarding saving money at their expense. Shades of Chamberlain, hailed as bringing “peace to Europe” after signing a non-aggression pact with Germany. So we piss a bunch of money away on bail outs for contributors to his campaign like Deutsche Bank, BOA, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Bros., Credit Suisse, J.P. Morgan, Fannie Mae, et al. and betray our allies. I think this is cowardly.

[Aecetia]

Allan,

What say you about the Poland Czechoslovakia issue regarding saving money at their expense. Shades of Chamberlain, hailed as bringing “peace to Europe” after signing a non-aggression pact with Germany. So we piss a bunch of money away on bail outs for contributors to his campaign like Deutsche Bank, BOA, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Bros., Credit Suisse, J.P. Morgan, Fannie Mae, et al. and betray our allies. I think this is cowardly.

[picpoule]

When I hear that the GOP is being taken over by radicals I have to ask — seriously? The problem with the GOP in D.C is that it’s not even conservative. If you think it’s being taken over by “radicals,” then I don’t think you understand what a conservative is. This is probably because you don’t know any conservatives, never talk to any conservatives, have never read any conservative books or publications and are so left on the political spectrum that anyone really conservative seems like an extremist to you. Respectfully, I think it shows a deep misapprehension of what it means to be a conservative. Being a conservative means believing in small federal government, respecting individual rights and freedoms, free markets, originalism, federal fiscal responsibility and respecting the concept of federalism. It can also mean respecting traditional values, but this probably goes under the respecting federalism heading. There are not many elected officials in the GOP in Congress or Senate who can satisfy the definition of true “conservative.”

[picpoule]

When I hear that the GOP is being taken over by radicals I have to ask — seriously? The problem with the GOP in D.C is that it’s not even conservative. If you think it’s being taken over by “radicals,” then I don’t think you understand what a conservative is. This is probably because you don’t know any conservatives, never talk to any conservatives, have never read any conservative books or publications and are so left on the political spectrum that anyone really conservative seems like an extremist to you. Respectfully, I think it shows a deep misapprehension of what it means to be a conservative. Being a conservative means believing in small federal government, respecting individual rights and freedoms, free markets, originalism, federal fiscal responsibility and respecting the concept of federalism. It can also mean respecting traditional values, but this probably goes under the respecting federalism heading. There are not many elected officials in the GOP in Congress or Senate who can satisfy the definition of true “conservative.”

[picpoule]

When I hear that the GOP is being taken over by radicals I have to ask — seriously? The problem with the GOP in D.C is that it’s not even conservative. If you think it’s being taken over by “radicals,” then I don’t think you understand what a conservative is. This is probably because you don’t know any conservatives, never talk to any conservatives, have never read any conservative books or publications and are so left on the political spectrum that anyone really conservative seems like an extremist to you. Respectfully, I think it shows a deep misapprehension of what it means to be a conservative. Being a conservative means believing in small federal government, respecting individual rights and freedoms, free markets, originalism, federal fiscal responsibility and respecting the concept of federalism. It can also mean respecting traditional values, but this probably goes under the respecting federalism heading. There are not many elected officials in the GOP in Congress or Senate who can satisfy the definition of true “conservative.”

[picpoule]

When I hear that the GOP is being taken over by radicals I have to ask — seriously? The problem with the GOP in D.C is that it’s not even conservative. If you think it’s being taken over by “radicals,” then I don’t think you understand what a conservative is. This is probably because you don’t know any conservatives, never talk to any conservatives, have never read any conservative books or publications and are so left on the political spectrum that anyone really conservative seems like an extremist to you. Respectfully, I think it shows a deep misapprehension of what it means to be a conservative. Being a conservative means believing in small federal government, respecting individual rights and freedoms, free markets, originalism, federal fiscal responsibility and respecting the concept of federalism. It can also mean respecting traditional values, but this probably goes under the respecting federalism heading. There are not many elected officials in the GOP in Congress or Senate who can satisfy the definition of true “conservative.”

[Author]

Posts