Kids can have an idea of politics...
Posted on 08/03/2004 4:59:07 AM PDT by rhema
After spending the week at the Democratic National Convention broadcasting my radio show, it was not easy to choose which aspect of the convention I would devote my column to. Would it be the discussions I had with delegates, nearly all of whom I liked and none of whom thought clearly about our nation's issues? Or about the Potemkin Village the Democrats erected — a convention where almost nothing the Democrats really believe was on display?
I decided on the speech given during prime time by a 12-year-old girl from the San Francisco Bay Area. In my view, this talk was typically and uniquely Democratic.
To understand modern liberalism and its political party, it is vital to understand Democrats' desire to blur any distinctions between child and adult. Ever since the 1960s, liberalism has been largely a movement dominated by children (of every age). I enjoyed meeting Democrats last week. Many are people I would be happy to have as neighbors. But compared to Republicans, liberals and Democrats are often adults who do not wish to grow up. When George W. Bush was elected, I felt as if adults would now run the country after the adolescent-like President Clinton.
Liberals and Democrats are not comfortable with adult-child distinctions. They therefore frequently treat and regard children as adults and frequently treat and regard adults as children.
That is why liberals do not generally want children to call adults "Mr." or "Mrs." Such titles render adults distinct from children.
That is why liberal teachers often dress and talk similarly to their students and ask to be called by their first names.
(Excerpt) Read more at jewishworldreview.com ...
Prager makes an important point worth repeating often. Great article.
"But compared to Republicans, liberals and Democrats are often adults who do not wish to grow up."
That's exactly what I have said. Great minds think alike.
He is so right on target that it is breattaking. I saw that child and cringed when she so cutely dissed the VP and it is funny that I used the same word, "orgasmic", to describe the audience's reaction. It was shameless. Her parents ought to be throttled to have her play that role. And the juvenile nature of the dems is core. They hate adults, they hate authority, they hate wisdom. They are bad bad children.
"That is why liberals led the fight to lower the voting age to 18 and why California Democrats are now seeking to lower it further (as low as 14)."
More insanity from the left.
First, the politicization of children is no more a problem to most Democrats and liberals than is children's sexualization.
Second, for many liberals, there is just as much to be learned about politics and society from children as from adults. The notion that wisdom accrues with age is generally alien to liberals. So why not have a 12-year-old share her own wisdom with a convention and nation of adults?
Third, it is illuminating to note what the 12-year-old said that evoked the loudest cheers from the Democratic delegates. In the words of the Oakland Tribune, "The show-stealer was Oakland's Ilana Wexler, 12, who brought down the house with her suggestion that Vice President Dick Cheney get a 'timeout' for using foul language. Within hours she became an international star, media outlets clamoring for her attention, fans seeking her autograph."
Three reasons why I LOVE Mr. Prager. He's right on!
Kids can have an idea of politics...
Unless that child has not yet passed through the birth canal, then of course murder is fine by them.
Prager's column is absolutely accurate. I am constantly amazed at the immaturity displayed by liberals. They appear to be unable to present or discuss their positions in an adult or rational manner.
RE: Treating children as if they are adults - Kay S. Hymowitz wrote a fantastic book called: Ready or Not: Why Treating Children as Small Adults Endangers Their Future -- and Ours. Copies are easily found on the internet at ridiculously low prices. The book is a treasure. Kay's writings appear in www.city-journal.org. It is well worth the visit.
This was every bit as creepy and evil as the five-year-olds dressed up like trollups in the beauty contests that Liberals decry.
I've read quite a few times some leftist praising their child as being highly advanced and gifted for parroting their parents' political point of view. They don't stop once to think that the child may not be advanced, but it might be their own thoughts that are on the level of elementary students. On top of that, have they thought once that the child may be parroting the politics just to get some attention?
A child has no business being anything other than a child. The left sees them as tools, or not worth allowing to live. That's not much of a choice for a child.
I Thought it was child abuse when I heard the kids speech.
I have always felt like liberalism was something one grew out of. As in other aspects of life, some never grow up.
Bart would probably be a better voter and president. He would simply vote his best interests (or what he thought would be the most fun). Lisa would vote to perfect us - and that ends in the gas chamber.
It`s also why Hollyweenies are going bananas promoting this "rock the vote" thing. They`re going after the kids now for votes. Although they don`t say who to vote for, you can bet the kids know who they are supporting. If democrats had their way, they`d have 5 year olds voting, anything for a vote "Come on Johnny, just pull the lever under all the names that have a D next to them"
I think I can explain that phenomenon by reference to Philosopy 101:Anyone who claims to be objective is engaging in an embarassingly simple argument;Liberals are the party of childish PR mindgames, the party of the rich who pay for PR seperation from the middle class, and of the hustlers who assure "the poor" of their moral superiority overNo one can argue in that way unless they enjoy an advantage in power over the person they are patronizing. In the case of journalism, you can read the paper or listen to the broadcast - but you cannot constrain the journalist to listen to you. You cannot require that, and s/he as a matter of policy does not do so. S/he is important and you are not.
- I'm objective.
- You admit that you aren't objective.
- I am wise and you are not.
Therefore- If you argue with me, you lose.
And then people wonder why journalists are "liberals!"
the richthe middle class of people who can prosper only as they do not indulge, or allow their children to indulge, in decadence.Why Broadcast Journalism is
Unnecessary and Illegitimate
Am I the only one who thought that this article was written by a 12-year-old?
It's a good subject but the article is very disjunctive.
I'm thinking if this monster's parents tried to give her a time out, she'd be whipping out her cell phone, calling child protective services in about 2.5 seconds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.