Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: dead
OK, this is a crock:

Lately, however, I've become mad at the right, and have written about it with an anger not been present in my previous writings. It began with the ascension of George Bush, when I detected many conservatives beginning to care more about power than principles. The right began to seem less interesting to me--more whiny, more shallow--and, what's more, in what I saw as an uncritical devotion to President Bush, often in retreat from its best insights about human nature.

First the "ascension of George Bush" happened when he won the election as laid out in the constitution.  7 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices ruled that what the Democrats were trying to do in Florida was unconstitutional.  In effect, the Gore-bots were caught trying to steal the election through a 100% partisan Democrat Court in Florida and they got slapped down.  Ever since then they've been screaming about how Bush was "Selected, not elected."  I guess they don't support and defend the Constitution, then?

As to conservatives "beginning to care more about power than principles," this is classic Saul Alinsky agitprop.  Accuse your enemies of doing what you are doing, loudly and often, all reality to the contrary.  The current Democrats, dating back to 1992 at least, have abandoned all principle in the naked quest for power, since it is theirs "by right" (not divine right, that wouldn't be PC).  The left cares about power and nothing but.  They will sell any snake oil, embrace any lie, commit any crime, because in their mind they serve a "higher truth."  They know "what's good for us."  Look out, they want to enslave us for our own good!

The right began to seem less interesting to me--more whiny, more shallow--and, what's more, in what I saw as an uncritical devotion to President Bush, often in retreat from its best insights about human nature.

I could care less if you are interested in the "right" or not.  Frankly, "whiny" and "shallow" are the farthest things from accurate characterizations of the right as any observer could possibly come up with.  Self righteous, unwilling to consider contrary points of view, maybe, but whiney and shallow?  Pot, kettle, black.  Nuff said.  And if you have spent 10 minutes on FR you would know that your comment about "uncritical devotion to President Bush" is total BS.

If you're going to make such broad, unsubstantiated claims without any examples of evidence then this will be a real short and totally unproductive "debate."  All of the bad comments about you fishing for nasty quotes seems much more likely to be true now.  Otherwise the only possible explanation is that you are a moron or delusional, and I don't accept either possibility.

I made my strongest such claim in a Village Voice article two weeks ago in which I, after much thought, chose to say conservatism was "verging on becoming an un-American creed" for the widespread way conservatives are ignoring the lessons of James Madison's great insights in Federalist 51 that in America we are supposed to place our ultimate trust in laws, not men.

Ah, the McCarthyite attack.  You and Teresa, accusing your enemies of being "un-American" (quick deny you said it - accuse me of misquoting you)  I know my Madison, as well as my Jefferson and Adams (most of the others, save Franklin, are too obtuse to try to apply to today).  I also know my McCarthy, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Goebels and Gore.  Hate is not a substitute for critical thinking or honest debate.  The left, yourself included, has become what you always claimed to despise: mindless doctrinaire establishment drones.  You are captives of the institutional bureaucracy, vomiting back the talking points and NY Times editorials instead of actually thinking for yourselves, incapable of thinking that anyone other than your fellow travelers has any right to exist, let alone control the reigns of "your" government.  Fortunately we still live in a democracy.  That means you lose (unless you cheat).

 

78 posted on 08/03/2004 12:32:23 PM PDT by Phsstpok (often wrong, but never in doubt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Phsstpok; Perlstein

Rick, I'm openly waiting for your response to Phsstpok, but his argument has been much more persuasive then yours.


409 posted on 08/03/2004 2:01:56 PM PDT by mattdono ([mattdono to John Kerry]: I voted for you...right before I voted against you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]

To: Phsstpok; Perlstein
RE: Phsstpok (your #78 reply)

That's some great comments, Phsstpok. Thanks.

I was trying to think of a lefty (Lenin?) attached to "Accuse your enemies of doing what you are doing, loudly and often, all reality to the contrary." Classic Saul Alinsky agitprop.

443 posted on 08/03/2004 2:13:01 PM PDT by WilliamofCarmichael (Benedict Arnold was a hero for both sides in the same war, too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]

To: Phsstpok

First the "ascension of George Bush" happened when he won the election as laid out in the constitution.  7 of the 9 Supreme Court Justices ruled that what the Democrats were trying to do in Florida was unconstitutional.  In effect, the Gore-bots were caught trying to steal the election through a 100% partisan Democrat Court in Florida and they got slapped down.  Ever since then they've been screaming about how Bush was "Selected, not elected."  I guess they don't support and defend the Constitution, then?
----
A misunderstanding. My use of the word "ascension" wasn't meant to question the legitimacy of Bush's election. Just a word to mean "matriculation," or whatever. That will have to be an argument for another time.


483 posted on 08/03/2004 2:34:54 PM PDT by Perlstein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]

To: Phsstpok

As to conservatives "beginning to care more about power than principles," this is classic Saul Alinsky agitprop.  Accuse your enemies of doing what you are doing, loudly and often, all reality to the contrary.  The current Democrats, dating back to 1992 at least, have abandoned all principle in the naked quest for power, since it is theirs "by right" (not divine right, that wouldn't be PC).  The left cares about power and nothing but.  They will sell any snake oil, embrace any lie, commit any crime, because in their mind they serve a "higher truth."  They know "what's good for us."  Look out, they want to enslave us for our own good!
-------
This is pretty wild. Didn't Saul Alinsky die in the '70s? I don't know much about him. As for the rest of this charge, I really need something more specific. Sorry.


487 posted on 08/03/2004 2:37:01 PM PDT by Perlstein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]

To: Phsstpok

Ah, the McCarthyite attack.  You and Teresa, accusing your enemies of being "un-American" (quick deny you said it - accuse me of misquoting you)  I know my Madison, as well as my Jefferson and Adams (most of the others, save Franklin, are too obtuse to try to apply to today).  I also know my McCarthy, Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Goebels and Gore.  Hate is not a substitute for critical thinking or honest debate.  The left, yourself included, has become what you always claimed to despise: mindless doctrinaire establishment drones.  You are captives of the institutional bureaucracy, vomiting back the talking points and NY Times editorials instead of actually thinking for yourselves, incapable of thinking that anyone other than your fellow travelers has any right to exist, let alone control the reigns of "your" government.  Fortunately we still live in a democracy.  That means you lose (unless you cheat).
----
Psh, I'll have to ask you which part of my chain of reasoning you disagree with.

I argue:

1) The essence of American ideology being a government of laws not men, those who specifically base their argument about the rightness of a politician on claims for the inherent goodness of his heart

2) Many--not all--conservatives have begun making arguments on the rightness of Bush based on claims for the inherent goodness of his heart.

Which part do you disagree with, (1) or (2)? After we establish that, we can argue whether I'm being McCarthyite or not.

Again, I'd repeat what a wise Freeper wrote me about people here:

"I'm a conservative, and will vote for Bush because everything that is wrong with him is a defining characteristic of Kerry, but you are 100% right on the Federalist papers and the undue adolation of Bush. It's one thing for kids and teenagers to revere the President in such a manner, but grown adults should know better."

As for New York Times editorials, weren't they they most consistent voice outside of the Wall Street Journal calling for Clinton to resign?


501 posted on 08/03/2004 2:42:19 PM PDT by Perlstein
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson