Posted on 12/02/2004 5:51:19 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
bttt
I believe the author of this piece slipped from current time, to a future moment in history when one will look back on this election in historical context.
The way he frames the sentence is the way one might 100 years from now after events have unfolded, when the moment in history that change occured is pinpointed and its participants dead.
I can understand why he'd speak in this "historical" tone. We are in midst of a revival of Christianity. "The Passion of the Christ" was only one sign of this movement, and it isn't limited to only America. To the extent this "revival" grows, the answer is unknown to us yet. Clearly the author is of belief this revival will be looked back upon as monumental.
"Clearly the author is of belief this revival will be looked back upon as monumental."
I like your analysis of this, and I hope history proves you accurate!
(Much better than thinking it's that OBL crowd for sure!)
I believe the "religious revival" he was referring to was China and Africa, both of which have seen pretty huge revivals in Christianity lately.
China's is truly impressive, actually. Yes, the Christian percentage of the population is still a minority, but looking at the trend line is downright shocking, considering that professing such faith there is a virtual invitation for the government to come to your house and crack your skull open. I'm unsure as to whether it's a legitimate revival or a bunch of always-weres coming out of the closet, but I'm inclined to believe it's both, and eiher way it's definetly noteworthy at this point in history.
Qwinn
By the early 1900s some (e.g. Lenin) grew impatient waiting for the collapse, and decided to speed it up by fostering revolution. Fatally flawed logic. Instead of universal willing workers rising up, radical agitators "forced" the collapse of the feudal/industrial and tried to start from scratch.. Bad plan.
The "workers" and others weren't all than anxious to have their world turned upside down, and resisted. Since Marxism assumes willing participation of all as inevitable the holdouts from the old regime became a massive problem.
Since universality had to be enforced on an unwilling populace, Communism be came a "totalitarian state" masquerading as a "worker's democracy. Stalin solved the problem of the "reluctant revolutionaries", the "old fashioned way". Massive death. Those who objected to the radical overhaul of the entire socio-economic system, and resisted had to convert or die (sound familiar?)
In addition to the merchant class, land owners etc, who were victims of the worker's revolution, the central planning economic model was unable to provide basic food supply. Additional dissent accompanied the food shortages, required additional purges. Massive starvation added fuel to the fire, so the totalitarians had to come down hard to maintain order. Nothing close to what Marx had envisioned, and early signs of fatal architecture.
Economic systems based on coercion don't provide economic expansion from within the system, which requires expansion out side the USSR so they embarked on a worldwide expansion plan. The rest is history.
Meanwhile, WWI and general Communism's lackluster (external view, minus murders) cooled the interest in a revolutionary, economic solution to crush industrial/capital-oriented systems. The Marxist's in Europe, the home of Marxism had the Spanish Civil War and Hitler in view when they made a strategic decision to not "kill capitalism" to promote social, populist (i.e.socialist goals). They decided to "bust the culture" instead. Remember that Europe had a long and stormy experience with royalty, aristocracy and powerful religious oligarchy (i.e. Catholic church and derivatives).
As a result, Marx was anti-oligarchy, anti-religion and anti-monarchy. The Frankfort School of Marxism embarked on a crusade to turn the populous against "the church" and against the oligarchy and aristocracy, "the rich". To accomplish their goals, they chose to target all the representations of wealth, power and control. In place of a revolution of disgruntled workers (economic wedge) they chose to "atomize" all the social systems, in order to restructure the social structure.
They literally had to break all existing social bonds (sufficiently), so they attempted to drive wedges everywhere. Any and all forms of "oppression" were identified and exaggerated, to maximize the power of the oppressed and dispossessed. Women and minority groups were the targets. Economic empowerment and social empowerment were the tool. This is the constant refrain from the Left since pre-WWII. Those are the roots of today's legacy.
Under the guise of liberation and equality, the true purpose it to overthrow or co-opt all power structures. The targets for co-opting were those who controlled the culture: education, media, entertainment, academia and labor. Those were infiltrated to turn the populous against the power structures.
The US has historically frustrated the Marxists. With prosperity, opportunity and increasing equality, they found it hard to get a foothold except for the 1960s-style Liberals who were effectively the Left Center version of the Classic liberals. Democrats Humphrey and Johnson (social policy) are the figureheads. Their latter-day counterparts would be Arlen Specter, et al.
In the last 1960's the Democratic liberals started losing power the the Leftists (New and Old). McGovern and other most of the new blood came from much more "left" attitudes. The Democratic liberals drifted towards the new center of their part and started losing for the same reasons that the Left/Marxists had never been successful.
Liberal became Progressive to blend the Liberal with the New Left and incidental Left extremists. They all supported each others positions and "messed their nest" by hooking up with the neo-Marxists. The rest is history.
The only times they are successful is if the hide their Marxist roots, and only win national elections by distancing themselves far to the right of their "party center", the American neo-Marxists, represented by Moveon.org and the crazy Berkeley crowd of radical Marxists and Anarchists (yes they still exist).
Accustomed to winning for years(as Zell Miller Democrats) they assumed they were a natural majority while drifting further leftward. As they started losing ground they first assumed it was a fluke, temporary setback.
Bush represented the cold hard reality smacking them in the face. They are vehemently opposed to Reagan, and now Bush. In their view, Reagan was a fluke, who won because people liked him, and ignored "the facts". GW Bush was a fluke Gore was a bore, and they didn't get the message out (we didn't have "the facts", (i.e.misinformed, but not evil). The election, they went ALL OUT getting the message out, and making sure everyone knew the REAL Bush, and assumed they had finally "done the job right".
People wouldn't make the mistake of voting for Bush simply because they liked him (like Reagan and Bush2000) No chance of that happening because they went overboard making him as unlikeable as possible. They "got the message out" and talked about the "real issues". Looking good!!
Nov 2, 2004 - Assured that "finally" they got it right.
Whoops!!!!!
Totally reversal of their expectations. Total frustration, since everyone "ignored their message" and "voted against their own interests".
We acted like Americans - Not Marxists - That was more than they could take. They are totally lost how to "convince" people they are right.
"If people really knew the facts, they would have voted for the Progressive Agenda" (nominally, John Kerry).
Dazed and confused, either they are fundamentally wrong, or they rest of us are insane, stupid, sexist, fascists, homophobes, because they are SURE that they are right.
The are truly at a loss to understand WHY. Their little fantasy got shattered, and they TRULY can't believe it.
Consider how many of the loonies want to go FURTHER LEFT, to provide a clear difference.
Your minds are belong to us!!
ROTFLMAO.
nice - thanks
On the whole, a good article, but the above assertion is wrong. The Left never fought for individual human liberty, but rather for a state-enforced egalitarian society.
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.