Naming
Posted by aogSaturday, 27 March 2010 at 11:21 TrackBack Ping URL

I have been at a bit of a loss on what exactly to call the motivating ideology of the MALists. I don’t like “liberalism” because it’s participating in the [corruption of language that is at the heart of that ideology. “Progressivism” is bad because it has become far more reactionary, tribal, and violent than it was when that label was adopted. I tend to use “socialism” but there’s now so much fascism and corporatism involved that I am not sure that’s a good label either. “Tranzi” is related and perhaps that’s the best choice, as so much of the Gramcian project is internation in flavor. Any comments from readers?

Comments — Formatting by Textile
AVeryRoughRoadAhead Saturday, 27 March 2010 at 13:22

Utopianism.

Annoying Old Guy Saturday, 27 March 2010 at 14:31

Reasonable, but a bit broad.

erp Saturday, 27 March 2010 at 15:21

It’s all socialism. It’s funny the left has to keep changing its name (kinda like ACORN) as people figure them out. Classic liberalism is what I now think of as conservatism, so I don’t like to use that term to describe those whose ideas are diametrically oppose from it.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Saturday, 27 March 2010 at 16:33

Narrow Utopianism ☺

pj Sunday, 28 March 2010 at 09:16

I don’t think they’re motivated by an ideology but a spirit. They have no attachment to ideas and will swap their ideas for new ones whenever expedient. Their spirit is destruction and hatred of sophisticated society and a desire for the restoration of the hierarchically ordered, simple society of a baboon troop living in nature. So “primitivism” seems to me the best description.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 28 March 2010 at 09:47

pj;

Yes, I have noticed the definite push for tribalism (e.g., angry studies) and the push for a strongly ordered / planned society. It seems to me that the closest parallel to their envisioned world is feudalism, so since they want to be / have serfs, we should call them serfers?

erp Sunday, 28 March 2010 at 11:05

… they want us to be their serfs.

Bret Sunday, 28 March 2010 at 11:30

Moronism.

Hey Skipper Sunday, 28 March 2010 at 12:15

I agree with pj that progressives, who make ideas wonderful simply because they hold them, are motivated by a spirit; however, I don’t think it is, itself, destructive.

Their desire is to share the benefits of society equally among its members. What could be more compelling than that?

Too bad about that human nature thing.

Anyway, I think the term “communitarian” captures what the MAL is really after.

David Cohen Sunday, 28 March 2010 at 13:17

The left has long since become incoherent. In part, it’s because leftism has become an aesthetic, and in part it’s because they outsource their positions to subgroups.

Andrea Harris Sunday, 28 March 2010 at 17:23

I say it’s spinach and I say the hell with it.”

Canned spinach.

pj Sunday, 28 March 2010 at 19:56

Another name in common use is “nihilism.”

Skipper, it’s absurd to think they want to share the benefits of society equally among its members. They want more for themselves. We passed rapidly from legal privileges for whites to legal privileges to left-leaning minority groups with hardly a stop at equality; as government employees and union members become higher paid and wealthier than the median worker, we see no concern at all from the left; nor is there any concern at the wealth of left-supporting billionaires; and when the left is in power, they do not hesitate to recruit wealthy corporate interests and plutocrat financiers to their cause with taxpayer money and new legal privileges.

But, though they are greedy, this is not the root of their politics. They want a coercive, hierarchically ordered society, and given that that is obtained, they prefer to be at the top of the hierarchy. But many on the left are happy with a primitive hierarchy even if it leaves them on the low rungs — welfare recipient, for instance. The main point is that it is simple.

Barack Obama said something like this when he wrote in his autobiography that he thought the poor of Indonesia were happier than Chicagoans, even though they were much poorer and lived under a corrupt and abusive dictatorship, because their life was simpler and they didn’t have any choices to worry over; and that Americans would be happier under an Indonesian kind of society. And he’s probably right that many leftists would feel that way.

Peter Monday, 29 March 2010 at 04:51

There certainly are elements of feudal and millenialist thinking, particularly within environmentalism, but David is right that they have become too incoherent to be pegged. They are too infected with deconstructionalist madness and cynicism to be described as socialist, and their nihilism is pretty milquetoast—too much work, I suppose.

One thing that marks them is how they have abandoned their traditional constituencies—the poor and working class—in favour of cherry-picked marginal groups like sexual minorities, black immigrants, etc. Wolfe called this “Rococo Marxism”. I still relish the reaction I once got on a leftist blog once when I suggested that if Steinbeck had written The Grapes of Wrath today, the Okies would be dismissed as racist creationists and some bright guy from Harvard would top the charts with a bestseller called “What’s the Matter With the Joads?”

David Cohen Monday, 29 March 2010 at 07:46

It certainly is still true of the left that it loves humanity but hates people.

David Cohen Monday, 29 March 2010 at 07:48

Whereas I quite like people, but find humanity a little hard to put up with.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 29 March 2010 at 08:01

Mr. Cohen;

Kind of like how our Mr. Eagar likes markets in general, just not in any specific instance?

Mr. Burnet;

Your comment reminds of another discussion in which the MAL was described as a “teenager ideology” which consists of bold, emotion based ideas that as much as possible ignore the ugly details of reality. While I definitely am takein with “serfers”, I wonder if “Denialism” wouldn’t be more appropriate because so much of MAList thought is directly at denying any undesirable consequences from actions, the deep self absorption where personal issues are the defining issues, the incoherence and self contradiction. Oh, and the obsession with sex which, as in teenage fantasies, should most of all have no undesirable consequences. “Teenthink”, perhaps?

Peter Monday, 29 March 2010 at 09:10

AOG:

That’s a good point. The left does indeed seem to be in the grip of wild teenaged fantasies about sex, while we on the right make do with more mature middle-aged ones.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 29 March 2010 at 10:15

Not just about sex, although that’s the most obvious, but almost all of their policies are wild teenage fantasies (someone doesn’t have sufficient health care? well just buy more! worrying about where the money comes from is for old fogies)

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 29 March 2010 at 11:32

Here’s a great comment on the subject —

Why do Democrats have such an urge to make slaves of every American?
It’s part of the institutional memory of their party.

Rob Crawford

Something don’t change, even if you shuffle the personnel.

Harry Eagar Monday, 29 March 2010 at 12:00

Well, if you listen to the Tea Partiers, they are being called unAmericans. Return with me now to the wonderful world of HUAC.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 29 March 2010 at 12:23

Some possible other names —

  • Interventionists
  • Statists (via Virginia Postrel)
  • Nannies
  • Neo-Feudalists
  • Conformists (because so much of the effort is driven by fear of difference in wealth, outcomes, thought) or Levelers (except they don’t want full leveling, because they should be above us)
  • Tyranists
  • Lawful Stupid (gotta have rules, even if they’re counter productive!)
  • Appartchiks / Apparatism (because the goal is a clockwork bureaucracy which they run and we obey). I think I live this one best.
Annoying Old Guy Monday, 29 March 2010 at 12:33

Mr. Eagar;

Is that worse than listening to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi? Or US Representative Moran? As usual, such a thing taints the Tea Party, but not the Democratic Party.

Ah, the wonderful of HUAC, a creation of the Democratic Party. That is, it was chaired by a member of the Democratic Party and created by law in a Congress with a Democratic Party majority. Yet somehow, I expect you think of that as a stain on the GOP.

Bret Monday, 29 March 2010 at 14:16

“Statists” is my favorite so far. Just note that much of the Right are also Statists.

pj Monday, 29 March 2010 at 15:49

Peter - Good point, “lazy slacker nihilists” is more accurate.

erp Monday, 29 March 2010 at 17:59

The right are anti-statists.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 29 March 2010 at 22:17

erp;

They are, mostly, now. That hasn’t always been the case, even in living memory. Just look at OJ for an example of how that used to work.

Bret Monday, 29 March 2010 at 22:21

All right, I’ll retract the “much” part of “that much of the Right are also Statists”. But a non-negligible fraction (like OJ) are.

erp Tuesday, 30 March 2010 at 08:20

As I’ve said before, IMO a lot of what oj says is for effect, but even if that’s not true, the “statism of the right” as you call it, isn’t right and isn’t conservative. It’s left no matter who expounds it, even former rightists like Andrew Sullivan and Charles Johnson.

There really should be a definition of terms. We can use shorthand here and among those who know the drill, but most people accept Harry’s definition that socialists like Hitler and Nixon are right wingers because they didn’t support the USSR.

Bret Tuesday, 30 March 2010 at 10:46

erp,

If OJ had his way, this would be legally a Christian nation, homosexual activity would be illegal, everybody would be a Republican, and the government would be very active in legislating morality. Those are not views held by the left. Ever.

The rule of thumb: the Left wants the government to control every aspect of the economy, the Right wants the government to control everything that happens in the bedroom, and Libertarians want the government to control nothing.

erp Tuesday, 30 March 2010 at 11:33

Just a little nit.

Left wants to control everything.*

Right wants to control somethings.**

Uppercase Libertarians take no control too far.***

*What’s not forbidden is required.

** Mostly what the Constitution says.

*** Very impractical. They disavow traffic laws, printed currency …

Lowercase libertarians pick and choose from among all of the above and I suspect make up the bulk of the tea party movement. That’s what I call classic liberalism/conservatism. Someone should come up with a cooler, more up to date name.

The Republican brand has lost credibility both because rank and file members have been unfairly trashed in the media and because most (how’s 99.9%) of the leadership are RINO’s and craven cowards.

oj’s ideas, if they are as you say, are unlikely to find a lot of followers.

Harry Eagar Tuesday, 30 March 2010 at 13:03

Well, Guy, you’re the one who asked what to call the MAL (whoever they are), and I was just observing that the Tea Partiers already have a name, and that the name has a putrid history.

Yes, I know that Dies was a Democrat, and that the security state was started by executive orders signed by Truman, also a Democrat.

It was a goal of the left to get rid of HUAC, and it was the goal of the Republicans to maintain it. It was a bitter fight, which you are too young to recall. Calling people who do not share your political creeds unAmerican has a sorry history.

I doubt most of the Tea Partiers know that history, they don’t seem to know much about anything.

pj Tuesday, 30 March 2010 at 15:13

Bret - The left takes up any idea that is universally popular, in hopes of riding it to fame. Christianity has not been a vehicle for the left for the last 200 years, but before then, when Christianity was widely accepted and admired, leftist movements were usually declaredly Christian. For instance, the Lollards began as a Christian dissident sect but ended as a leftist political movement that professed to be Christian.

As far as suppression of homosexuality is concerned, it’s hard to think of a leftist movement outside the west that HASN’T oppressed gays. How did gays do under communism, under Hitler or Mussolini, under Khomeini, under Pol Pot, in African Marxist states? Even in the US, acceptance of homosexuality is a 20th century phenomenon. I haven’t studied the matter but I bet you’d find that earlier leftist groups like the KKK oppressed gays.

oj is in a sense an old-fashioned progressive — someone who might have been on the left a hundred years ago, or with Teddy Roosevelt, but who has stuck to ideas the bulk of the left has abandoned, and now fits in best with people like John McCain, another Teddy Roosevelt fan. The political spectrum has moved, and he’s now center-right as most people count the matter.

As for your dictum, it’s far from true. The right doesn’t want the government to control bedrooms but only calls for a culture of love, which has implications for bedroom behavior — but this is moral suasion, not coercion. And libertarians have been very inconsistent in opposing government, viz. Will Wilkinson’s calls for coercion of conservative critics of homosexuality, and the many calls from libertarians for a left-libertarian alliance with some degree of oppression of conservatives and Christianity.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 30 March 2010 at 15:16

Mr. Eagar;

I completely missed what name you think the Tea Partiers already have, beyond “Tea Party”. I wasn’t aware that name had a putrid history. And as always, I wonder why the Tea Party gets stuck with that history, but the Democratic Party doesn’t. Clearly what you really mean is “Calling people who do not share your political creeds unAmerican has a sorry history if you’re of the wrong political view”. If you’re politically correct, it’s OK.

Harry Eagar Wednesday, 31 March 2010 at 12:58

Perhaps I did not write clearly, which is a serious failure on my part. The Tea Partiers already have given a name to the MAL, and it is ‘unAmerican.’ The term ‘unAmerican’ has a putrid history.

I do not think the Tea Partiers know about that history, because I don’t think they know any history of anything; but it is still a putrid history.

I note, pausing only to marvel, that this thread is the first place I have ever seen Khomeinist Islam and the KKK labeled ‘left.’

erp Wednesday, 31 March 2010 at 14:06

Harry, such broad indictments! As an example, there were well over one million people at the tea party in DC last summer. Are quite certain that not one single one of them knows about the history of HUAC (we probably don’t share the same view of the disgraceful display of ersatz outrage displayed by the pinkoes of that era) or any other history?

The KKK was and still is made up of Democrats, so why would you be surprised that they would be labeled left.

Khomeinist Islam isn’t noted for advocating free trade and an open society, it’s all about control, so of course it would also be labeled left.

The fact that the you haven’t seen it labeled so elsewhere hardly means it’s incorrect.

Do you have a name for the tea party spokesperson who refers to the media as un-American? Not that it’s wrong, only quaintly old-fashioned.

AVeryRoughRoadAhead Wednesday, 31 March 2010 at 15:50

The KKK is made up of what used to be Democrats, pre-’60s. Now those used-to-be-Dems are an integral part of the GOP “Southern Strategy”.

To think that the KKK is comprised of modern day Democrats is so anti-reality that it tears a hole in space-time and enters another dimension.

erp Wednesday, 31 March 2010 at 17:23

Rough, … integral part of the GOP “Southern Strategy”. (sic)

Oy!

Harry Eagar Thursday, 01 April 2010 at 01:19

I dunno what 21st c. Kluxers think about parties in general but do recall that a Grand Dragon won a statewide primary in Louisiana as a Republican not long ago, something I don’t believe any recent Kluxer has done as a Democrat.

Back in the day, the Southern Democrats were recognized by all as the conservative wing of the party, just as the New York Republicans were recognized as the liberal wing of that party, when it had one.

But I guess David Duke has been forgotten.

Harry Eagar Thursday, 01 April 2010 at 01:25

Just for yucks, I looked up David Duke:

‘DavidDuke.com is the website of former Louisiana Representative , David Duke, PhD. Rep. Duke has dedicated his life to the freedom and heritage of European American peoples. Rep. Duke has led careers as a successful elected official, author, and activist.

‘He not only won a seat in the House of Representatives in Louisiana, but he jolted the political establishment by defeating the incumbent governor of Louisiana and garnering huge numbers of votes for Governor and for U.S. Senator. He also was elected in 1996 to the Parish Executive Committee of the largest Republican Party District in Louisiana, St. Tammany Parish where the other elected members chose him unanimously to serve as chairman of the District. He served as chairman until 2000.

‘Over sixty percent of the European American voters of Louisiana have voted for Rep. Duke in statewide races.’

And what has David Duke been up to lately?

‘Nothing can show the Zionist control over American media and politics more than the fact that Israel has committed cold-blooded, murderous terrorism and treachery against America without any reprisal. The fact that most Americans are not even aware of Israeli terrorist attacks against us speaks volumes as to the extent of the media control that we are under.’

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 01 April 2010 at 09:42

But I guess David Duke has been forgotten.

Actually, I was wondering exactly the same thing about you based on this thread in which you blame the election of a (your word) “racist” to lead the Democratic Party on the GOP. I immediately thought “what happened to ‘vote for the crook, it’s important’?”. I was impressed, though, at how it was the GOP’s fault that Obama beat Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Rove is everywhere.

erp Thursday, 01 April 2010 at 10:06

Harry, David Duke, racist, not rightist, was a passing aberration and is now gone unlike his counterpart racist and socialist sitting in the Oval Office. Get the difference?

Harry Eagar Thursday, 01 April 2010 at 11:22

There’s a difference between being a racist and running a racist campaign. It is an example of the duplicity of Obama that erp is always going on about that he ran against his apparent personal outlook.

I do not, for example, know of any evidence that Bush II was or is a racist personally, he just ran as one.

erp Thursday, 01 April 2010 at 12:30

Harry, I never said anything about Obama running against his personal outlook, in the main, because I don’t know what his personal outlook is, just like I don’t know a darn thing about him personally. He’s a racist because he and his thugs/minions play the race card instead of answering questions about his governing.

Bush ran as a racist? This is one of your most ridiculous statements yet.

Hey Skipper Thursday, 01 April 2010 at 13:07
Your comment reminds of another discussion in which the MAL was described as a “teenager ideology” which consists of bold, emotion based ideas that as much as possible ignore the ugly details of reality.

Hence my insistence that it you want to meaningfully label what we call the “left”, the term you are looking for is communitarian.

Whether it leads to perverse results (per pj) is beside the point. Communitarianism is the, oh, for lack of a better word, spirit that motivates the “left”.

In theory, it is emotionally compelling; in practical fact, a disaster to the degree communitarian desires are realized.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 01 April 2010 at 13:58

erp;

I think by “racist” Eagar means “Republican”. Or perhaps “free marketeer”.

Skipper;

I don’t like “communitarian” because that’s far more non-self oriented than the driving ideology of the MAL, the latter being very close to flat our narcissism. The communitarian thinks he is aiding the community, while a MAList thinks primarily about how his statements / actions benefit his internal psychological state without concern about the actual effects. That is part of the teenager aspect, where everything is about me.

erp Thursday, 01 April 2010 at 14:00

Skipper, if your comment above refers to me, I use the word “left” other than other more descriptive words like communitarianism because it’s the opposite of “right” used as a pejorative by, strangely enough, the left (also it’s a lot easier to type).

Harry Eagar Thursday, 01 April 2010 at 14:13

By racist, I mean racist. Is somebody here arguing that Duke isn’t a racist?

That he also is not just a Republican but a popular Republican doesn’t mean all Republicans are racists, but it sure doesn’t mean that Democrats are racists.

Harry Eagar Thursday, 01 April 2010 at 14:27

Interesting revelations about the connections of Hutaree (who I had never heard of till days ago) and Ron Paul. Hutaree turns out to be a Jew-hating outfit. Is anyone surprised?

What party is Ron Paul in?

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 01 April 2010 at 14:46

I didn’t realize that Bush II ran on David Duke’s platform. Duke is hardly a popular Republican either. I think you’ve totally lost the thread of whatever your argument was. If you bring up Ron Paul, can I bring up Lyndon LaRouche? Or Cyntha McKinney? Or Robert Byrd? Or Jesse Jackson? Or Al Sharpton?

The issue at point here is your claim that “Bush II ran a racist campaign”. We are arguing against that, not about David Duke. What he, or Ron Paul, or the Hutaree have to do with that, I have no idea. I am beginning to suspect you don’t either.

erp Thursday, 01 April 2010 at 17:05

aog, no resolution to this argument is possible. The media made David Duke into a national figure by making sure they repeated every crackpot statement. Sure he had some followers and was elected to the house for one term, but to call him a popular Republican is nuts. Ditto Ron Paul, Tancredo, John Birch Society, KKK and the rest of Harry’s hobgoblins.

The left are ramming down these disastrous bills with threats and bribes knowing full well their arguments have been so discredited, only the unions, the entitlement crowd and naive undergraduates can possibly believe them. There’s no hope for the former, but with any luck the latter will see the error in their thinking when they start paying taxes themselves.

Hey Skipper Friday, 02 April 2010 at 01:48
The communitarian thinks he is aiding the community, while a MAList thinks primarily about how his statements / actions benefit his internal psychological state without concern about the actual effects.

The MAList also thinks he is aiding the community. NB: I didn’t say MALists are not delusional.

It is the motivating spirit that matters. It is emotionally appealing — your internal psychological state — but since it is so divergent from human nature, requires coercion for fruition.

Skipper, if your comment above refers to me, I use the word “left” other than other more descriptive words like communitarianism because it’s the opposite of “right” used as a pejorative by, strangely enough, the left (also it’s a lot easier to type).

No, doesn’t refer to you at all. The terms “left” and “right” are as universal as they are meaningless. I hate them every time I use them, but have nothing to put in their place.

Near as I can tell, the only good argument against communitarian is that it is four syllables past popular.

That he also is not just a Republican but a popular Republican doesn’t mean all Republicans are racists, but it sure doesn’t mean that Democrats are racists.

No, affirmative action means Democrats are racists. To the core.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 02 April 2010 at 09:59

Interesting. It looks like the Hutaree leader may have been anti-Bush politically.

erp Friday, 02 April 2010 at 10:27

Looks like Hutaree may be the next smear-du-jour. Read* this am that Palin is heading up the Hutaree rally next summer.

*No link, I won’t give them traffic.

Harry Eagar Friday, 02 April 2010 at 22:30

I thought my point was that Bush, though not personally racist, was dog-whistling to the southern racists by his otherwise hard to explain visit to Bob Jones U. Nobody in the South failed to get that.

The Democrats have their share of kooks, although McKinney — who was ousted by a concerted effort of disgusted Democrats — hardly compares to Paul, a presidential candidate, in party prominence.

I did not say Hutaree was linked to Bush but to Paul. From there it’s a babystep to the Tea Party. I do NOT believe that the masses of the Tea Party are notably racist, but their blunderbuss discontents are catnip to America’s rightwing nuts.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 02 April 2010 at 23:03

Is that really the standard you want to set? That a single visit defines an entire campaign?

P.S. Perhaps rather than cherry picking McKinney out of the list, you might address any of the other ones. Like, say, Presidential Candidate Jesse Jackson.

Harry Eagar Sunday, 04 April 2010 at 07:43

That’s my standard, yes. Just to keep it on race, single presidential visits have echoed down the century in our history, such as T. Roosevelt’s invitation of Booker Washington to the White House. You recently commented on Obama’s slight of the Dalai Lama.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 04 April 2010 at 11:57

President Obama went to Reverend Wright’s church after he started his campaign. Will you therefore say that Obama ran a racist campaign as well?

Al Shaprton is now a Presidential adviser — will you threfore say Obama has a racist administration?

Harry Eagar Tuesday, 06 April 2010 at 07:16

On point one, there were no points in it for Obama, and when he was caught out he quit and denounced Wright, so nope.

On the second, nope. No sign he is taking Sharpton’s advice. Rather the opposite, if anything.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 06 April 2010 at 08:44

What does it matter if there were “points in it” for Obama? That wasn’t your criteria. Beyond that, you’re completely wrong about the “points” as Obama went to that church precisely to get the “street cred” he needed for his political career in Chicago. It was exactly like Bush’s visit to Bob Jones, just on a much vaster scale.

On the second, what advice did Bush take from Bob Jones? Further, what difference does that make? Obama went to Sharpton, that makes it an association created by Obama.

We could also use the EGBAR for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Harry Hay. That qualifies under the same rule as Tancredo and the Tea Party.

But whatever — it’s clear that you will only apply the rule when you find it politically convenient and when that’s pointed out, you’ll just make up new and increasingly obscure codicils to justify it, even if those would make the original claim invalid.

Harry Eagar Friday, 09 April 2010 at 09:14

I am not seeing the equivalence between being in a group and inviting a speaker to address a group, to keynote it, in fact.

I reread that thread and it said what I thought I had said: Most Tea Partiers are not racists but are merely kooks. But on the dais, one cannot say so much.

Annoying Old Guy Friday, 09 April 2010 at 09:29

You make accusations against the Tea Party for inviting Tancredo to speak, and also Palin for showing up at the same event. Obama’s church invited Wright to speak, to “headline” the church services. So why isn’t that congregation, including Obama, subject to the same accusation? Or why isn’t Pelosi tainted the same way as Palin for showing up at that event? I would also think that appointing Sharpton is quite equivalent to inviting Tancredo in terms of guilt by association.

erp Friday, 09 April 2010 at 10:49

Harry, you never answered my earlier question. Are all the millions who’ve attended tea parties kooks and/or ignorant even if you’ve exonerated them from being racists?

Harry Eagar Sunday, 11 April 2010 at 08:53

Since our host went to one, we couldn’t say all, but pretty close. Their notions of American history betray little knowledge, their birtherism betrays kookiness.

If marching in a parade taints everybody in it with everybody else in it, then every Irishman in New York City is as pro-pedophile as Guy wants Pelosi to be.

Why isn’t the congregation subject to the same accusation? It is. I made it. Years ago. Obama is now running away from it. Good for him. Bush ran toward the same. Bad for him.

The current dustup over Confederate History Month isn’t helping any claims that the Republican Party, as a party, isn’t playing the race card.

Annoying Old Guy Sunday, 11 April 2010 at 16:18

Clearly, any conservative or GOP member is tainted by any proximity to any odious ideologue, but all leftists or member of the Democratic Party have some extenuating circumstance that insulates them from any moral taint.

Harry Eagar Monday, 12 April 2010 at 08:57

Well, when six Democratic governors proclaim Oktober Revolution Month at the urging of the Young Socialists, let me know.

erp Monday, 12 April 2010 at 11:02

Harry, it’s revolution 24/7 among socialists of every age and if you can’t provide “proof” other than a campaign stop at Bob Jones U. for Bush’s run toward racism, it’s probably time to give it up.

Confederate History Month is just a tit-for-tat for Black History Month — both are unnecessary and divisive.

The schools should just teach the facts, i.e., what really happened in the past, about American History without making moral judgments. Be a nice change of pace.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 12 April 2010 at 20:11

erp;

Remember, being a main stream Presidential candidate for a major party who conspires with enemy governments is OK but calling such people “un-American” is shameful and wrong. It’s inappropriate to suggest such things are even on the same scale as Bush’s visit to Bob Jones. Or all that apologia for the USSR and Soviet Communism over all those decades. Clearly there’s nothing wrong, un-American, or tainting about that sort of thing.

Harry Eagar Tuesday, 13 April 2010 at 08:47

Carl Paladino.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 13 April 2010 at 09:57

Mr. Eagar;

I don’t see how that explains your willingness to overlook equivalent things when it’s not staining your political opponents.

erp Tuesday, 13 April 2010 at 15:15

aog, in my last comment which seems to have gone missing, I suggested was that we switch from un-American to anti-American for latter day lefties.

Harry, are you offering Carl Paladino as proof Bush ran racist?

This is the first I’ve heard the name and just now googled him to learn he’s being accused by Huffers and others in the leftwing lunatic fringe of sending racist and smutty emails.

If, and it’s a very big if, that’s true, it doesn’t taint tea party goers or anyone else but himself.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 13 April 2010 at 17:15

erp;

Let’s also remember that Mark Foley’s trangressions are a permanent stain on the GOP and its leadership, but any criticism of Eric Massa just reflects a conservative hangup about sex.

erp Tuesday, 13 April 2010 at 18:36

aog, let’s also remember that Mark Foley’s indiscretions, while totally unacceptable, were made entirely in the ether, i.e., there was no actual contact made.

Harry Eagar Tuesday, 13 April 2010 at 19:45

Actually, it does. He’s their endorsed candidate.

So, query: Are Tea Partiers comfortable with antiblack racism, for it or just so incompetent they don’t look into the background of people they endorse.

You are very quick to doubt the event, by the way, since Paladino’s campaign manager has already admitted it happened.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 13 April 2010 at 20:34

They’re still doing a better job of vetting than the Obama Administration.

erp Tuesday, 13 April 2010 at 20:55

Harry & aog, who are they? Tea Parties aren’t organized and don’t have candidates.

Harry Eagar Wednesday, 14 April 2010 at 19:33

They endorsed Paladino. I will wait to see whether they unendorse him, but it looks like it could be a long wait.

erp Wednesday, 14 April 2010 at 20:26

Again they. Who are the “they” of whom you speak?

Post a comment