![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Defining Liberal Values
Carla Binion: "The Enlightenment vs. Bush's America: Defining Liberal Values"
While the article itself is quite good, I found myself especially impressed by one of the comments below it:
We need to make this the Democratic platform again. We need to shout it as loudly as the Cult of Fear and Loathing shouts their hatemongering and screams about "values", and we need to practice it, to stop letting the plutocracy whittle away at the freedom and prosperity of individual Americans.
How did the public come to believe that the "intellectual elites" were were working against them -- and the moneyed elites were on their side?
While the article itself is quite good, I found myself especially impressed by one of the comments below it:
Re: Carla Binion: 'The Enlightenment vs. Bush's America: Def (Score: 1)
by mdjelder on Tuesday, November 23 @ 14:10:45 EST
Conservatives have been allowed to frame the debate without opposition for too long. It's time to take back the mantel of truth by exposing the cheap-labor conservative agenda for what it is: exploitation of the common citizen.
Every American enjoys more lifestyle enhancements due to the work of liberals than they realize - National Parks, 40-hour work week, minimum wage, social security, and the list goes on and on. For all working Americans who vote Republican because you are convinced that doing so is in your best interests, consider this:
We gave you ethics and science and you called us heretics.
We gave you civil liberties but you refuse to include everyone.
We gave you a public education system but you won’t help us fund it and then complain that it doesn’t work.
We gave you protected wild lands which you insist on polluting and exploiting for profit.
We gave you freedom of religion but you won’t respect the beliefs of others.
We gave you libraries but you ignore them because they don’t turn a profit.
We gave you a social safety net, but you destroyed it and sent 2 million people into the streets to die of exposure because you said they were lazy.
We gave you child labor laws and you shipped your factories overseas.
We gave you living wages and entitlements but you crushed the unions that guarded them.
We gave our lives to stop a war and still you insist on slaughtering our young for corporate profits.
We work to provide women the same reproductive rights as men but you set fire to their medical clinics and threaten the doctors.
We try to tell you the truth but your corporate media and religious leaders call us names and vilify us.
We’ve done everything we could to save the world from becoming a toxic, barren wasteland of poverty, ignorance and intolerance; we’ve done nothing but work to give every human being the right to self-determination without government intervention;
and still you demonize us as godless liberals who have no values.
Has it ever occurred to you that your true enemies are those who pollute your air, mortgage your future, curtail your rights, tell you what to think, claim to speak for God, exploit you as a worker and send your children off to die for diminishing oil reserves;
and then place the blame on us for all that you’ve lost?
Every working American owes everything they have to the liberal agenda and everything they've lost to cheap-labor conservatives who've taken it away for their own selfish reasons.
It's time that each American understood that before they lose even more.
We need to make this the Democratic platform again. We need to shout it as loudly as the Cult of Fear and Loathing shouts their hatemongering and screams about "values", and we need to practice it, to stop letting the plutocracy whittle away at the freedom and prosperity of individual Americans.
How did the public come to believe that the "intellectual elites" were were working against them -- and the moneyed elites were on their side?
no subject
just one person's opinion here. I hate everyone equally :)
no subject
Not to say there aren't some that show such a disdain. Still, in partial defense, if something falls into the particular area of expertise of someone, its hard to listen to someone with a slight interest in the area as being equal, especially if they have some problems with the basics.
no subject
no subject
You've hit the nail on the head, though, with the term "moneyed elites." But we also need to take back God. Conservatives may have one on a platform of Leviticus 18:22, but Liberals built this nation into a scion of justice on Leviticus 19:9 - 19:18. The very set of laws which this administration flouts with regularity.
Unfortunately though, justice cannot compete with hatred in the market of public opinion, so lets stop talking about "conservatives" and start talking about the false prophets of the republican reich. The moneyed Elite who steal your tax dollars to buy their Rolls Royces and call it God's will. These are not God's servants, but Mammon's. And this is why they are so willing to pass our children through the fire for the sake of their own material gain; they worship a demon.
no subject
no subject
The writer is correct that Holy War is what is happening.
The writer is deluded to imagine either that it isn't already well under way or that anyone has the luxury of sitting it out.
no subject
no subject
What you do need to do in political discourse is to make sure that there is a well articulated ethical system that you can bring to the table. This should not be a problem for you, Athelind, as I know that you have a strong sense for these things.
More than they are looking for "God," people are looking for politicians whose ethics they deem reliable. If Dems thing that they can ever lure fundamentalists with professions of faith, they are wrong. But a clearly articulated ethical position can win swing votes.
One of the problems Kerry faced was his Catholicism. First, because the verse he chose to emphasize (the good works verse from James) was guaranteed to put off any Christian who believes in salvation through grace. The second is that his church was agressively campaigning against him. This is more of a "sucks to be him" statement that a criticism of his strategy.
My point is this: If one is religious one should not feel constrained from giving voice to that in a campaign, so long as one is sincere. What galls me is the notion that I should shut up about my faith in public life while the right prattles on about theirs. That gives the appearance that they have a monopoly on God.
If, as in your case, one is not religious, the case for ethics still must be made, especially when there is an unethical opposition running a "God's Will" campaign. Don't underestimate the power that a coalition that includes liberals of all creeds, each speaking from their faiths (and although I suspect you will object to this assertion, Atheism is a faith) can have to turn things around; such a coalition is probably a far better representation of America than the Republican Party is.
no subject
I have said before that Bush does not represent my Christianity. I believe that he really represents a fairly small percentage of middle- and right-leaning Christians. The problem is that he was seen as the lesser of two evils by all the others.
no subject
no subject
Why does Hillary Clinton scare you? I'm not being critical - just curious.
no subject
1 - She's just WAY too smart, and doesn't even try to hide it for theatricity. A president should hide their light under a bushel, but she'll do no such thing.
2 - She's dangerously charismatic and I'm afraid of her using her glib tongue to say large masses of uneducated people. Most homosexuals are well-acquainted with the concept of "Tyrrany of the Majority" by now.
3. She's absolutely ruthless. she'll do anything it takes to get what she wants.
and all this aside from her individual issues I agree or disagree with.
no subject
no subject
no subject
It sounds like you're afraid of her primary characteristics of being a female politician.
I _might_ concede the point that she should hide her intelligence (given that this country has a nasty history of not respecting such)... but beyond that, she just sounds like a pol, at least an effective one. Self-effacing pols who don't push for their objectives don't make very good movers and shakers.
Would these characteristics frighten you if they were present in a man? I suspect Bill might be much the same, really...
no subject