I don’t know that conservatives ever loved the U.S.A. They love some kind of dytopian vision of Amerika. A country that doesn’t exist. Certainly after sixty years of demonizing liberalism – you know that reportedly godless philosophy on which the Founders based the new nation, some people actually believe that conservatism is not just patriotic, but the embodiment of patriotism. They and the deceptive spokespeople they follow are at best ultra-nationalists. In the defense of our friends and neighbors who describe themselves as conservatives, they are not the first people to confuse love of country and nationalism.
The tactics of conservatism vary widely by place and time. But the most central feature of conservatism is deference: a psychologically internalized attitude on the part of the common people that the aristocracy are better people than they are. Modern-day liberals often theorize that conservatives use “social issues” as a way to mask economic objectives, but this is almost backward: the true goal of conservatism is to establish an aristocracy, which is a social and psychological condition of inequality. Economic inequality and regressive taxation, while certainly welcomed by the aristocracy, are best understood as a means to their actual goal, which is simply to be aristocrats. More generally, it is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them. Of course this notion sounds bizarre to modern ears, but it is perfectly overt in the writings of leading conservative theorists such as Burke. Democracy, for them, is not about the mechanisms of voting and office-holding. In fact conservatives hold a wide variety of opinions about such secondary formal matters. For conservatives, rather, democracy is a psychological condition. People who believe that the aristocracy rightfully dominates society because of its intrinsic superiority are conservatives; democrats, by contrast, believe that they are of equal social worth. Conservatism is the antithesis of democracy. This has been true for thousands of years.
The defenders of aristocracy represent aristocracy as a natural phenomenon, but in reality it is the most artificial thing on earth. Although one of the goals of every aristocracy is to make its preferred social order seem permanent and timeless, in reality conservatism must be reinvented in every generation. This is true for many reasons, including internal conflicts among the aristocrats; institutional shifts due to climate, markets, or warfare; and ideological gains and losses in the perpetual struggle against democracy. In some societies the aristocracy is rigid, closed, and stratified, while in others it is more of an aspiration among various fluid and factionalized groups. The situation in the United States right now is toward the latter end of the spectrum. A main goal in life of all aristocrats, however, is to pass on their positions of privilege to their children, and many of the aspiring aristocrats of the United States are appointing their children to positions in government and in the archipelago of think tanks that promote conservative theories.
Conservatism in every place and time is founded on deception. The deceptions of conservatism today are especially sophisticated, simply because culture today is sufficiently democratic that the myths of earlier times will no longer suffice.
Whether there were ever any good conservatives or not in the U.S. is debatable, but there used to be a few decent Republicans – Some Republicans Used to Love America at Least a Little, What Went Wrong
Does anyone else remember the Western Hemisphere’s only functioning socialist paradise? In that bygone land, the top income-tax bracket for millionaires was 90 percent. Thanks to a heavily—and proudly—unionized workforce, collective bargaining resolved most labor-management disputes. To stave off recession, the government instituted the largest public-works program in Country X’s history, from which its now largely unwitting citizens still benefit today.
Although Country X did possess a sizable nuclear deterrent, the trade-off was a reduction in spending on conventional military capabilities. “Our most valuable, our most costly asset is our young men. Let’s don’t use them any more than we have to,” was the typically commonsensical explanation given by paradise’s wildly popular leader for his reluctance to commit Country X to adventurist foreign wars. Despite an excruciating level of world tension at the time, not a single member of Country X’s armed forces died in battle on his watch.
Those happy days were America’s. True, it would be going much too far to call Dwight D. Eisenhower the architect of the United States in the 1950s. From the GI bill’s vital role in creating the midcentury middle class to our powerhouse postwar economy, the catbird seat America then occupied wasn’t Ike’s doing. Well, except in the sense that winning World War II made it all possible, and he’d been the guy who said “OK, we’ll go” on D-Day.
But Eisenhower the president was more than paradise’s caretaker. At the very least, he’s the man who made it all seem normal. That’s some achievement when you think of the astounding metamorphoses in American life, self-perception, and role on the world stage that his reign enshrined.
Besides being the most underestimated president of the 20th century, Eisenhower deserves to be every Democrat’s favorite Republican White House occupant this side of Abraham Lincoln. The reasons range from creating an Interstate highway system that’s rightly named for him and deciding to perpetuate the New Deal, to his crucial decision to enforce Brown v. Board of Education in the teeth of Southern resistance. No militant on civil rights, Ike nonetheless ordered the 101st Airborne to Little Rock in the crunch to remind everybody that even unpopular Supreme Court decisions had better be respected. If not for that resolve, desegregation might have ended before it began.
Eisenhower was not perfect as noted in the rest of that article – he let the CIA get involved in changing leadership in other countries, propped up a few dictators – the rationale was the same then as now, they might be dictators, but at least they are friendly toward America dictators. he did have the right-wing conservative panderer Richard Nixon as Vice-President. He used Nixon as his pacifying blanket for the extreme Right conservatives who, instead of radical Muslim, saw commie pinkos under every bed. The level of conservative paranoia and their fetishistic need to cling to paranoia has not changed. Rush Limbaugh, the unofficial head of the conservative movement, and friends, supplies some examples - Five Insane Conspiracy Theories Limbaugh’s Advertisers Have Sponsored
On July 20, 1993, the body of deputy White House counsel Vince Foster was found in Northern Virginia’s Fort Marcy Park. According to multiple investigations, Foster died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. But conservatives, led by Rush Limbaugh, incessantly cast doubt on Foster’s suicide, suggesting instead that the Clinton White House had murdered Foster and covered it up.
[ ]…The Soccer Conspiracy
On April 13, 2010, American Thinker writer Cat Corben posited an elaborate conspiracy that involved Obama “venturing out to a soccer game that didn’t exist in a high-crime area” of Washington, DC. Corben wanted to know why Obama lied to the press and the Secret Service so he could hang out in this high-crime area by himself, writing: “Something is most definitely wrong.”
[ ]…Canceling The Elections
On September 30, 2011, Judi McLeod of the Canada Free Press published a column warning that President Obama was planning to suspend the 2012 elections in order to remain in office. The column, which swerved into birtherism and the absurd theory that Obama’s autobiography was ghostwritten by Bill Ayers, counseled: “Patriots who want their grandchildren to grow up in a Marxist-free America should start the counter revolution called the ‘Revolution for an Obama-free America’ and they should start it ‘like yesterday.’”
[ ]…Obama The African Colonial
On June 25, 2009, the American Thinker published a piece by L.E. Ikenga arguing that “the key to understanding [Obama] lies with his identification with his father, and his adoption of a cultural and political mindset rooted in postcolonial Africa.”
[ ]…For Rush, however, D’Souza’s “anti-colonial” theory was “very consistent with the way I’ve analyzed” Obama:
LIMBAUGH: Dinesh D’Souza has a book out, and a cover story in Forbes magazine, what really motivates Obama is his father. And his father hated colonialist America, hated colonialist Great Britain, and had profound influence on Obama. And Obama’s anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist, and looks at the United States as colonialists. And I think this is very consistent with the way I’ve analyzed this guy from the get-go.
When Palin and McCain were running in 2008 Palin could not discuss issues and solutions. The best she could do to make her case to the U.S. public was that Sen. Obama was “palling around with terrorists” ( she also refused to apologize). This is from a person who incessantly complains about being treated unfairly by the press. How can someone so morally bankrupt tell the difference between fair and unfair. In public speaking classes they generally advise people to record and listen to rehearsals of their talk. One can then check for vocal idiosyncrasies, fact check yourself and check for gaps in logic. The latter is especially important if you are trying to convince people of your point of view or trying to sell them something. One wonders if Palin has ever made the slightest effort to follow any of those basic ingredients for public speaking. If she did listen to what she said, would she understand herself and how ridiculous she sounds – to anyone except her fellow zealots, PALIN WAS BORN A POOR BLACK CHILD
SARAH PALIN: … He (meaning President Obama) is bringing us back, Sean, to days that — you can hearken back to days before the Civil War, when, unfortunately, too many Americans mistakenly believed that not all men were created equal, and it was the Civil War that began the codification of the truth that here in America, yes, we are equal and we all have equal opportunities, not based on the color of your skin. You have equal opportunity to work hard and to succeed and to embrace the opportunities, God-given opportunities, to develop resources and work extremely hard and, as I say, to succeed. Now, it has taken all these years for many Americans to understand that gravity, that mistake, that took place before the Civil War, and why the Civil War had to really start changing America. What Barack Obama seems to want to do is go back to before those days, when we were in different classes, based on income, based on color of skin. Why are we allowing our country to move backwards instead of moving forward with that understanding that, as our charters of liberty spell out for us, we are all created equal?
Wait a gosh darn minute, “What Barack Obama seems to want to do is go back to before those days, when we were in different classes, based on income, based on color of skin.” Did Palin not get the memo from the Breitbart sites – Simply Shocking, Breitbart’s ‘Bombshell’ Video Shows The President Fighting for…for….Racial Equality
Critical race theory does not have an absolute set of principles, but later in the interview O’Brien accurately describes it as a theory that “looks into the intersection of race and politics and the law.” CRT emerged from a broader movement known as critical legal studies, which examines how factors such as race, gender and social class can often skew legal decisions in favor of privileged groups. Critical legal theory is, by definition, critical of how our law has developed and often calls for significant departures from existing law—but its central premise that judges are prone to decide cases in ways that advantage their own social group has certainly been vindicated by cases such as Citizens United.
CRT looks specifically at how race and racial privilege shapes the law. The purpose of CRT isn’t to wage war against white people, as Pollak and others of his anti-liberal ilk would have us believe. Indeed, its entire goal is to ensure that race not be forgotten as a significant factor in the operation of society. The value of this perspective is certainly demonstrated through voter ID laws, immigration policies, and drug enforcement penalties that disproportionately impact non-white populations. Policies that target racial majorities, by contrast, would never become law in the first place because the majority possesses the power to veto them.
The President should be applauded for standing with great minds who do not accept that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 marked an endpoint in the fight for racial equality. It is those who seek to disregard the experiences of all people of color — lest they confront the persisting effects of racial injustice — who should be ashamed.
So Palin thinks Obama is evil for not fighting for equal opportunity and Breitbart’s Big sites has found a video which proves President Obama is evil for fighting for civil rights. Don’t yea just hate it when the conservative meme fax machine breaks down. The rest of NOMNB’s commentary on Palin,
But what’s really going on here is Palin (and Hannity and the audience) all agreeing that they’re becoming America’s oppressed blacks. And, to them, not being able to drill in ANWAR really is as bad as slavery and lynching and Jim Crow and the Birmingham church bombing all the way down to a racist drug war and racist stop-and-frisk policies and on and on.
It’s either that or these people are simply jealous of black people because black people won some white sympathy for their plight. Wingers want the rest of America to feel sorry for them, too! Bill Maher makes fun of them! Sandra Fluke criticizes them! That’s as oppressive as slavery and Jim Crow, right?
This is the conservative concept of values. Point out that not everyone is treated fairly under the law – sometimes because of race or gender or sexual orientation – and you are a radical liberal meanie. Conservatives Like Palin, Limbaugh, D’Souza, American Thinker are the real victims and they’re frustrated as hell that no one with mental faculties better than a bullfrog’s can see that. Related: Job numbers for the month of February show continued, though not stellar improvement Current unemployment rates: 7.3% for whites, 14.1% for African Americans, & 10.7% for Latinos
Being discriminated against, being a victim has a whole different meaning in Wingnuttia than in Webster’s dictionary and the real world, Helping the Super Rich at the Expense of the Super Poor
Bloomberg reporter Max Abelson created quite a stir in the blogosphere with his tales of woe from the top 1 percent. “People who don’t have money don’t understand the stress,” said a specialist in financial planning for the wealthy. Maybe he should talk to the heads of the estimated 1.5 million households, which include about 2.8 million children, that the National Poverty Center estimates live on $2 or less in income per day in any given month—one of the World Bank’s main indicators of poverty in developing countries.
I’m around these poor, not usually 1%ers, but top 10% people sometimes. They complain about not being able to belong to three country clubs because the waits on the golf course are so long. They have a 5-series Bimmer but and a Range Rover, but want a 7-series. They can afford to send their kids to private prep schools starting in middle school, but not grades one though five. The poor pitiful things. It just makes you want to cry. They would never for a moment pause and think two things. One, be grateful. Two, maybe their income is not the problem, their whims and desires are bigger than their wallets.
From the Smithsonian: Mystery Files: Making Marco’s Tall Tale Taller
With over 100 known versions written of Marco Polo’s story, researchers struggle to find the original tale embedded in hundreds of years of elaboration.