Yes.
And so could the corrolary be true that their counterparts at least the ones who are honest care about everything BUT America?
No.
That is not a fair description of American liberals, nor progressives, nor even leftists very much. My point was that I do not count the hawkish global-capitalist-revolution neocons as fairly representing post-Goldwater movement conservatism. Nor the Libertarians. It is better represented by Pat Buchanan’s paleocons, and they are more honest than other conservatives, and don’t give a rat’s ass about anything outside America and won’t hesitate to tell you so, and are despicable.
I see, so the stereotype of the conservative IS true, but the stereotype of the liberal isn’t?
How convenient of the universe to accomodate you like that.
Yes, agreed about paleocons except where you call them despicable. I consider their position more moral than the progressive-liberal position by a mile. They think America should help everyone, then despise the means with which this task is accomplished, and blame it all on conservatives. I’d prefer an isolationist who doesn’t want to give anything, but also doesn’t want to control the outside world either, to the crypto-imperialist who thinks America should save the world with its hands tied behind its back.
I ended the statement with a question mark for a reason. Thanks for the link.
Fred Phelps is an overtly anti-American conservative, thats why I named him. I’ve not read the other two, I’m not that much of a pundit. I’m very mildly familiar with Coulter. Yes, Der is correct in that the far right is not the know all end all of American culture, but the right are far more jignostic than any pundit on the left. While the far right comes off as anti-homosexual, liberal, science, they never come off as flat out anti-American. Watching Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine you get the criticism for the U.S.'s culture of fear i.e. owning guns. That point has been echoed in very recent threads in this forum by posters on the left.
Maybe it is perceived that the left paints America as imperialist swine, and maybe some do, but I see the left as being realists about U.S. foreign policy. The U.S. acts in its own self interests. This is not immoral or despicable, but the regimes the U.S. chooses to support don’t necessarily align with U.S. professed values. People need to know the truth about U.S. foreign policy before there can be an honest debate.
The white man victimization argument is weak. The reality is white protestant men have been the group with power throughout U.S. history. Simply because other groups want to share power doesn’t make white men victims.
Why is the right’s opposition to a slice of American culture not viewed as anti-American while the left’s opposition to a slice of American culture is?
I, for one, am sick and tired of my political opponents attempting to tar me as an anti-American simply because I oppose their beliefs.
Some people need to know the truth about U.S. foreign policy before there can be an honest debate, but that’s why people who know a little bit more about it tend to gravitate to message boards where they might be able to find a bit more knowledgeable conversationalists. I don’t see the left as being realistic in US foreign policy in the slightest.
We don’t support regimes because we like their values we do it to keep the wars from becoming world-wide conflicts. We have the wars to protect our trading partners, those we can do business with.
See, this just proves my point that you see it as a white man victimization argument. A white person isn’t even allowed to talk about this because the hallowed ‘victim’ status is for everyone but him because he is the perpetrator. Even though I wasn’t saying white men were victims I just said it isn’t ok to be proud to be one, and this is immediately where you mind went when you read what I wrote.
Re: Frank
Sorry you feel that way. I am not trying to say your anti-American by any means. I’m just trying to make a point.
Yes, it is. Not as stated, but definitely as applied.
“Reality has a well known liberal bias.”
And without hesitation, I agree. I tried to make this point without being inflammatory.
Both Kosovo and Somalia were examples of the U.S. doing something in spite of its interests. We gained nothing from either, quite the opposite. Iraq will probably never pay off, if it does its gonna take 10-15 years. Afghanistan is gonna take even longer.
But the official story is that the U.S. is a benevolent crusader for democracy and human rights. It’s the dishonest Pollyanna fairytale that needs to be changed. No, we don’t back regimes because they share our values; often we back brutal dictators for financial exploitation.
But I don’t see any evidence that Americans can’t or don’t celebrate their European cultural heritage. St Patrick’s Day, Christmas, Easter, are all examples.
The truth has a liberal bias.
ETA: crap, I really should read the whole thread before I reply.
I forget the name of the particular fallacy here, but you’re indicating that conservatives do not hold these values. Which is wrong.
While waiting for an explanation of the mechanism that might allow for the process described in the OP, I’d point out that the real world example of 20th century America also argues against the OPs position. The course of American society has been unrelentingly progressive, with only impotent spurts of reactionary fervor. Most socially liberal positions are supported by increasing proportions of people, and solid conservative control of government resulted in no meaningful change to socially liberal programs.