I’m beginning to suspect that you’re using “hillbilly” in a derogatory sense. If you continue to do so I may have to ask you to step to The Pit.
I for one love and admire Rush Limbaugh.
Got left behind, did you?
I am using it in a derogatory sense. I’m talking about culture warriors who are content to be economically crushed in the hope that the Pups will show it to those godless liberals. I’m basically talking about the fundies and their fellow travelers.
Your loving and admiring Rush is–well, it’s just beyond comment.
Prohibition was much more of a progressive than a conservative cause, and it was pretty closely tied up with both feminism and the social welfare movement.
Sounds right to me. OK, non-liberal? Nothing to do with liberalism?
It had a lot to do with liberalism, or at least the 1920’s version. Prohibition was a “liberal” idea.
Sorry, that’s equivocation.
Who was more behind Prohibition–the Dems or the Pubs? And please provide a cite. Thanks.
Dr. Thompson and I are not to be derogged.
I also have it on good authority that you have no idea what a hillbilly actually is.
This is starting to get pretty mushy as far as reasoning goes.
Since the meanings assigned to the terms lib and cons have varied radically through the years (notably a current meaning of ‘conservative’ favors big-government and fewer individual liberties- go figger) it’s somewhat assbackward to approach the debate in these terms.
Bryan Ekers
[Moderator Hat ON]
If you’re saying Aeschines was left behind in school, DON’T.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
Well, you know, the Democrats were behind slavery.
That’s about as relevant to the current discussion as to whether Prohibition was a Democratic or Republican venture. During the Edwardian period, when Prohibition was becoming a major cause, the Republicans carried a much more liberal attitude than the Democrats. It wasn’t until the end of the Wilson administration that Democrats became seen as the more progressive/liberal party, and even that meant turning a blind eye to the racist positions it held.
Still, both parties- Democrats and Republicans- were firmly behind Prohibition.
My neighbors. :rolleyes:
As for Incubus’ original question- I do believe that there is a massive schism occuring in this country, one which has been building since the 1960’s.
We’ve made the mistake of conflating morality with politics. Most political questions- health care, social security, national defense, etc.- are questions of resources: how we apply limited government resources and limited government abilities to unlimited problems. But we’ve moved into a position where we now define these as moral questions: health care is now a moral right. People who think that government shouldn’t be funding Medicare/Medicaid/Social Security/welfare/farm aid as much as it does are heartless evil bastards who delight in the sounds of human misery; those who wish to raise taxes to increase social spending are evil, arrogant communists who would steal food from your children’s mouths just to give to someone they felt more ‘deserving’.
The end result is, as Achinaes shows, we demonize our opponents; we insult and lambast them to remove their humanity, partially to prove ourselves human (because, by definition, if our enemies are evil and inhuman, we ourselves must be beatific and perfect), and partially so we don’t actually have to dare pay attention to anything they say, which might destroy our carefully preserved self-image of being completely right.
This is only furthered by information overload. There are more issues to be dealt with in this election than any person can reasonably pay attention to, and more than any news source can reasonably inform you on. So we drop the issues to the moral level, where we can make snap decisions without worrying or without actually thinking. (“Harming the environment for the sake of economic growth is evil.” “Harming economic growth for the sake of the enivronment is evil.” “Abortion is murder.” “Pro-lifers are misogynists who want women barefoot and pregnant.”)
I don’t know what stops it. Good people still can reason together; but I’m seeing a lot less people interested in reasoning together and a lot more interested in throwing out destructively witty nastiness to score points. We had a national tragedy, and even that only put it on the back burner for a few months.
If there’s a schism, to paraphrase our beloved Executive, bring it on. On some issues, I think it’s better to call your opponent out than attempt to circumnavigate their position by being politic. Perhaps the most traumatic divide our nation ever suffered was the War Between the States, but it did serve as a (partially) effective purgative. If diplomacy must break down on occasion, there’s no sense in ignoring the inevitable, or constantly equivocating in a self-defeating attempt to avert confrontation. Sometimes a marriage is worth saving; sometimes it’s time for a divorce. I can’t say if the “union” (insert your perseonal conception of it here) is ready to come apart at the seams or not with certainty, but if it is, I wish we could just get it over with. I would rather welcome some brutal honesty and acknowledgement of inflexibility, if that is the only alternative to disingenuous appeals to pluralism as a means of getting in the proper position to stab your ideological opponent in the back. (Remember the “Compassionate Conservatism” charade? Were you fooled?) I’m not itching for a fight; but I’m tired of pretending it isn’t necessary if it is.
Actually it’s the Forces of All that is Good and Right vs. the Godless Pinkos
And here I thought it was The Forces of All that is Good and Right vs. the Fundamentalist Fascists. 
IMHO the differences of opinion, opposite sides of issues, and deeply held beliefs and ideologies, are nothing new. The appearence of a great schism is also something that history has provided us with again and again, remember the '60s? The vehemence of the conflicts wax and wane over time.
That said, I do see that we are in a period of increased vitrol, which has been building for a few decades. I attribute this to an appearent change in philosophy from the right.
It seems to me that in the past we accepted the notion of the “loyal opposition”, the folks on the other side of the issue, battling away during the day and sitting down to drinks together a night. (Yes, I know, it’s an idyllic version that maybe never existed, but I use it for illustrative purposes.) What we have now, instead, is a stated goal of some thought leaders on the right to destroy the opposition, wipe them out, the ultimate goal being a one-party America.
Well, I don’t know about you, but, I don’t feel like being destroyed today, thank you very much. The right has been very organized and effective in the battle for a while now, but the left is starting to wake up.
So, I guess my conclusion is that, yes, a schism is forming. But, just like the ocean beating against the shore, there will always be an ocean, and there will always be a shore.
So much for being an Advanced Mind.
Starving Artist, that was an excellently written and intriguing post – remarkably balanced and presenting an interesting and in some ways valid (IMO) point of view.
But I would really like to have more detail on what you see as the negatives resulting from liberal activism. And I say that not to cast aspersions on them when you present them, but to see whether we have some grounds for agreement or not.
Well, I wasn’t. It was a (too obscure, I guess) joking reference to the Bush Administration’s “No child left behind” policy, used with an extra touch of irony since Aeschines’ comments in thie thread suggest he/she is not a Bush supporter.
Clearly, I should have skipped the post or added a smiley.