But what would be different about conservatives in the 60’s from today? I.e. what is it about conservatives that was sane in the 60’s but crazy today? What you are implying is that everybody who doesn’t believe like you is crazy, which is not the definition I know.
In a thread about how “no, both sides don’t do it” that’s a… remarkable… post.
No, a lot of them, bless their hearts, just don’t know any better!
This: in 1976, Jimmy Carter was a conservative. I kid you not, I remember it very well.
Sorry, but that is what the actual left-wing view looks like in a contemporary context. To be completely fair, it is unlikely that leftists think that the right-wingers are deliberately pursuing a plutocratic/oligarchic/totalitarian result, but that is the direction their agenda tacks, whether they mean for it to or not.
I’d ask you to prove that, but it would be impossible to do so. Even the Psychohistorians in Foundation weren’t that good!
Can you clarify what you mean by your first sentence, though? If I read that correctly, you are saying that is the mainstream view among those who self-identify as being “on the left”. Is that correct? I ask because I honestly am not sure what you mean, and I don’t want to misinterpret it.
You see, this is what I was talking about, superior intellect and keen powers of deduction. You are clearly capable of evaluating the GOP, then using facts and logic to very conclusively prove they are the worst team in the league.
But then you said this:
Why is it that you are able to accurately provide critical analysis of the GOP, but not the Dems? What happens in your brain that stops the process and leads you to conclude that you should vote for the Dems? Would you also pick the Timberwolves to win the championship?
My three year old niece is way fucking taller than her 1 year old brother. When I swing my arm it goes way over her head, sort of like this concept.
Well, “mainstream view … on the left” is kind of hard to parse, it sounds dodgy, almost an oxymoron. I guess it might be a sort of litmus test for where the boundary of “the left” can be found. But, most likely, leftists would criticize my statements, and rightly so, with a softly-spoken “DNFTT”.
I’m even more confused than before. Never mind.
Well, that’s nice, you are willing to offer me equivalence. Fuck that shit.
Have a glance at the histories of the nations of Central and South America. How many were ruled by murderous dictators with stupid military hats and aviator sunglasses? Of those, how many derived their main support from the US? How many had their main selling point as their firmly committed resistance to the dreadful specter of Communist revolution? Yep, they sure were anti-Communist.
The surprising thing is not how many citizens of those countries hate our guts. The surprise is how many don’t.
sigh I guess I read you wrong. When you say:
Are you talking about the Castros? Or maybe Hugo Chavez? And while I agree that the US supported some brutal regimes it wasn’t like the alternative was roses. I assume you’ve heard of the left-wing Shining Path? (Just to be clear, I am not excusing American support for brutal regimes.)
Once again you’re employing selective memory. One might be able to make a case that right-wing extremism was worse in Latin/South America but what do you do with Southeast Asia? Is there any Latin dictator that was as brutal as Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge?
Should we tally up the deaths caused by left-wing and right-wing extremism and see who wins (or loses)? You’re going to have a hard time overcoming just The Cultural Revolution. You can’t get any more stereotypical leftist than the Cultural Revolution (the bourgeois are trying to implement capitalism!) and the Chinese government estimates that 30 million people died, albeit many from starvation.
You left out this part of elucidator’s post:
I don’t think he was citing Central and South American regimes for their own sake, but rather as an example of the actions of U.S. parties in choosing to support them. That would tend to take Hugo Chavez of the table, so to speak, since I don’t recall any major figures from the American left expressing support (or much of anything, really) for him. I wasn’t around during the early part of Castro’s regime, so I don’t know who, if anyone, he received support from, but U.S. presidents and Congresses of both parties maintained sanctions against Cuba.
Ah, perhaps you’re right; my apologies if I misunderstood the intent. That’s a deeper question: was general US support for non-communist leaders justifiable? It was certainly a big win in South Korea, Taiwan, and West Germany but the choice of, say, Pinochet was a failure. It’s not like the Communist leaders covered themselves in glory when they did take over a country. But I’m not sure what that has to say on whether the left is more crazy or sane than the right.
That said, I do remember that there was a fair amount of support for the Vietnamese communists from the American left during the 70’s.
Now that is one kettle of worms you really do not want to dive into.
That’s a little before my time, but I do know there are varying degrees of support. There’d a difference, for example, between “those guys are absolutely right” and “let’s not drop napalm on them”.
In either case, it was 40+ years ago and may not usefully reflect what the two parties are like today.
You (and some others) have made a number of comments in this thread that I want to address as a general reply to the above.
No, conservatives weren’t crazy in the 60s, and they’re not crazy today. Republicans are. Conservatives today are just as fine a group as they ever were, if you can find any. But it seems they’ve been taken over by Republicans. There was a time when “Republican” was a fair synonym for “conservative”, meaning a traditionalist, resistant to radical change, in favor of balanced budgets, spending restraint, and the general principle of free markets, combined with essential social responsibilities – all in rational balance. As I’ve often mentioned here, even a staunch right-winger like Richard Nixon put forward a health care reform strategy very similar to the ACA; he established the EPA and opened up mutually beneficial relations with communist China.
Today most of the lunatics who call themselves “conservative” rant and rage against any of those kinds of initiatives. They indeed seek to reverse them when already established, and even talk about impeaching a President who has the gall to advocate such things as better health care for Americans by reforming a system that has been badly broken for at least half a century. “Conservative” used to mean responsible, restrained, traditional, the kind of guy who saves his money, spends carefully, rarely borrows, always wears a suit and tie and never leaves the house without his hat. Today it means Ted Cruz, Rick Perry, Sarah Palin, Michelle Backmann, Rick Santorum, and all the other lunatic imbeciles who have appropriated the label.
“Conservative”? These are radical extremists who’d like to demolish some of the most basic institutions of government and society, bomb the hell out of any country they don’t like, trash the environment, and discriminate against anyone different from themselves. When I see the word “conservative” applied to one of these clowns who by all rights should be seeking therapy in a mental hospital, I can’t help but think what the word “conservative” means in standard English, and I just have to laugh.
Just what, perzackly, do you mean here? Is it requirement of my patriotism that I honor my country? Yes. But tell me, how do I honor my country by not resisting dishonorable and odious acts? The patriotic sacrifice of ducking my head, sticking my hands in my pocket, and pretending I don’t see it?
You are coy. What, perzackly, is the correct interpretation of “a fair amount”? Are you offering sober analysis or sarcasm? Was it predominant, pervasive, and everybody knows it, nudge, nudge, wink wink, there were a fair amount of racists in the Ku Klux Klan…
Of course everybody saw the wild eyed and unkempt chanting about how Ho Chin Minh was going to win, that’s where the cameras were! They didn’t waste any valuable air time on the dull but earnest Methodist minister with the leather patches on his Goodwill sports coat.
What would you have me do, outside of argue? I did argue, sometimes strenuously, belying the calm placidity that Texans are known for. I was right, still think so, that John Kerry was a better spokescritter than Jerry Fucking Rubin, fer chrissake! I didnt have any authority to limit their speech, wouldn’t take it if it were offered.
Plus, they had a point. The Communists of Viet Nam were Vietnamese. They were fighting for their own damn country. In my basic book of geopolitics, the invaded have every right to resist their invader. The default position, if you will allow.
You can’t reasonably expect to just toss a line like that offhandedly. Or perhaps its that I’m the first red-blooded flag-waving all American radical lefty you ever met. In which case, you need to get out more.
Yeah, well, Deeg’s blood runs blue, so there!
Oh, I do evaluate the Dems positions. And they’re pretty much better across the board. Nuclear power would be nicer to pump. They try to hard at gun control. But otherwise, Dem isn’t generally as fucking stupid as the GOP’s, which is why I said it’s much better to vote for them.
Dems want to decrease teen pregnancy, increase access to birth control, keep tens of millions on their health insurance, keep pre-existing conditions and lifetime caps a thing of the past, actually address climate change, have reasonable regulations, shift the tax burden to levels where it is more progressively distributed, keeping the services that people depend on, increasing the minimum wage, reasonable immigration reform, protecting public education, etc. etc…
Assessing the stupidity of the right requires knowing what the left is pushing.
You said he was *slightly *smarter. So if it’s going over anyone’s head, it’s you.
I don’t think Governments supporting nasty regimes is the problem. It certainly wasn’t what I posted about earlier. Many nasty regimes the West have supported have been due to geo-political reasons only. It’s usually recognised these nasty regimes are just that, nasty. Earlier I wrote of the Left supporting Stalin etc. This support was ideological in the main. Too many on the Left refused to believe the crimes the SU committed. All the cites in the world didn’t convince many of them of the evil going on in the Soviet Union. If so many cunts existed on the intelletual Left back then its hard to believe they don’t exist in similar[ish] number in the intellectual Left today.