PDA

View Full Version : Voice from the Past


Florian
08-03-2010, 05:24 AM
This NY Times editorial by David Stockman, a former Reagan official, confirms what I have always suspected: that over the years the Republican Party has fallen prey to ideologues who make the ideologues of the Democratic Party look fairly sensible in comparison (in any case, the latter have almost no influence on national politics). When historians write the history of the decline of the American Empire in the year 2100, Republicans will figure prominently.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?src=me&ref=general

chiwhisoxx
08-03-2010, 09:53 AM
This NY Times editorial by David Stockman, a former Reagan official, confirms what I have always suspected: that over the years the Republican Party has fallen prey to ideologues who make the ideologues of the Democratic Party look fairly sensible in comparison (in any case, the latter have almost no influence on national politics). When historians write the history of the decline of the American Empire in the year 2100, Republicans will figure prominently.


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/opinion/01stockman.html?src=me&ref=general

For the record, someone already posted this somewhere else. Anyways, can we stop using "former Reagan official" as a cudgel? Stockman was never on board with conservative tax policy, he said as much in an Atlantic interview, which caused Reagan to fire him. Why is this a thrilling story? And can we stop using ideologue as a perjorative?

AemJeff
08-03-2010, 10:20 AM
...And can we stop using ideologue as a perjorative?

Why would we want to do that?

Florian
08-03-2010, 11:41 AM
For the record, someone already posted this somewhere else. Anyways, can we stop using "former Reagan official" as a cudgel? Stockman was never on board with conservative tax policy, he said as much in an Atlantic interview, which caused Reagan to fire him. Why is this a thrilling story? And can we stop using ideologue as a perjorative?

I was unaware that "thrilling" was a criterion for posting in this forum. Your puerile reaction isn't very thrilling either.

Contemporary conservatives, especially ones like you born yesterday, have absolutely no idea how far the Republican party and its intellectual standards have declined in the past 30 years. That why my American relatives, at one time Rockefeller Republicans, abandoned the ship of fools long ago.

chiwhisoxx
08-03-2010, 11:44 AM
I was unaware that "thrilling" was a criterion for posting in this forum. Your puerile reaction isn't very thrilling either.

Contemporary conservatives, especially ones like you born yesterday, have absolutely no idea how far the Republican party and its intellectual standards have declined in the past 30 years. That why my American relatives, at one time Rockefeller Republicans, abandoned the ship of fools long ago.

Ah, the age card, that's a refreshing take. Tell me more about your American relatives though, because their own political biases clearly reflect the entire thoughts and ideas of a nation.

Florian
08-03-2010, 12:10 PM
Ah, the age card, that's a refreshing take. Tell me more about your American relatives though, because their own political biases clearly reflect the entire thoughts and ideas of a nation.

I only divulge private details to friends. Their biases did and do reflect some of the (not the entire) thoughts and ideas of a nation, but those ideas are not represented by your party. And Stockman explains why.

bjkeefe
08-03-2010, 03:26 PM
For the record, someone already posted this somewhere else.

Thanks for noticing.
((signed) someone (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=172870&highlight=stockman#post172870))

Anyways, can we stop using "former Reagan official" as a cudgel?

Can we (and by "we," I mean "you wingnuts") stop using the most hysterical words possible? I swear, cudgel, attacks, destroys, ... there is a pattern here.

Why is this a thrilling story?

I don't think it's "thrilling" (and there you go with your hysterical words again), but it is interesting and useful to note by comparison how far into crazy-land the current top officials in the GOP have drifted.

And can we stop using ideologue as a perjorative?

Can we learn how to spell pejorative? And more generally, can we use a browser that has built-in, on-the-fly spell-check?

Also, can we get people such as you and your buddies to stop using these -- liberal, the left, leftist, progressive, secular, partisan -- as pejoratives, first?

Didn't think so. But I thought I'd ask.

chiwhisoxx
08-03-2010, 05:10 PM
Thanks for noticing.
((signed) someone (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?p=172870&highlight=stockman#post172870))



Can we (and by "we," I mean "you wingnuts") stop using the most hysterical words possible? I swear, cudgel, attacks, destroys, ... there is a pattern here.



I don't think it's "thrilling" (and there you go with your hysterical words again), but it is interesting and useful to note by comparison how far into crazy-land the current top officials in the GOP have drifted.



Can we learn how to spell pejorative? And more generally, can we use a browser that has built-in, on-the-fly spell-check?

Also, can we get people such as you and your buddies to stop using these -- liberal, the left, leftist, progressive, secular, partisan -- as pejoratives, first?

Didn't think so. But I thought I'd ask.

Thanks for substantively addressing my post. One can never get enough "I know you are but what am I?" in a given day. Oh, and the irony of using wingnut and then complaining about pejoratives is greatly appreciated.

TwinSwords
08-03-2010, 06:15 PM
For the record, someone already posted this somewhere else.
If I can take this opportunity to vent. I hate it when people play nanny and imply people did something wrong when they post something that has been posted elsewhere in the forum. The forum's a big place; there are a lot of posts and a lot of pages. Not all users live on the forum and read every last word posted -- nor should they be expected to.

I'd much rather err on the side of allowing people to feel comfortable posting without having to worry that some busybody is going to come along and scold them. The busybodies need to realize that (a) it's impossible to keep the forum in some idealized pristine and clean state; (b) different users have different ideas about how prominently something should be featured. You might be right that someone else linked to the Stockman article within some thread; but no one STARTED a whole thread on it, did they? If Florian thinks that this op-ed by Stockman is important enough to justify a new thread, he's within his rights to use the platform to that end.

Frankly I'd like to see Florian post a lot more new threads and offer a lot more commentary; his insights surpass those of most.


Anyways, can we stop using "former Reagan official" as a cudgel? Stockman was never on board with conservative tax policy, he said as much in an Atlantic interview, which caused Reagan to fire him. Why is this a thrilling story? And can we stop using ideologue as a perjorative?
Anything to say about the substance of Stockman's critique? You should be happy about it: he's encouraging "austerity," which is Republican for "fuck the people."

TwinSwords
08-03-2010, 06:27 PM
Ah, the age card, that's a refreshing take. Tell me more about your American relatives though, because their own political biases clearly reflect the entire thoughts and ideas of a nation.
Again, you sidestep the actually quite interesting substance of Florian's post. The truth is that the Republican Party wasn't always the home for deranged psychopaths. If you look at the Republican Party platform from 50 years ago, they were more liberal than the Democrats are today in many important respects. Your party has been on a steady slide into ultraconservative extremism for several decades.

I saw the results of a very interesting longitudinal study a couple of years ago. It tracked voters over a 40 or 50 year period. What it found, perhaps remarkably, is that once people form a political identity -- Republican or Democrat -- they stick with it for the rest of their lives. The study showed that over the length of the study (40-50 years), only something like 4% or 5% of voters switched parties. There was an exception for the rather more sudden migration of white southern conservatives from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party coinciding with the Republican Party's conscious decision to attract voters by appealing to racism, racial grevience, and racial anxiety -- a program that was initiated in 1966, by Richard Nixon.

Why do I mention this longitudinal study and the fact that people adhere to their parties throughout their lives, regardless of the transformation of those parties over time?

Because it's an excuse for older people. We have a couple in this forum who have described their long emotional attachments to the Republican Party of the middle of the last century. That's when they merged their self-identity with the Republican identity, and can't see themselves doing any different now, even though their party has been taken over by monsters like Limbaugh and Beck.

But what about you, Chi? You're in your 20s. You have no such excuse. The older Republicans were attracted to a relative sane and moderate party for respectable people.

But you? You found yourself attracted to a very different party -- one that lives and breathes hate and war and economic misery for most Americans.

I know I should be more understanding. But I really don't know how you can consider yourself a decent person even as you lend your support to the likes of Andrew Breitbart.

bjkeefe
08-04-2010, 12:29 AM
Thanks for substantively addressing my post.

You will always be answered by me in kind.