Bloggingheads Community

Bloggingheads Community (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/index.php)
-   Diavlog comments (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   The Wonder Years (http://bloggingheads.tv/forum/showthread.php?t=2368)

Bloggingheads 11-17-2008 06:13 PM

The Wonder Years
 

claymisher 11-17-2008 06:17 PM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
In a recent episode Brink got perilously close to sanity. I thought he was about to endorse Obama! So this should be interesting.

claymisher 11-17-2008 07:24 PM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
I was wrong. You can skip the first 37 minutes, unless you want to hear the conservative view of the last 40 years.

nojp 11-17-2008 07:36 PM

The Wonder of frum
 
Are you F ing kidding me....

We borrowed every bit of the Reagan prosperity and we now have 10+ trillion in debt and have 3 million people locked up but by god we have clean shiny safe cities....good job frum what about sustainability?

nikkibong 11-17-2008 08:26 PM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by claymisher (Post 97712)
In a recent episode Brink got perilously close to sanity. I thought he was about to endorse Obama! So this should be interesting.

clay, he actually did endorse obama.

sugarkang 11-17-2008 08:42 PM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
brink is my new favorite guy for all things that make sense.

i wish they'd talk about the need for a new type of social conservatism.
the religious right are the only ones advocating social conservatism. the problem with them is that their arguments are premised on the existence of jesus. so too many of the left end up dismissing social conservatism outright because their supporters seem so illogical. and yet, by dismissing social conservatism outright, we are only left with hedonism... which as brink pointed out, will not lead to prosperity.

i'd like to see a new brand of nationalism and cultural identity that transcends existing ethnic and class divisions. in sum, we need a new, inclusive social conservatism to take the place of the existing waspy one. i suppose obama's life story is the best representative of that ideal..

television and music are the best markers for what we value as a society. we used to see ayn rand on television in the 1950s. people used to be famous because they were important. now our society thinks that people are important *because* they are famous.

hard work is no longer a virtue, but is in fact a waste of time. we need a new ideology that counteracts these forces. we need a new social consciousness that isn't so blatantly anti-rational as christianity.

2008 may have brought an end to the importance of the ignorant southern evangelical vote, but now we face a new problem... the equally anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-pragmatist liberals. e.g., vegans, subscribers of homeopathic remedies, eco-terrorists.

fedorovingtonboop 11-17-2008 09:35 PM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
david frum <-- do not want

claymisher 11-17-2008 09:40 PM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
Aw, I like a conservative who can just come out and say it. Stuff like, "the social safety net is bad because people need to have the fear of starvation in 'em." That beats a bunch of mumbling about the magical free market.

Wonderment 11-17-2008 09:48 PM

Re: The Wonder of frum
 
Quote:

we now have 10+ trillion in debt and have 3 million people locked up but by god we have clean shiny safe cities...
But the best part is when I wear shorts the backs of my legs don't stick to the vinyl seats in the orange Gremlin.

osmium 11-17-2008 10:36 PM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
I enjoyed this discussion a lot. Getting to see what people really think, no talking points, and everyone likes each other--how much better could it get?

Dear David, When you went for the radio I was like no no no no nope, because radio was just fine in the 70s and completely blows now. But ok, you said iPod, iPod, ok sure. You could even put some 70s stuff on there. KC and the Sunshine Band aside...

cmonsour 11-17-2008 11:11 PM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
I disagree with David Frum too strongly in temperament and basic sympathies to find his arguments convincing. But I enjoyed this conversation. I remember Frum's Bloggingheads episode with Mark Schmitt, which should have been excellent but which was a total waste of time, mainly because Frum was condescending and apparently uninterested in real dialog. (He did later post some more reasonable thoughts, though still not ones I agreed with.)

I wonder what Frum would be like if he were less of (as he characterizes himself) a "party man." At any rate, he represents the sane wing of the Republican party at this point. I hope he manages to help turn his party around -- though I hope it doesn't happen for a while, because I hope the reinvigorated center-left will get a nice, long opportunity to try its hand at steering the ship of state. It's certainly possible that they (we) could screw things up (or fail to unscrew them). But if they manage not to, things might just get really good again.

nikkibong 11-18-2008 01:39 AM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
Um. Wow. Behold Brink Lindsey, "sensible" conservative, labeling the Civil Rights Movement and Feminism "crazy radical excesses."

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/159...5:28&out=15:40

The kind of right-wing social history provided in this diavlog is fascinating, if a little bit scary at times.

Ocean 11-18-2008 02:13 AM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 97730)
Um. Wow. Behold Brink Lindsey, "sensible" conservative, labeling the Civil Rights Movement and Feminism "crazy radical excesses."

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/159...5:28&out=15:40

The kind of right-wing social history provided in this diavlog is fascinating, if a little bit scary at times.

Distorted story nonetheless...

Ocean 11-18-2008 02:16 AM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
We all bring with us our little stories. Brink and David are no exception. One can take any period in history and create as many stories as one’s own imagination desires. One just has to pick and choose what facts or quasi-facts are convenient for one's plot and voila! One becomes a novel writer or a historian.

The rest of my comment, which contains the ‘Truth’ will be written in my first language.

Señores, están bastante confundidos en cuanto a la historia de su propio país. El error es tan grosero, que la única solución, por el momento, es que vayan a confesarse inmediatamente, y luego, en penitencia, recen 1,500 Padre Nuestros y 1,500 Ave Marías. Noten el detalle delicado de la equivalencia numérica: se trata del principio de igualdad, del cual ustedes están bastante lejos. Pero, claro, siempre hay esperanza…

Good try.

bramble 11-18-2008 02:16 AM

Unanswered
 
A tally sheet of the conservative Republican era:

1) Liberalizing trade: accomplished, Democrats on board more or less.

2) Unfettering markets: accomplished, Democrats on board more or less.

3) De-unionizing workforce: mostly accomplished, Democrats mostly NOT on board, and rising inequality creates conditions for this to be reversed. (Side question: if the UAW dies with GM, will this be a good or bad thing for the American union movement?)

4) Reduce entitlements/reduce size of federal government: net failure on both counts, though I guess one can count Welfare reform as a Pyrrhic victory.

5) Law and Order/guns issues: somewhat to mostly accomplished, though to my liberal eyes the rise of the illicit drug market, the gang problem and the prison industry makes the whole enterprise seem like a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Democrats on board.

6) Hawkish Foreign Policy, accomplished, though from my perspective of the 20th Century to the present the doves have never really had much of a place at the table under either party. The notion that peaceniks ended Vietnam has been wildly exaggerated. Democrats on board, but poised to jump off for a while.

7) Abortion and other "family values" issues: net failure. Democrats no longer looking to Tipper Gore for talking points.

There are probably other categories that I've neglected, but it appears from my list that the most unambiguous accomplishments correspond to the demands of globalism. That begs a question. Was conservative ideology or an evolving economic structure the agency of conservative success?

That's the question I'd like to see conservatives debate.

banco 11-18-2008 02:18 AM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
Good to see libertarian versus conservative rather then liberal versus conservative

Ocean 11-18-2008 02:30 AM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by banco (Post 97735)
Good to see libertarian versus conservative rather then liberal versus conservative

Hard to reach a conclusion with this kind of story...

Ocean 11-18-2008 02:34 AM

Re: Unanswered
 
Quote:


7) Abortion and other "family values" issues: net failure. Democrats no longer looking to Tipper Gore for talking points.

There are probably other categories that I've neglected, but it appears from my list that the most unambiguous accomplishments correspond to the demands of globalism. That begs a question. Was conservative ideology or an evolving economic structure the agency of conservative success?
Would you mind rephrasing these points?

thprop 11-18-2008 03:11 AM

The Evangelical Dixiecrats
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by rcocean (Post 97725)
My sincere hope is that Brink and Frum both leave** the Republican party and go to "Save" the Democrats. They're really both liberals at heart, and elitist to the core. It will be best for all concerned - especially Conservatives and Republicans who like winning. And I'm sure the Democrats will love having two more Harvard Law Grads.

What Republican Party? It no longer exists. A good name for the carcass would be The Evangelical Dixiecrats. The GOP is libeling the name of Lincoln and other great Republicans by keeping the name.

Although these days, I sometimes think Lincoln should not have saved the Union. He should have let the south go - to be backward to this day, run by the Evangelical Dixiecrats. The US had to drag the south kicking and screaming out of its ignorance beginning in the 1950's. I think we would be better off without Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and the rest of the shithole that made up the Confederate States of America.

avatar299 11-18-2008 04:02 AM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
Some of the smartest people in this country have come from that shithole. There really is no reason to act like such an idiot about a certain part of the country.

sugarkang 11-18-2008 05:22 AM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by avatar299 (Post 97739)
Some of the smartest people in this country have come from that shithole. There really is no reason to act like such an idiot about a certain part of the country.

i think brink spent his childhood in the south but i could be wrong.
i wouldn't write off the entire south as intellectually devoid.
just the bitter ones who cling to guns and religion.

the left ends up putting the lablel of closedminded, racist, bible thumper on the entire right.
when in fact the intellectual conservatives are nothing near that.
don't forget william f. buckley called for drug legalization.

libertasanimus 11-18-2008 05:29 AM

Re: The Wonder of frum
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nojp (Post 97716)
Are you F ing kidding me....

We borrowed every bit of the Reagan prosperity and we now have 10+ trillion in debt and have 3 million people locked up but by god we have clean shiny safe cities....good job frum what about sustainability?

I agree with Brink, but I respect Frum and I think that based on his statements in the diavlog that he cares about the environment and sustainability. Check out the last fifteen minutes of the diavlog, Frum was critizizing the '08 Republican Convention for having "drill, baby, drill" as a slogan. Later, he states that the Republican party needs to embrace environmentalism in order to have a shot at regaining power.

libertasanimus 11-18-2008 05:38 AM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 97719)
brink is my new favorite guy for all things that make sense.

i wish they'd talk about the need for a new type of social conservatism.
the religious right are the only ones advocating social conservatism. the problem with them is that their arguments are premised on the existence of jesus. so too many of the left end up dismissing social conservatism outright because their supporters seem so illogical. and yet, by dismissing social conservatism outright, we are only left with hedonism... which as brink pointed out, will not lead to prosperity.

i'd like to see a new brand of nationalism and cultural identity that transcends existing ethnic and class divisions. in sum, we need a new, inclusive social conservatism to take the place of the existing waspy one. i suppose obama's life story is the best representative of that ideal..

television and music are the best markers for what we value as a society. we used to see ayn rand on television in the 1950s. people used to be famous because they were important. now our society thinks that people are important *because* they are famous.

hard work is no longer a virtue, but is in fact a waste of time. we need a new ideology that counteracts these forces. we need a new social consciousness that isn't so blatantly anti-rational as christianity.

2008 may have brought an end to the importance of the ignorant southern evangelical vote, but now we face a new problem... the equally anti-intellectual, anti-science, anti-pragmatist liberals. e.g., vegans, subscribers of homeopathic remedies, eco-terrorists.

I agree with some of your ideas and don't understand how you reach some of your other conclusions. Could you specifically explain what is irrational about veganism, homeopathic remedies, and eco-terrorism?

libertasanimus 11-18-2008 05:41 AM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by claymisher (Post 97721)
Aw, I like a conservative who can just come out and say it. Stuff like, "the social safety net is bad because people need to have the fear of starvation in 'em." That beats a bunch of mumbling about the magical free market.

When I meet such people I usually refer them to this passage from the book that gave birth to capitalism:

"The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. A tax upon house-rents, therefore, would in general fall heaviest upon the rich; and in this sort of inequality there would not, perhaps, be anything very unreasonable. It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."
-Adam Smith

I encourage you to do the same. The ignorance or intellectual dishonesty of conservatives on the progressive tax (social safety net) disappoints me.

libertasanimus 11-18-2008 05:46 AM

Re: The Evangelical Dixiecrats
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by thprop (Post 97738)
What Republican Party? It no longer exists. A good name for the carcass would be The Evangelical Dixiecrats. The GOP is libeling the name of Lincoln and other great Republicans by keeping the name.

Although these days, I sometimes think Lincoln should not have saved the Union. He should have let the south go - to be backward to this day, run by the Evangelical Dixiecrats. The US had to drag the south kicking and screaming out of its ignorance beginning in the 1950's. I think we would be better off without Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and the rest of the shithole that made up the Confederate States of America.

Philisophically I am a libertarian, but until technology makes libertarianism feasible I am a center-left democrat, so I share your hope that this was a realigning election. But, Nate Silver at 538 recently wrote this:

"Was 2008 A Realigning Election? Ask Me In Eight Years.
This whole debate about whether 2008 was or was not a 'realigning' election is rather silly.

Since the turn of the last century, there have been 11 cases in which the presidency changed parties: 1912 (Wilson), 1920 (Harding), 1932 (Roosevelt), 1952 (Eisenhower), 1960 (Kennedy), 1968 (Nixon), 1976 (Carter), 1980 (Reagan), 1992 (Clinton), 2000 (Bush), and 2008 (Obama). In 9 of the 11 cases, the party winning the presidency had also made substantial gains in the Congress as compared with four years' earlier (although not necessarily as compared with two years' earlier). The two exceptions were the last two party changes before Obama: Clinton in 1992, when the Democrats were pretty much treading water in the Congress, and Bush in 2000, when the Republicans were doing likewise.

What ultimately distinguishes the elections that are considered to have been realignments is the efficacy of the governance of the rising party, rather than the force with which said party took office. Ronald Reagan and FDR, famously, had coattails -- but so did Warren G. Harding, who brought the Republicans a net gain of 123 (!) seats in the House in 1920. One might likewise have been tempted to consider the combination of the Democrats' landslide in the 1974 midterms and Jimmy Carter's ascendancy in 1976 a 'realignment'. Reagan and FDR, however, were effective Presidents, whereas Carter and Harding were not, quickly managing to relinquish most of what they had gained. Barack Obama, perhaps, may be the first President since Reagan in 1980 to have an opportunity to realign the country; whether or not he'll do so is another matter.

(As to the two exceptions I discussed earlier: I think you can argue, in essence, that Bill Clinton's election was something of an historical accident, a correction in the long bull market for conservatives that ran from 1980 through 2006. And Clinton governed from the center, arguably accomplishing more for conservatives during his presidency than he did for liberals, ranging from the Defense of Marriage Act to NAFTA to welfare reform.)"


I think his argument is sound and therefore I don't think we should believe that this was a "realignment." It may be a realignment, but we won't know for sure until 2012. Let me know what you think.

libertasanimus 11-18-2008 05:53 AM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by cmonsour (Post 97728)
I disagree with David Frum too strongly in temperament and basic sympathies to find his arguments convincing. But I enjoyed this conversation. I remember Frum's Bloggingheads episode with Mark Schmitt, which should have been excellent but which was a total waste of time, mainly because Frum was condescending and apparently uninterested in real dialog. (He did later post some more reasonable thoughts, though still not ones I agreed with.)

I wonder what Frum would be like if he were less of (as he characterizes himself) a "party man." At any rate, he represents the sane wing of the Republican party at this point. I hope he manages to help turn his party around -- though I hope it doesn't happen for a while, because I hope the reinvigorated center-left will get a nice, long opportunity to try its hand at steering the ship of state. It's certainly possible that they (we) could screw things up (or fail to unscrew them). But if they manage not to, things might just get really good again.

I respect David Frum. I'm a liberal, but I try to be reasonable and read The National Review and now that I've read that he is leaving I don't see how I can continue reading it.

You say that you disagree with Frum's temperament and sympathies too much to find his arguments convincing. In this diavalog, he explained that he can't trust the democratic party because he feels that the party's basic sympathies aren't in the right place. What do you think he meant by that?

libertasanimus 11-18-2008 06:11 AM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by nikkibong (Post 97730)
Um. Wow. Behold Brink Lindsey, "sensible" conservative, labeling the Civil Rights Movement and Feminism "crazy radical excesses."

http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/159...5:28&out=15:40

The kind of right-wing social history provided in this diavlog is fascinating, if a little bit scary at times.

I respect Brink and I am 99.999999% certain that he is and always has been an equal supporter of equal rights for ethnic minorities and women. He is a libertarian from the Cato Institute after all. He clearly stated that he supported Reagan because he felt that the economic issues were the most important issue. From a civil rights or woman's rights perspective, that is the best approach. Minorities and women suffer more in bad economic times, so if a reasonably person in the 80's who did their homework concluded that Reaganism was going to get the economy on track, we shouldn't mock such a reasonable position.

I think when he used that label to talk about the Civil Rights and Feminist movements, he meant the radical fringe elements. Certainly the Panthers and Redstockings could have been more diplomatic in presenting their legitimate grievances before the American people. Had they been more diplomatic, the "silent majority" who were New Deal democrats probably wouldn't have left the democratic party.

I cannot predict your political affiliations, but I doubt you are a full throated supporter of the radical environmentalist groups like the ELF. Twenty years from now when we discuss environmentalism, we might characterize some aspects of the movement as "crazy radical excesses" in the context of a free flowing diavalog and if we do that, it shouldn't be proof that we are not environmentalists.

libertasanimus 11-18-2008 06:12 AM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
You suggest that Brink and Frum have grossly mischaracterized history. What specific inferences or specific facts that they used to support their historical conclusions do you dispute?

libertasanimus 11-18-2008 06:18 AM

Re: Unanswered
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bramble (Post 97734)
A tally sheet of the conservative Republican era:

1) Liberalizing trade: accomplished, Democrats on board more or less.

2) Unfettering markets: accomplished, Democrats on board more or less.

3) De-unionizing workforce: mostly accomplished, Democrats mostly NOT on board, and rising inequality creates conditions for this to be reversed. (Side question: if the UAW dies with GM, will this be a good or bad thing for the American union movement?)

4) Reduce entitlements/reduce size of federal government: net failure on both counts, though I guess one can count Welfare reform as a Pyrrhic victory.

5) Law and Order/guns issues: somewhat to mostly accomplished, though to my liberal eyes the rise of the illicit drug market, the gang problem and the prison industry makes the whole enterprise seem like a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. Democrats on board.

6) Hawkish Foreign Policy, accomplished, though from my perspective of the 20th Century to the present the doves have never really had much of a place at the table under either party. The notion that peaceniks ended Vietnam has been wildly exaggerated. Democrats on board, but poised to jump off for a while.

7) Abortion and other "family values" issues: net failure. Democrats no longer looking to Tipper Gore for talking points.

There are probably other categories that I've neglected, but it appears from my list that the most unambiguous accomplishments correspond to the demands of globalism. That begs a question. Was conservative ideology or an evolving economic structure the agency of conservative success?

That's the question I'd like to see conservatives debate.

I am more interested in the truth than ideology so allow me to try to answer your question.

I think that conservative economic ideology coupled with liberal international institutions was the agency for conservative success, but I think that the conservative economic ideology is the necessary condition for the economic structure. Globalization = Liberalization. Liberalization = free flows of capital, goods, and services across national borders. In other words, the economic system evolved because economic conservatives took over the government of the most powerful country on earth and began promoting their liberal deregulation philosophy around the world.

libertasanimus 11-18-2008 06:20 AM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 97736)
Hard to reach a conclusion with this kind of story...

What do you mean? What conclusion were you hoping for?

libertasanimus 11-18-2008 06:25 AM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarkang (Post 97740)
i think brink spent his childhood in the south but i could be wrong.
i wouldn't write off the entire south as intellectually devoid.
just the bitter ones who cling to guns and religion.

the left ends up putting the lablel of closedminded, racist, bible thumper on the entire right.
when in fact the intellectual conservatives are nothing near that.
don't forget william f. buckley called for drug legalization.

Thank you. I'm a progressive who sincerely appreciates libertarianism who votes democratic.

Conservatives aren't stupid, they (literally) have different moral values.

15 minute video explaining this:

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/j...oral_mind.html

If you enjoyed that read this:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haid...t08_index.html

bjk 11-18-2008 06:56 AM

Pay No Attention to the Trillion Dollar War
 
It's almost as if the Republicans and David Frum had nothing to do with the war, or McCain wasn't the war hero candidate. The voters rejected the Bush/McCain foreign policy, they didn't reject conservative health care policy, as if Republicans could ever win on that issue.

brucds 11-18-2008 09:37 AM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
I have trouble taking any social or political narrative seriously from a guy who coined "Axis of Evil" to describe three totally disparate regimes and co-authored a book titled rather ambitiously "The End of Evil" (with Richard Perle, no less.) Just because one recognized that Sarah Palin was utterly shallow, dishonest and demagogic and had the self-confidence to note same on a website overseen by a gal with the analytic competence of a high school cheerleader (Kathryn Jean Lopez) and populated mostly by hacks and hysterics doesn't mean you're "public intellectual" of any consequence. I do love the obvious disarray coming from these shoddy corners.

brucds 11-18-2008 09:43 AM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
I'm trying to figure out why I've seen Frum and Lindsey on this site so many times, but I have yet to see Andrew Bacevich or Robert Kuttner, both of whom have important recent books.

bkjazfan 11-18-2008 10:27 AM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
I think that party loyality is diminshing over time. Now the dems are up and repubs are down and who knows what the arrangement will be 20 years down the road. I do think that the number of people who are registered declined to state or independent will have grown. In California I once read an article that in so many years the independent registration will be on par with the democrats.

For reasons I can't explain the libertarians have not gotten too much traction over all these years. I thought by '08 they would have a presence in the electorate but it remains miniscule. Also, the other third parties seemed to have disappeared.

John

Ocean 11-18-2008 11:56 AM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
Thank you for your thought-provoking comments and links. I think that Haidt's work is very valuable.

Ocean 11-18-2008 01:04 PM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by libertasanimus (Post 97748)
You suggest that Brink and Frum have grossly mischaracterized history. What specific inferences or specific facts that they used to support their historical conclusions do you dispute?

I tried to place a dingalink here but I was unable to do it for some odd reason.

There are multiple aspects of this discussion that I had problems with. I found that some of the narrative was meaningful but there were many aspects that just didn't fit. I found myself taken aback by some of the bias displayed by two obviously intelligent and knowledgeable people.

Among other things I found some of the explanations given to the rise of liberalism, civil rights and hippie culture in the 60's, simplistic to say the least. Brink, for example says that as a result of the post-war economic growth int the 50's, people kind of started 'looking around thinking about happiness and pleasure and ended up in hedonism'. Wow! He included civil rights movement and feminism! Is he implying these are aspects of hedonism? Pleasure seeking? At most one could say that at the time a new balance was reached after the economic and war turmoil of previous decades and people had to come to terms with some painful realities about their own "slavery". Perhaps it was a result of a society reaching a certain degree of maturity. That generation also reacted to the conservatism of the previous generations. Perhaps people looked at their parents' lives and saw their shortcomings. How many women in the feminist movement may have looked at their mothers imprisoned in a repressive society that never allowed their full development? How many blacks may have realized that their parents or themselves fought side by side in the wars, worked hard to build this country, took care of their children and yet they were always unappreciated and left behind? Were they supposed to stay in this prison for ever? Are they to be blamed when they ask to have their conditions changed, and after years of not getting a response they finally say "No more!". And even then, silence and disregard from the other side. How many of those people may have reached the point of demanding their freedom, and the other side would say "next year". How many next years? Sometimes when people haven't been able to cut their chains and they remain prisoners in their cells, they create a world of fantasy. Escapism is the illusion of freedom when freedom doesn't exist. But it's a weak and temporary solution. It's a way to ease their pain. And they talk about hedonism!

So, yes, I had a negative response to this diavlog because of its shallowness in perspective, and because it ignores the root causes of the deep social changes in the 60's. Let's just think where we would be if the civil rights movement had been squashed in order to maintain status quo.

I would suggest that if the topic of civil rights is going to be discussed, they invite a discussant who represents those minorities, instead of two members of the 'establishment'. It looks like they see these social changes as a 'hobby'. It may be hyperbole on my part, but it illustrates the point. And I'm sure that both Brink and David are able to do a better job on this topic. They somehow got in a peculiar perspective.

And if the topic is going to be about hedonism, please discuss it in more depth, which would be quite interesting, but don't confuse the topics.

claymisher 11-18-2008 01:11 PM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
It is sickening how certain conservatives lump racial and gender equality in with permissiveness and lawlessness. That's yer privilege talking there.

Ocean 11-18-2008 01:26 PM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by claymisher (Post 97768)
It is sickening how certain conservatives lump racial and gender equality in with permissiveness and lawlessness. That's yer privilege talking there.

Clay,

Present your ideas for discussion. I'm very interested to hear (read?) more. I'm going to be out for a while though...

Ray 11-18-2008 02:00 PM

Re: The Wonder Years
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ocean (Post 97766)
Brink, for example says that as a result of the post-war economic growth int the 50's, people kind of started 'looking around thinking about happiness and pleasure and ended up in hedonism'. Wow! He included civil rights movement and feminism! Is he implying these are aspects of hedonism? Pleasure seeking?

Yeah. What is it with conservatives and libertarians and television? It's strange how much TV dominates their understanding of the world.

Hippies were telegenic. So was Beaver Cleaver. Neither accurately represents or explains an historical period.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.