Street Prophets

Arrogance, Elitism, and Opiates for the Masses II

Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:16:55 PM PDT

[Continued from Part I]

I left the Left (or at least activism) in the late 70's for one conscious reason: I came to believe the radical Left would NEVER reach the working class that they wished to organize. EVER. Barack Obama's San Francisco speech about workers in Pennsylvania clearly shows why: we just didn't get the "culture" - and our philosophical, sociological, and political explanations about why "they" [key word that] just couldn't see why we were right were just not right. We were indeed, as Spiro Agnew called us, "nattering nabobs of negativity" and "effete intellectual snobs".

I left the Left for some unconscious reasons as well:

I - not by design - "immersed myself in the working class": I got married to a fellow activist with four children aged 9-12 and I had to pay attention to my family, my job, and my life. I would swing a hammer as a carpenter for the next 15 years until I got injured on the job. Also, halfway through that period I stopped being a hard agnostic when I "came to Christ" in 1995.

As PastorDan pointed out in "Rural Voters, Values Voters, And The Bitterness Of The Elites":

Even setting those issues aside, working class people tend to be somewhat parochial. I don't mean that as a criticism: it's just that they're focused on what happens at the shop, or at church, or in the neighborhood. The town board is pushing a plan to build a park. They also have a reputation for being a good-old-boys club. Both issues are keeping our neighbors up at night: the friendly biker across the road is mulling a run for the board, which we're encouraging for no better reason than that we like him. He also hates the bar down the street as much as we do. That's a good thing. But the point is that the focus around here is definitely on around here.

It goes deeper yet in my mind: the family, the neighborhood, the shop, and the church are inherently conservative, and organic, structures. Organic in that they are not "organized" [except the shop - yet it can develop an organic culture] - they arise naturally out of human interaction. Conservative in a non-political sense that parallels the political sense spoken of by Russell Kirk:

  1. Belief in a transcendent order, or body of natural law, which rules society as well as conscience. Political problems, at bottom, are religious and moral problems. A narrow rationality . . . cannot of itself satisfy human needs
  2. Conviction that civilized society requires orders and classes . . . equality of condition, they think, means equality in servitude and boredom.
  3. Persuasion that freedom and property are closely linked
  4. Faith in prescription and distrust of "sophisters, calculators, and economists" . . . Custom, convention, and old prescription are checks both upon man's anarchic impulse and upon the innovator's lust for power.
  5. Recognition that change may not be salutory reform: hasty innovation may be a devouring conflagration, rather than a torch of progress. Society must alter, for prudent change is the means of social preservation; but a person must take Providence into his calculations, and a person's chief virtue . . . is prudence.
The shorter version: that family, tradition, land, and faith are the tap roots from which the vast majority of folks' in the world draw their strength and endurance - and not something they "cling to" [unless, of course, you think plants "cling to" their roots during draughts]: it is just part of what they are. As Rick Moran said - they are "embraced and welcomed into their lives". Even Moran, now an atheist, gets this:

Once a Catholic, always a Catholic – that’s me, alright. Despite the fact I have long since left the Church, God, Jesus, the Holy Ghost (changed to "Spirit" in my youth; so much for the immutability of the divine), organized religion, and the idea of the supernatural altogether, I am still a Catholic.

I think like a Catholic. My worldview has been shaped – though not dominated – by Catholicism. In this, the nuns, the priests, the brothers, and probably a monk or two have left their mark on my intellectual, social, and spiritual development. And I will thank them for it till my dying breath. There is great beauty to be found in the strands of logic and insightful, penetrating analysis of humanity by Catholic thinkers like Augustine, Aquinas, Newman, and other Catholic theologians and philosophers.

So, the Left in my day failed to touch the working class with their ideology because they could not step into and embrace their world - they could not stand in their shoes, or share their roots, long enough to show them the correct direction to walk in them [assuming, of course, we even actually knew the right direction].

When the Apostle Paul gave his famous speech on Mars Hill he understood that point: he did not start from a point of criticism but by understanding the roots of that audience and who they were:

So Paul stood before the Areopagus and said, "Men of Athens, I see that you are very religious in all respects. For as I went around and observed closely your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: ‘To an unknown god.’ Therefore what you worship without knowing it, this I proclaim to you.

Of course, political activism tends to run counter to a couple of important "beautiful attitudes" at the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount:

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them."

"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth."

There are some that it coincides with as well:

"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied.

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the children of God.

"Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them.

That assumes that your politics are bringing true righteousness, justice and peace as God sees those terms.

True political activism also requires a servant's heart - the first will be last and the last will be first. If you want to lead, you must submit yourself to the needs of those you lead - and, of course, understand what those needs are. The Left has always thought that was economic - it isn't. That is why folks vote against their "economic interests".

However, I really have come to the threads of my current life: evangelical Christianity (and sales). Everything said above applies to that as well. Folks outside the Body of Christ have also put down their tap roots into sources of strength and endurance - and you simply cannot tell them the source of their strength is "wrong". You have to come into their world as Paul did above and lovingly serve them where they are: you have to be part of their community, job, traditions, etc. - and then show them by your fruit that your roots are planted in a better wellspring.

For the sales aspect, I will just leave you with this commercial from an automatic group:


Tags: assumptions, Evangelicalism, Fear, Political action, Philosophy (all tags)

Permalink | 64 comments

  • Cookie jar (8+ / 0-)

    SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

    by JCHFleetguy on Tue Apr 22, 2008 at 11:28:15 PM PDT

    • Elitism (10+ / 0-)

      Is when you refer to immigrants as "illiterate peasants."
      http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/0...
      I think his offending phrase pretty well sums up the GOP's attitude toward most Americans.

      I've spent my work life in the chairs that line the outer wall of the Board Room.  I wasn't at the table, where the rich and powerful sit and make decisions for and about the rest of us, but as an observer and as a hired gun carrying out their wishes.

      I have heard them spew the most vile racist, sexist and elitist sh*t you can imagine -- all directed toward the folks who work for them or the folks who try to protect those who work for them.  I've seen first-hand how the wealthy, conservative fat cats live and heard what they think.  These monied folks actually, sincerely believe they are superior to the rest of us.  The fact that they are rich is both the cause and the proof of their superiority.  And they're not shy about it.

      And -- just as they played the Religious Reich for fools -- they play the working class as rubes.  To them, at best, we're a bunch of ignorant hayseeds to be manipulated, at best, we're market commodities to be used and discarded according to their whims.  We are sources of wealth and humor -- and sometimes anxiety and fear -- for them, but little else.

      And you want to talk about out of touch:  How about John Gibson repeatedly insisting that "middle class" is an income of $200,000 a year?http://mediamatters.org/items/200801...  Or how about the bizarre spectacle of multimillionaire television journalists adopting faux working-class personae? http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?...

      Better yet, how about a guy who makes his career by marrying his millionaire mistress?  How about a guy who goes to a failing factory and spouts off about the wonders of the free market in front of a bunch of soon to be unemployed people?  How about a guy who says that the millions of Americans losing their homes are getting what they deserve?  How about a guy who thinks the best solution to our economic problems is to make the rich folks even richer?

      Elitism is when you can't (or won't) understand or care about what affects the lives of we common folk.  And therein lies a pretty solid definition of the American Right.

      It's hilarious that Obama (or the Left of the 60s and 70s) can be painted as "elite," when McCain is standing right there in the spotlight.  It's also hilarious when you consider that, when you ask them issue by issue, the majority of Americans agree with the Left far, far more than they do with the Right.

      Is Obama smarter, more eloquent, more articulate, more educated, more cosmopolitan and more sophisticated them you, me and our neighbors?  God, I hope so.  As Jon Stewart said, "[N]ot only do I want an elite president, I want someone who is embarrassingly superior to me."  

      Finally, as I said before, I think you're "mishearing" Obama.  What Obama said was that guns and religion are best assessed as morally neutral, until we see what people choose to do with them. http://religiondispatches.org/Gui/Co...

      That's not elistism, or condescension -- it's wisdom.

  • It is a little (10+ / 0-)

    depressing to be called an elitist.  I am a liberal working class person and I try to help my fellow man through my religious affiliations and in my everyday life.  I am not an "elitist".  It is interesting that I think that conservatives are the elitists and liberals are for the underdogs.  In my life, religious are liberal and the most involved with helping our community, the conservatives are big talkers and don't get much done to help the disenfranchised or the community as a whole.  I suppose it is all in the company you keep.  In reality I think that our ruling class, our politicians, are the elitists, liberal and conservative each.  They are always our only choices, unfortunately.  Calling one side or another elitist is silly and exactly what the politicians want us to do.  They want us to fight among ourselves so that they can keep what they do secret and out of sight.  This is no more evident than in the last 8 years.  The conservatives did not get what they wanted despite the unity and support they offered the politicians.  They were fed a line and took it hook, line and sinker and got basically screwed for their efforts.  I feel the Democrats will do the same but I have to vote and I will.  The eternal optimist in me will go for the candidate that offers at least a glimmer of something new and that candidate is Barack Obama.

    • When did I say you were an elitest? (4+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      shakti, Asbury Park, dirkster42, grada3784

      I doubt you, as a liberal working class dude, carry a great many of the stereotypes about what motivates you and the folks you work with everyday.  

      SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

      by JCHFleetguy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:23:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • My mistake (6+ / 0-)

        Who are you calling elitist if not liberals?

      • I find the application of elitist (8+ / 0-)

        to Obama suspect.

        Here's a guy whose mother collected food stamps for a time.  Whose parents split when he was young, and was for a time raised by grandparents.

        There's a silver spoon story.

        He managed to get into and through college, and law school at Harvard... and went not to Wall Street, where he'd have been a blue ribbon catch for both inherent quality AND being a minority hire... but back to Chicago where he took a job as a community organizer making $12k/yr.

        Very upscale, working with poor folks in the poor parts of Chicago to improve life.

        In that context he found Christianity and has been a devoted member of his church since. Which is... in a lower class area, serving a disproportionately low income and black population.

        That just reeks of an out-of-touch, arrogant, elitist, anti-religion, doesn't really give a shit about people on the short end of the stick attitude.  Yeah.  Moved out to a wealthy, white suburb and went all Merlot.

        Not.

        The light is at home in the darkness. -- Parmenides

        by ogre on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:29:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • He's cosmopolitan (6+ / 0-)

          that makes you automatically elitest.
          I have found many people think this.  If you happen to have grown up overseas, or in a multicultural area, you can't be a real ordinary American.

          There's something to that, of course; shared experience leads to common touchstones, whereas with divergent backgrounds you have to try harder to get at the common ground.  But this attitude presuppose a single American experience, or at least a fairly narrow continuum, and I think that's a limiting assumption that leads to a lot more wrong assumptions about other people.

          "Just because you can explain it doesn't mean it's not still a miracle." - Small Gods by Terry Prachett

          by lonespark on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:40:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  • Two thoughts (10+ / 0-)

    (1) The word "elitist" is like the word "liberal" in that it has been malappropriated by the right to further a meme.

    (2) Hand-wringing...All this hand-wringing over what Obama may or may not have meant simply makes his point:

    case:

    That isn't a bad thing for me since I do not believe the President has a great deal more than moral authority.

    and point:

    the major reason I wouldn't vote for him. Neither of these are actually what I consider to be "issue oriented"

    So, if I understand you, you don't think the job of president carries much power (and you're not bitter about that? Don't even get me started on how powerful the branch has become under GWB), you are comfortable with how the words, but mostly their meaning have been regurgitated and you will, therefore, vote based on how a candidate interprets your faith.  As I said, you just made his point.

    • As I said to PD in Part I (4+ / 0-)

      my problem with the speech isn't about his interpretation of my religion - it is about Obama's interpretation of folks motivations.

      As to the power of the Presidency, it is a power not granted by the office's official job description - but by George Bush taking what folks were willing to give up. That means Congress. Certainly, Congress gave him the power to invade Iraq - a requirement made necessary because of President's Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon waging an undeclared war in Vietnam; and the War Powers Act Congress passed to handle that.

      Why should I be bitter about the Presidency not carrying that much power?

      SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

      by JCHFleetguy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:18:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • And I read this differently than you do, (6+ / 0-)

        I think.

        it is about Obama's interpretation of folks motivations.

        I didn't hear him saying "people turn to religion as an opiate," but "people defend the things that are closest to them (guns and religion) when they feel life spiraling out of control."

        I certainly don't think Obama is saying religion as the source of people's strength is "wrong," just that it's being used in a non-productive way in certain contexts.

        The Wine of Youth ferments this night in the veins of God - Alfred de Musset.

        by dirkster42 on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 10:00:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  • Who is the Left? (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    shakti, JCHFleetguy, dirkster42, beinemac

    Maybe this is where you have lost me.  What is the critical cultural difference between the "regular people" you talk about and ordinary citizens who happen to support less-conservative causes?  Do we get at it by recognizing that often political affiliations are in the selves traditional?  Do we get at it by acknowledging that for a wide variety of reasons, a lot of Americans (most?) don't live in "organic" communities inheriting unbroken traditions, but rather in communities they became part of through choices, free or coerced or a bit of both, made by themselves or their parents or grandparents?

    Plants can be said to cling to their roots during drought, and wind and flood, and if they fail, they are swept away.  And people cling to whatever basic things seem to offer comfort and stability when their way of life is under assualt.  You may not think Obama was making or even acknowledging that point in his speech; do you deny that he has made it elsewhere.  When I hear that part of the speech, I hear him trying to get through the knee-jerk condescension of the elite and elitest folks he was addressing.  Inelegantly and  ineffectually to be sure.  

    "Just because you can explain it doesn't mean it's not still a miracle." - Small Gods by Terry Prachett

    by lonespark on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 07:26:33 AM PDT

    • In this diary (5+ / 0-)

      I was talking about threads in my life - and the Left is the one I was a part of - the late 60's and early 70's New Left; and particularly the most radical wing of that.

      I agree - most of us have (to continue the metaphor) had our roots pulled out of the organic communities we were raised in. I am rooted neither in the church of my youth, or the place of my youth. However, those places are still in me.

      I still remember the NRA rifle club I learned to shoot and care for guns in; hunting for varmints, quail, and dove; and the nuances of the town of my birth.

      However I do not agree we cling to our roots anymore than we cling to our arms when hanging from something. The roots are part of the plant, and they cling to something outside the plant - the soil; and seek nourishment from sources in that soil.

      If we are going to continue that metaphor - then do you believe religion is an external source of nourishment and strength; or part of who we are through which we seek nourishment and strength?

      That is important. Certainly I think it is the latter. As part of the Body of Christ, with Christ using me as His temple - I have to divorce myself from my spiritual heart to believe the former.

      SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

      by JCHFleetguy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:56:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • Nooooo! (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        grada3784, vesticular
        I just wrote a really good post and SP ate it!
        Was it the Merle Haggard quote?  Why does the universe hate me?

        "Just because you can explain it doesn't mean it's not still a miracle." - Small Gods by Terry Prachett

        by lonespark on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:51:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      • For most people (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        JCHFleetguy, grada3784, Icelander

        then do you believe religion is an external source of nourishment and strength; or part of who we are through which we seek nourishment and strength?

        The answer is the former.  I do not find most people to be really nourished daily by their religion. Most folks use it on Sundays and when they are trying to comfort a friend. It is definitely something external which they occasionally turn to, not something transformative.  

        We are not called out of this world but deeper into it........ Robin Myers

        by gbgasser on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 08:58:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • Then we definitely spin in different (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          grada3784, Jeff Fairchild, gbgasser

          religious circles :-)

          SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

          by JCHFleetguy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:22:52 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • I'm sure we do (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            tobendaro

            The main problem I think is that most people view God as some entity that is separate and outside of man, who needs to be invited in, prayed TO and is there for THEIR benefit. This God can be ignored, and most people do most of the time, regardless of what  they say.

            I don't subscribe to that view. God can no more be ignored than my own emotions and thoughts can be ignored. For me God is smackdab in the middle of things.

            Yes, we call ourselves a religious country but I find for most that I'm around (and I live in the south where religious conservatives dominate) they love to talk ABOUT God without actually trying to live WITHIN God.

            We are not called out of this world but deeper into it........ Robin Myers

            by gbgasser on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:51:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  • This whole thing irks me... (10+ / 0-)

    I grew up being called "elitist". Why? Because I didn't drink (alcohol or coffee), didn't smoke, didn't go to church, knew too much about weird topics, liked to voice my opinion, whatever.

    That alone didn't bother me, per se. What DID bother me is that this charge was usually part of an effort to dehumanize me, and usually by people who in reality, the term of elitism would probably fit a whole lot better.

    To me, charges of elitism WITHOUT FAIL...I honestly can't think of an exception right now..are a form of projection designed to dehumanize those that it's aimed at. Oh..look at that person..he doesn't like NASCAR, he  drinks orange juice..what a snob, he must think he's so much better than we are...without recognizing that through DEMANDING that everybody be exactly like them, they're the ones being elitist.

    And you probably don't want me to get started on the socio-religious aspects of this. Elitism is something ingrown into western monotheistic tradition.

    The future doesn't scare me at all..'cos nothing's like before.

    by Karmakin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:15:15 AM PDT

  • This is all.... (7+ / 0-)

    just part of the swiftboating of Obama. Somehow the right aren't pompous self-rightous elitists when they look down their noses and outright DEMONIZE gays, liberals, environmentalists, atheists, moderates, feminists, etc, etc, etc. Or anyone else who however slightly believes in something different than they do, but taking someones missteps out of context and blowing them up to ridiculous conclusions is okie dookie.

    Give me a freakin break.

    • I have to agree. (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      grada3784, Jose Cheung

      Voting for or against Barack Obama on this point, ignoring all that went into his life and his politics is is shallow.  Trying to make the statement he made into a such a huge deal, a deal that defines him is a mistake.  I am sure I have never voted for someone who matched my beliefs and life perfectly.  I am happy to find a 60%er to vote for. We have big problems, the world has big problems.  My kids are screwed.  I am voting for the one person who has any chance of making it a bit better, Barack Obama.  I can't see getting your stockings in a twist to show how pure you are or how strong in your beliefs you are.  It makes no sense when the petals of our lives are dropping all around us.

    • There may be members of the right (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Jeff Fairchild

      that demonize liberals, environmentalists, what-have-you, but we're not talking about the blogosphere or extreme members of Congress.  We're talking about a presidential race.  The stakes are higher and the standards are different.  And Obama is running as a uniter (like Bush before him).  

      There's no use getting angry.  If you feel at liberty to take offense at the rhetoric of the right, then it's only fair to allow the other side to do the same.

      Many a thief is a better man than many a clergyman, and miles nearer to the gate of the kingdom. - George MacDonald

      by vesticular on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:32:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • Please try to understand (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        grada3784, vesticular, Jose Cheung
        for years, decades, hell for my entire life as a reasoning human, the mainstream media has consistently told us we were not to take offense at presidential candidates and presidents demonizing us, ridiculing our positions (or, really, their mischaracterizations of our positions) and questioning our patriotism.  That we might think you could possibly be overreacting a little shouldn't be seen as an attack on your beliefs or integrity.  I'm an Edwards voter, but I'm really excited about Obama.  I think he has the potential to be a uniting figure, and we sure as hell need one.  I don't see this potential in anybody else on the scene.  

        "Just because you can explain it doesn't mean it's not still a miracle." - Small Gods by Terry Prachett

        by lonespark on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:39:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • Parenthetical (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          grada3784, Jeff Fairchild
          I realize the media ignore, mischaracterizes and ridicules conservatives too.  Because they tend to be and serve corporatist elitest schmucks.

          "Just because you can explain it doesn't mean it's not still a miracle." - Small Gods by Terry Prachett

          by lonespark on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:44:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • I'm not sure what you mean (5+ / 0-)

            by corporatist, but I can see what you mean by "elitist."  Personally, I don't understand the fuss over Obama's "elitism".  They're all elitists, for crying out loud.  It's not like Andrew Jackson is running again.

            Many a thief is a better man than many a clergyman, and miles nearer to the gate of the kingdom. - George MacDonald

            by vesticular on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:51:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • Heaven forfend (3+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              grada3784, vesticular, Jose Cheung
              But this is not the place for a Jackson rant.  My contender for non-elite would be Andrew Johnson, but I'm no great expert on the historical presidency.

              They are elites, whether or not they started out that way.  It's the nature of the game.  I don't think that makes them all elitest, through and through, but certainly such an outlook must be hard to resist.

              "Just because you can explain it doesn't mean it's not still a miracle." - Small Gods by Terry Prachett

              by lonespark on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 12:31:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    • Case in point... (3+ / 0-)

      The verb "swiftboating" is defined differently by the right.  I don't know what Fleetguy's take is on the SBVFT, but if I wrote this diary and you commented on it, I would have to translate liberal-speak into my own language.

      There are few people at SP who have a higher level of disgust at the right than yourself.  Which is fine.  But when Obama slips into that kind of rhetoric, the kind you see around here, and regular joes couple that with his voting record and political past in Chicago, it doesn't take a genius to see that he may view the right the way you do.

      There are others, that are a part of this conversation, that are explaining Obama's comments in a benign light--giving him the benefit of the doubt.  I have to admit I prefer your feisty honesty.

      Hey, this is Street Prophets.  I don't expect the conservatives' weekly grievances to be taken seriously.  It's odd to see it happen.

      Many a thief is a better man than many a clergyman, and miles nearer to the gate of the kingdom. - George MacDonald

      by vesticular on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:45:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • Linguistic fun threadjack? (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        grada3784, vesticular
        What does swiftboating mean besides what the Swiftboat folks did?  Or is it like different sides of the die, as it were?  What's the definition you're familiar with.

        "Just because you can explain it doesn't mean it's not still a miracle." - Small Gods by Terry Prachett

        by lonespark on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:07:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        • Oh boy. (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Jeff Fairchild, Jose Cheung

          Just different sides of the die, is all.  To you, "swiftboating" is a negative political narrative, backed and perhaps orchestrated by an opposing campaign, that attempts to derail an opponent based on lies.

          But the definition of swiftboating is based solely on the accuser's credibility and honesty.  So a conservative might say that "swiftboating" is the resurfacing of a negative past during an election, delivering a just and proper trainwreck to the campaign of a opportunistic lifelong politician.

          That's a huge difference.  Just a little illustration of the language divide between conservatives and liberals...this time, though, it has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with who's outright lying, and who's not.  It's fascinating.

          Many a thief is a better man than many a clergyman, and miles nearer to the gate of the kingdom. - George MacDonald

          by vesticular on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:24:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • I wrote a big post on swiftboating (3+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            grada3784, vesticular, Jose Cheung
            but then I erased it to due to threadjacking guilt.  The ideology conclicts vs. truth/lies/bullshit angel interests me and leads me to dispair.  Because there's so much willful ignorance in the arguments.

            For instance, I find the actions of the Reagan administration and the regimes they supported in Central America contrary to American values and despicable.  A person could certainly come back with arguments about how anticommunism efforts were really important, and sometimes hurting innocent people is necessary or unavoidable, or pure American values don't always serve American self-interest... But what usually happens in that kind of situation is that a person person tries to tell me that none of that stuff happened, and anyway Reagan never knew about anything bad because he was a Great American Hero...I'm tired of being told it's elitest to want to bring facts into the discussion.

            "Just because you can explain it doesn't mean it's not still a miracle." - Small Gods by Terry Prachett

            by lonespark on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:01:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        • Oh yeah, (0 / 0)

          apologies to Fleetguy on the threadjack...

          Many a thief is a better man than many a clergyman, and miles nearer to the gate of the kingdom. - George MacDonald

          by vesticular on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 01:25:37 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • Dude (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            grada3784, vesticular

            You, too, prove Obama's point by getting all hot and bothered by style over substance...the more you continue, the more you make his point.

            • Hot and bothered? (2+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Boreas, Jeff Fairchild

              Nope.  Not this guy.  Let's revisit the style of Obama's comments again:

              "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

              And here is what he now says he said:

              "So I said, 'Well, you know, when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on,'" he continued. "So people they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community.  And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country or they get frustrated about, you know, how things are changing. That's a natural response."

              Victor Hanson broke down the contrast clearly.  Hopefully the substance makes itself shown:

              1. Note how version #1's "cling" becomes version #2's "vote about" and "take comfort from" — as the condescending dismissal becomes empathetic understanding.
              1. Note how version #1's "religion" and "antipathy to people who aren't like them" becomes version #2's "faith" and "their family and community" — as fundamentalist xenophobes now become beleaguered folks who band together against the unfairness.
              1. Note how version #1's "anti-immigrant" becomes version #2's "mad about illegal immigrants" — as the nativist who opposes all immigrants, legal and illegal, now becomes understandably angry only about those coming here illegally.
              1. Note how version #1's "as a way to explain their frustrations" becomes version #2's "they get frustrated about" as the misguided scape-goaters become those who react understandably to adversity.
              1. Note no explanation in version #2 for version #1's "anti-trade sentiment" — and no wonder since Obama himself is embarrassed that so far he's voiced far more "anti-trade sentiment" than those he caricatured.
              1. Note how version #1's "And it's not surprising then they get bitter" becomes version #2's "you 're" and "you" and "That’s a natural response", as the condescending use of the embittered and distant "they" now morphs into a kindred "you" and the quip "not surprising" becomes the sympathetic "natural."
              1. Note how version #1's idiotic logic that Middle-America has only become religious or pro-gun in the last 25 years as a result of job loss is simply omitted. [emphasis mine]

              It's important to note here that none of this bothers me too much.  Obama had a meteoric rise in politics.  It's fun for me to see evidence of how it happened.  The guy's good.  He's got "style" as you say.

              So if I'm helping "prove Obama's point", I'm only helping him insofar as he's preaching to the converted.  You agree with him.  Fine.  This whole conversation can be summed up thusly:

              OBAMA:  Original comments.

              MEDIA/HRC/SMALLTOWN PENNSYLVANIANS:  Hey, that's not it.  You don't get them/us.

              OBAMA:  Clarification of comments

              SP:  See?  Told you it was no big deal.  Offense taken here is a sign of idiocy, or "pettifoggery" for those with little time to spend on the matter.  Anyway, he was right.

              ME AND OTHERS:  I heard what he said.  It was insulting.  No problem.  That's what politicians do.  It's OK, really.  Just don't tell me it isn't insulting on the face of it when it clearly is.  

              Many a thief is a better man than many a clergyman, and miles nearer to the gate of the kingdom. - George MacDonald

              by vesticular on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:19:04 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              • Thank you (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                Jeff Fairchild
                Hammer.Meet.Nail

                SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

                by JCHFleetguy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:48:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                • Note how.... (2+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  ogre, beinemac

                  John McCain says he's against torture, but doesn't support a bill ending it.

                  Note how John McCain says he's for the troops, but then doesn't support the new GI bill to help them.

                  Note how John McCain says against the Bush tax cuts for moral reasons, but now supports them.

                  Note how John McCain calls the Religious Right "agents of intolerance" but now warmly embraces them.

                  Oh wait, I forgot, it's all about parsing Obama's words for inconsistancies about "bitter, guns and religion" and the other really import issues of the day (sarcasm) that's really important for some to make up their minds as to who to vote for.

                  • I'm sorry, but (1+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    Jeff Fairchild

                    you and I have already expressed agreement on the very issues you've raised (relative to McCain).  If he wins, I predict he'll bankrupt this country into a depression.  Over at dKos they call him "McSame."  I wish I'd thought of that.  It's perfect.

                    But these knee-jerk criticisms of him don't work as a shield for Obama.  I'm seeing a lot of that, and I don't get it.

                    Many a thief is a better man than many a clergyman, and miles nearer to the gate of the kingdom. - George MacDonald

                    by vesticular on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 03:20:17 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    • Well, let me explain.... (0 / 0)

                      the "knee-jerk criticisms" of Obama have been answered... by Obama. Where's the freakin shield? The shield is around McCain. Obama's addressed his questions. Some in a speech hailed as the best on race ever given in this country. What the hell more do people want? Whether or not you or others accept his answers doesn't change the fact that he's addressed them. Most conservatives won't accept them anyway, no matter what he says. So the whole effort then becomes one of simply ignoring what he says and returning to the same self-serving meme. Whereas nobody seeems to be holding McCain to task for any of his many, many, many contradictions. ANY. Talk about a shield being held up around him. The completely false media meme of him being a straight talking, straight shooter is nothing but a false construct that's parroted constantly as fact. Whereas the insinuation that Barack must be a radical that he must now address time, after time, after time, because of his associations is nonsense. It's like saying vesticular must be a radical because the host here or many of the congregation here at Street Prophets express radical views from time to time. Since vesticular does't leave or repudiate every one of them, you must be a radical too. Guilt bt association. Care to explain that again and again and again and again? IT'S A NONSENSICAL ARGUMENT.

                      Besides my remarks weren't directed towards anything you said.  

    • This was brought up and pushed (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Jeff Fairchild

      Huffington - you will have to do the swiftboating thing on a different issue.

      SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

      by JCHFleetguy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:24:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  • If the Left cannot understand "The Folks"... (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    JCHFleetguy, grada3784

    I guess that means the Right can?

    True political activism also requires a servant's heart - the first will be last and the last will be first. If you want to lead, you must submit yourself to the needs of those you lead - and, of course, understand what those needs are. The Left has always thought that was economic - it isn't. That is why folks vote against their "economic interests".

    The Right represents: Values? Home and Hearth? Horatio Alger? The arguement seems to be that the Right altruistically looks out for the little guy through some combination of boot straps and trickle-down voodoo. Or, if it's not economic, we don't have to worry about the growing divide between the wealthy and needy and continue legislating morality.

    And, in my opinion, the church is not inherently conservative. Some Christians may be more conservative in their practice, but this does not mean the church should become slaves to practice and habit. Literalism would seem to have little to do with calling Obama an elitist and marking McCain and his millions as one of the "folks".

    • again (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Jeff Fairchild, Jose Cheung, beinemac

      this post is about me and the threads this issue touched in my life. So what the "right" does or the current "left" does is really outside the scope here.

      As to that issue, I think Moran had a pretty good analysis of the reason the right has been more successful than the left with the rural working class - and it actually slides in parallel to PD's post on the issue:

      It is just plain wrong – in any reality – to say that Middle Class voters are scared little puppies cowering in their economically devastated communities, being swayed by the hypnotic fear mongering of Republicans with regard to guns . . .

      And Obama’s contention that Republicans jack up fear of "the other" to get votes presupposes that the Middle Class has no strong feelings about border security – that they are being manipulated by conservatives who use the issue to gin up racist feelings and not because people are passionate about the subject . . .

      . . . The problem is Obama and much of the left believes people are so ignorant and easily swayed by GOP appeals to their values that the reason they don’t vote Democratic is that they are fooled into voting otherwise. In other words, these bitter, frustrated voters can be had simply by "throwing a flag in their face."

      Not recognizing why this is monumentally wrong is why the Democrats have such a hard time winning elections. The GOP connect(ed)s with voters on an emotional level while the Democrats refuse to engage. It is not by ginning up fear that the GOP succeed(ed)s it is because the party doesn’t dismiss their values as some kind of mental disorder to be cured by "right thinking." You’re a stupid yahoo if you own a gun. You’re a superstitious moron if you take religion (and its teachings on abortion and gay marriage) seriously. You’re a racist hater if you don’t allow unfettered access to America by illegal aliens.

      Whether the Republicans have, or have not, done anything is not the issue. One of the key truths of sales is that people wish to be appreciated and valued - not reimbursed or at least not primarily.

      SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

      by JCHFleetguy on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 09:42:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • The GOP (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        JCHFleetguy, grada3784, beinemac

        has spent years whining that the left "can't do any better, but criticize us"...and now you say "Whether the Republicans have, or have not, done anything is not the issue"

        If you would really vote for someone you have more policy disagreements with because the other guy (the one you kinda like) doesn't "apprecate and value" you...again, you make his point.

        Also, note that Republicans often couch their language in nebulous terms which can neither be proven or disproven..."value" is their favorite

        • You come back to "making his point" (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Jeff Fairchild

          but Obama has projected "style over substance" his entire campaign. He is running on style and certainly not substance.

          Did you watch the Badger commercial?

          SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

          by JCHFleetguy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 07:08:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • I think it's important to grep.. (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            JCHFleetguy, beinemac

            What exactly his campaign is about. Is it style over substance? Not exactly. The "style" IS the substance.

            What that style is, is one of hope. But not one of hope in Obama to make things better. That would be pure stylistics. What it is, is encouraging a shared hope in believing in oneself one one's community.

            "I'm asking, not just to belief in my ability to change Washington, but to believe in yours".

            That's the message..the primary message that's being put out. Once you go to the website, that's what is there, in big bold letters. A constant reminder. Everything else is just to get you to see that message.

            In reality, due to that being the primary message, everything else that Obama says or does re:policy is rendered almost meaningless. Not because it's bad...in fact I think a lot of it is really good...but because for what Obama wants to do..which in reality is a reverse Reagan...instead of government is the problem being the motto of the electorate, the motto would be that the people are the government, and that they will be responsive to public pressure and we will provide that pressure and more. It's a public mobilization of sorts.

            In that climate, quite frankly, everything changes, and quickly.

            That's the message, that's how he'll get things done, and that's an indicator of what he'll do as well.

            The work of the people, not the work of the corporations and the dead-enders.

            The future doesn't scare me at all..'cos nothing's like before.

            by Karmakin on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:17:49 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • This is a good summation (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              beinemac
              Style and substance both indicate an approach to problem solving, which is at least as important as specific actions.

              "Just because you can explain it doesn't mean it's not still a miracle." - Small Gods by Terry Prachett

              by lonespark on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:35:37 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            • I agree absolutely (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              Jeff Fairchild

              while you were typing this I was typing this comment that included this:

              That is why the "style" of Obama has been attractive to even me (as long as I ignore his "substance"). He has called on folks to unite across all those things that divide us so achieve some (amorphous) common goal - which is the first step in defining a common goal. Since he is calling us to the first step without trying to define a goal on which there is no consensus - he may be the right candidate at the right time.

              However, to be that he has to NOT operate on those arrogant assumptions that folks are clutching on to their religion, guns, antipathy for gays, and fear of the outsider as distractions from the real issues in their life - even if it is true. He has to allow the national dialogue he is calling people to to settle the priorities.

              Otherwise - did you watch the Badger commercial?

              SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

              by JCHFleetguy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:39:01 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          • Style over substance is your opinion (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            shakti, tobendaro

            not fact.

            I'm from the midwest. I promise you that people are bitter and they do cling to their religion as a form of political expression.

            And that's a fact.

      • I understand and appreciate your disclosure... (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        JCHFleetguy

        but if we are going to discuss a current candidate's current campaign it is worthwhile to discuss "the Left" (whatever that is) as it stands now.

        One of the ads that initially drew me to SP was the one that read "The Right Doesn't Own Religion".

        • It doesn't - I agree (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Jeff Fairchild

          and I wouldn't be in this community if the right owned religion - because I would have long ago left a group of secular liberals.

          One of the continuing difficulties being religious, and right of center, of being around liberals of any stripe is just the kind of comment Obama made. Folks can spin his statement anyway they want - but it so resonates with both my experience in the past, and now, that I think it is just that - spin.

          What it resonates with is the idea that the GOP has appealed to, and won the votes of, folks by distracting them from the important (economic) issues by using (unimportant) social issues. The religious left shares in this view because if they didn't agree on the issues of guns, gays, and abortion they would be part of the religious right.

          Certainly, guns/gays/abortion are very important issues on the left - because the left wouldn't continue to divide itself from folks who might share your economic analysis over unimportant issues; and one thing I have learned for sure at SP is that at least gays and abortion are just as much litmus tests for entry to the "progressive" tent as it is for the right. The "masses" know that as well.

          So, while it is necessary for a correct "social justice" agenda to be in favor of gay marriage, and choice - it is a distraction to be opposed to either. One must vote in favor of those to be in right standing in the community; but to vote against is wrong because it opposes your economic interests.

          In other words, where you agree with the left you are exercising proper discernment of importance of issues; and where you disagree you are being distracted by the "right wing noise machine".

          All of that ignores that most people do know what is important to them and do not want to be told that their traditions, beliefs, and culture - and the priorities that come out of that - are simply misleading them from getting the big picture they should really have. It also assumes their mind is such putty that it is easily molded by knee jerk issues.

          Frankly, there is plenty of just that attitude on the left and even at SP - and some in the comment threads to these two posts. That is not to say that the right doesnt hold such disdain for the thinking of the left - and for the "masses" that do not agree with them: they absolutely do.

          That is why the "style" of Obama has been attractive to even me (as long as I ignore his "substance"). He has called on folks to unite across all those things that divide us so achieve some (amorphous) common goal - which is the first step in defining a common goal. Since he is calling us to the first step without trying to define a goal on which there is no consensus - he may be the right candidate at the right time.

          However, to be that he has to NOT operate on those arrogant assumptions that folks are clutching on to their religion, guns, antipathy for gays, and fear of the outsider as distractions from the real issues in their life - even if it is true. He has to allow the national dialogue he is calling people to to settle the priorities.

          Otherwise - did you watch the Badger commercial?

          SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

          by JCHFleetguy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:31:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • I don't think your comments re: (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            JCHFleetguy, beinemac
            gay rights really bear out in how Democrats conduct politics.  But it does apply to liberal religious communities.  We feel it is vital for everyone to be welcome.

            "Just because you can explain it doesn't mean it's not still a miracle." - Small Gods by Terry Prachett

            by lonespark on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:38:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            • I agree (0 / 0)

              I think the Democrats have delivered for gays just about what the Republicans delivered for evangelicals.

              However, every church I have been in has welcomed gays. "Affirmed" them - no. Welcomed them - yes. Right along with fools like me.

              SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

              by JCHFleetguy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 08:42:53 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              • The difference (1+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                tobendaro

                is that Democrats haven't had a voting majority in any house for quite some time.  The GOP surely could have done the work they have promised evangelicals for so long...but that would have meant eliminating their ability to get folks to the polls; because, once again, evangelicals tend to vote God, guns and gays.  
                This thread is the perfect example of hand-wringing over "did he just insult my religion/club?", rather than, "hey, did the Bush administratioin just get caught torturing folks the same week we found out they paid Generals to appear on news programs a la Soviet-style propagandists?"

              • Curious (4+ / 0-)

                I've had gay men tell me that they, personally, were rejected by most churches.

                "Welcome" -- not.  Not unless that meant being present to be a target of disapproval and social unwelcome. "Welcome" to be there... as long as they didn't show up with a partner.

                It's one of the reasons that folks like UUs and the UCC have made a point of flying rainbow flags--to underscore that "Welcome" means that you too are really welcome.  You, as you are.  

                It's not welcoming to merely allow someone to sit there.

                The Democrats at large have seemed to be sorely unhappy with the Clinton-accepted DADT "solution."  Bill was a superb politician... but hardly left of center.  Hardly even center.  He really blew the approach on gay rights, and then caved and backed down.  And signing DOMA was... inexcusable (for starters, it's patently unconstitutional).

                But the truth is that there's wide support for equal rights among Democrats.  Which appears to be rather different than what the GOP has for the evangelical agenda (as evinced by reports from the evangelicals who have worked with the Administration, for example--that community is seen as one to be used and  ignored as much as possible).

                The light is at home in the darkness. -- Parmenides

                by ogre on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 04:57:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                • Unwelcome (1+ / 0-)

                  Recommended by:
                  Jeff Fairchild
                  I think it may depend on what you want from a church.  I do know GLBT folks who belong to more conservative churches and are happy there.  But they do not have acceptance, much less celebration, of their lives and their families they the straight folks do.  

                  I think it's vitally important to recognize that no one's gender or orientation is a sin, and to always include all types of families in everything.  Ideally, I think that leads to a situation where GLBT folks and allies don't have to do anything extra to have that loving recognition be prominent in how the church operates.  I don't think that's an easy place to get to, though.

                  "Just because you can explain it doesn't mean it's not still a miracle." - Small Gods by Terry Prachett

                  by lonespark on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 05:03:25 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                • Based on? (0 / 0)

                  And signing DOMA was... inexcusable (for starters, it's patently unconstitutional).

                  It has survived a number of federal court challenges.

                  SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

                  by JCHFleetguy on Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 10:12:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          • Defining important issues is a challenge. (0 / 0)

            The Democratic Party usually (in my experience) makes the appropriate connection between social and economic issues. The GOP makes a regular habit of running on social issues as the mis-named "Values Party." It probably depends on your persepective, but the GOP spends just as much time pushing pro-life,anti-equality (gay rights, equal pay, etc.), "conservative" economics and opposition to social programs as the Democratic Party spends on their mirrors.

            Disparity between economic classes is both a social and economic issue. My interpretation of my Christian faith means that I feel our serving "the least of these" also, by neccessity, includes governemnt sponsored social programs.

            I have to run before I'm finished with this thought, but thanks, as always, for your perspective.

  • A few quibbles (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    shakti, tobendaro, dirkster42, gbgasser

    I am with you on the servant leadership thing, however, I have never met a successful politician that embodied it.  Paul Wellstone reportedly came close, but I never had the opportunity to meet him.  I think it is quite difficult to have the humility to be a servant leader and the ego to take the beating administered to candidates for public office wrapped up in one person.  Nearly all politicians I have met had egos the size of an Amish barn and left the servant stuff for their aides to handle.

    While your stuff from Russell Kirk is flowery and effusive, my experience of living in rural areas among Bible and gun toting conservatives indicates that virtually none of these folks would know John Locke or natural law theory from a hole in the ground.  Their priorities and considerations simply do not run that deep.  Church life is the center of the community and you go because if you don't, people will start looking at you funny and the Elders will sure enough come around to pay you a visit.  Take this from a guy who has been visited.

    Change is relatively rare in these locales, and it is generally not taken very well, at first.  This makes these folks naturally conservative in the historic sense of the word, specifically generally opposed to change, particularly rapid change.  This is not necessarily out of love for their current life situation, nor is it remotely equivalent to "conservative" as defined in current political parlance (a movement far better defined as "reactionary anachronism").

    One further quibble, placing Barack Obama on the left is a misnomer.  Obama is perhaps just a hair to the left of Hillary "Goldwater Girl" Rodham Clinton.  I tend to class him slightly to the right of center, but he is the most progressive candidate to come this close to the Whitehouse in a very long time.

    • Well put (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      dirkster42

      I've been saying for some time that the problem as I see it is that our entire political landscape has been pushed so far right that any thing to the left of Attila the Hun is now a leftist radical.

      I think we need a whole new political nomenclature. I dont know what to call it but to me the real divisions are now vertical not horizontal. There is the investment and trust fund class on top and the laborers on the bottom. Our whole system the last thirty years, since we left the gold standard, has flooded us with capital (that is becoming increasingly more worthless), created investment vehicles out of almost everything (even things of no intrinsic value like derivatives) and made true labor concerns in this country passe. Labor is something developing countries do. We invest and reap rewards.

      Well its obvious that this mindset will bankrupt us, morally and literally. We need someone to really start to promote the value of LABOR. Labor that creates something tangible of value. It will sound Marxist to many but, while I'm not an expert on Marx's writings, I know Marx was right about a lot of his analysis of economics. His solutions may have been wrong but he was right about properly valuing labor.

      We are not called out of this world but deeper into it........ Robin Myers

      by gbgasser on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 01:50:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • True that (0 / 0)

        In GWB we seem to have finally found someone solidly to the right of Attila.  My understanding is that Attila was so liberal as to reserve torture for only his actual enemies.  Apparently he did not have the spine for the truly random acts of violence that will "keep us safe".

        Marx did ave a few notions correct, valuing labor was one of them.  Opposition to betting parlor capitalism was another, as a great many newly broke condo-flippers will now attest.

    • I agree on the servant leadership (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      gbgasser
      thang as well - I think it is very difficult to be politically active enough to become a successful politician (or maybe even a community leader) and not run into being richer, rather than poorer, in spirit.

      I certainly didnt want to imply that even most intellectuals are well versed on Locke, Kirk or natural law - although someone once defined the content of natural moral law as the "common sense of common people". After all, it is what we "just know" rather than what we have adopted.

      I agree that Kirk has been pushed aside for the likes of "she who shall not be named" and Rush - and that Kirk's principles of conservatism are certainly not the heart and soul of current "conservatism". I am not sure most current conservatives have studied any classic conservative thought. They probably think classic conservative thought is Ronald Reagan. Of course, I doubt most liberals have studied any foundational political philosophy either.

      SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

      by JCHFleetguy on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 11:38:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      • Common sense of the common people (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        JCHFleetguy, vesticular

        In these times, I do not find sense to be particularly common anywhere, no more so in rural areas than on college campuses.

        I have read a great deal of historic Quaker literature.  To me it increasingly seems that common sense was far more common when people lived in small communities and closer to the land of their birth.  Something inherent has changed about this.  Go to those places today, and you simply do not find it.

        I think there had to be something about being grounded in a community when traveling was a far greater effort and much less frequent.  It may also have something to do with the notion of a time when one of the greatest entertainments was a good book and the relative luxury of the time to read it.

        • The book I have spent a lot of time on (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          vesticular

          really honed in on this

          To me it increasingly seems that common sense was far more common when people lived in small communities and closer to the land of their birth.  Something inherent has changed about this.  Go to those places today, and you simply do not find it.

          Part of it too is extended families - or the lack thereof. When I grew up I had considerable time with grandparents and great-grandparents that lived right across the alley.

          I I think the tie to the land, and the people commonly raised on that land, is huge in this.

          SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

          by JCHFleetguy on Tue Apr 29, 2008 at 09:45:20 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          • I think the "decline" in values (2+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            JCHFleetguy, vesticular

            people are connecting to emotionally has alot more to do with this lack of grounded connection to place and community than they expect or know how to express.  In this context, relatively marginal issues have become emotionally laden as the available repository for all things "wrong".  

            Giving everyone who is sane the right to carry a gun, outlawing same gender unions, and prohibiting all abortions, and deporting all the illegal aliens will not solve the problem, but these issues unfortunately are carrying alot of the emotional water here.  

            • I think your right (1+ / 0-)

              Recommended by:
              vesticular

              the degradation of the culture (which I think is real) is a symptom/outcome of the loss of place and community in peoples lives.

              Breaking us up into "homeless" individuals competing with each other is best for capitalism and the modern state - the question is how do we stop being wandering gypsies and reattach to a place and a community against the desires of modern culture.

              SP's Bible in a Year: http://www.streetprophets.com/story/2005/10/19/105536/72

              by JCHFleetguy on Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 08:56:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Permalink | 64 comments