|
On March 15 2012 05:27 xDaunt wrote:
The whole problem here is that republicans are misrepresented by democrats as being only social conservatives, which isn't even true. The more core elements of being republican (ie the other facets of being conservative) are being pro-free market, anti-government regulation, and pro-American (in terms of nationalism).
that used to be true about the republican party. it's no longer a misrepresentation, but a truth.
|
On March 15 2012 05:37 Roe wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 05:27 xDaunt wrote:
The whole problem here is that republicans are misrepresented by democrats as being only social conservatives, which isn't even true. The more core elements of being republican (ie the other facets of being conservative) are being pro-free market, anti-government regulation, and pro-American (in terms of nationalism). that used to be true about the republican party. it's no longer a misrepresentation, but a truth.
I think the description covers Romney very well. He has simply been forced into a stance on social conservative issues and would have preferred to stay quiet on them completely and ignore them once in the White House. Romney has a lot of negative qualities (the whole android routine) but he has proven to be able to compromise and govern effectively. The Santorum part of the republican party is a different story tho.
That said, the misrepresentation goes both ways. Democrats are depicted as socialists, anti-market and anti-american. The sense of victimization on the right is completely unjustified, both sides are just as guilty and just as bad.
|
On March 15 2012 05:27 xDaunt wrote:
The whole problem here is that republicans are misrepresented by democrats as being only social conservatives, which isn't even true. The more core elements of being republican (ie the other facets of being conservative) are being pro-free market, anti-government regulation, and pro-American (in terms of nationalism).
It's worth noting that departments emphasizing economic issues tend to be more evenly split than departments in the sciences or liberal arts. (also sorry for the repeated assertions about academic political leanings, I'll post the study I'm getting this from in a few hrs when I'm back home)
As much as we (including myself) tend to talk about social conservatives vs neocons vs libertarians, in reality the Republican party is made up of conservatives and staunch conservatives. There is a group of libertarians that mostly vote Republican, although the ones that do seem to be mostly conservative themselves at least personally even if they don't want the government itself "in our bedrooms." Also they're more anti-war Republicans than they are socially liberal Republicans.
Ron Paul's paltry aggregate vote totals relative to the 3 other GOP candidates shows just how outnumbered libertarians are in the party.
http://www.people-press.org/2011/05/04/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology/
[edit] - This is anecdotal, but from what I can tell academia samples very heavily from Solid Liberals, Post-Moderns, and Libertarians, with less representation from Staunch Conservatives (a mutual decision). The other typologies tend to be less educated hence they are not well represented in academia.
|
On March 15 2012 05:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 04:55 Focuspants wrote:On March 15 2012 04:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 15 2012 04:33 Focuspants wrote:
I love how getting an education now means people can call you a liberal pawn that has been churned out of a propaganda factory. Dont the idiots that this rhetoric is going to realize that the people spewing this crap have not only high school diplomas, not only bachelors degrees, but usually masters, phds, etc...? How does this even make sense? They are using students that work hard and devote their time and effort to education as something to stomp on and look down upon. Its disgusting. we have Obama and democrats basically saying that everyone should go to college. not even, "everyone should have a chance to go to college" but straight up everyone SHOULD go to college. This is a blatant LIE. He NEVER said that. He said that everyone should have ACCESS to college. That you shouldnt be turned away for moentary reasons. He in the same speech youre referencing, said that everyone should have access to a proper education based on what they want to do. He listed off multiple trade schooling programs and more that should all be available to people based on their desired path. You are 100% disengenuous with your rhetoric. Santorum said "Obama wants everyone to go to college, what a snob". This is a fact. He said this. This is also a blatant lie, as Obama NEVER said that. The republicans are using educated young people as a target dummy for their bullshit, and it is terrible. These young people have put their time, effort, and money into their craft, are likely in deep debt for doing so, and you write them off as liberal puppets. Its disgusting. i said Obama and democrats. don't focus only on obama. the rhetoric is clearly: everyone should go to college
This is not true. Nobody thinks this. This is a made up idea.
|
On March 15 2012 05:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 04:55 DoubleReed wrote:On March 15 2012 04:48 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 15 2012 04:46 DoubleReed wrote:On March 15 2012 04:40 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 04:30 DoubleReed wrote:On March 15 2012 03:51 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 03:36 Focuspants wrote:On March 15 2012 03:22 xDaunt wrote:On March 15 2012 03:17 Signet wrote:
[quote]
Overall I think his analysis is closer to the truth regarding the partisan/electoral dynamics of this country than what most of the liberal posters here have been saying. Educated urban liberals don't always appreciate how vastly different the rest of the country is. For example, only about 1 in 6 Americans believes in natural evolution, and just a quarter have a college degree. How similar to that is your personal experience? There are huge cultural differences between what most of us experience versus the "median" cultural experience in this country. And politics is largely driven by cultural affiliation, not what the data says or what the academic consensus is. (this is why Santorum can lie about health care in the Netherlands and not lose any support. It isn't about making valid or even relevant arguments, it's about being conservative and signaling that affiliation.)
Also remember elections are about perception, not reality. Maybe 40% of this country hates, HATES, Obama. That has been festering for 4 years, and it's going to be difficult for him to overcome. Obama needs both a decent economic recovery and an above-average turnout from the under-30 age demographic. Neither of these can be assumed. Finally, someone who gets it. So the republicans are going to win because the media has successfully deceived an uneducated radical population, and the candidates of the republican party have done a good job making things up and can straight up bold face lie to get these people fired up about being a conservative? How can you actually win an election like that? There is no way that would fly in Canada. You need facts, empirical evidence, logical arguments, etc... These things should be what dictate an election, not fear mongering, brain washing and lying. The fact that this works, and that youre so happy someone understands this is how something works, is frightening from an outside perspective. The most powerful nation in the world can be won over by cheap lies and radical fearful rhetoric. This alone is proof your education system needs an urgent overhaul, and not in the direction of homeschooling like some of the republicans seem to want. Here's something that will really mindfuck you: republicans believe that democrats enjoy an electoral advantage from the current education system. The line of thought goes something like this: The public school system is a bastion of liberal thought and indoctrination for lack of a better way of putting it. The result is that the public school system churns out all sorts of liberally-minded young people who are unable to think critically for themselves, and are thus prone to voting for the intellectually easy, touchy-feely liberal policies (namely fiscally liberal policies). More education leads to intellectually easy ideas and less critical thinking. Ahhh, xDaunt how can I get angry at you when you say such adorable things? I suppose it would be too much to ask for proof that better educated people think less critically or are more vulnerable to indoctrination. Besides, why would that give liberals an advantage? Our education system sucks. The education system does suck. The problem that I was referring do was teachers imparting their political bias upon their students. And what, are we really going to pretend that the vast majority of teachers in this country aren't democrats and that there is no liberal bias pushed upon kids in class? Anyone who has been through the public school system knows what the score is. Uh yes. I dispute that. Because it's not true. Especially fiscal policy geez. You really think teachers have a goal to push liberal bias on you? That's conspiratorial and absurd. Oh no! The eeeeevil education system. Please elaborate for my amusement. you think it's absurd that a person will teach toward their bias? Remember, we're talking public school and liberal fiscal policy. What high school class would government fiscal policy come into play where the bias wouldn't be blatantly obvious? My junior year high school history teacher taught the IB History of the Americas course. It was a constant liberal shit show on a whole range of topics, but we spent a lot of time learning about how trickle down economics doesn't work and that FDR-style keynsianism was the way to go.
I'm not sure about FDR-style economics being the way to go, but even intelligent republicans (see: David Frum) understand that supply-side economics is more of a politically useful theory than an economically viable theory. Even in cases where supply-side economics were employed and the GDP of the nation went up, most of the growth benefitted the wealthiest Americans. That's why middle-class wages have remained stagnant for as long as they have and the size of the middle class has declined as it has while the overall wealth of the nation has increased.
Deciding that somebody who says something that you disagree with is biased is the first step towards never listening to anybody's ideas but your own ever again. Which is kind of how American politics got to where they are.
On March 15 2012 05:16 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 04:55 Focuspants wrote:On March 15 2012 04:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:On March 15 2012 04:33 Focuspants wrote:
I love how getting an education now means people can call you a liberal pawn that has been churned out of a propaganda factory. Dont the idiots that this rhetoric is going to realize that the people spewing this crap have not only high school diplomas, not only bachelors degrees, but usually masters, phds, etc...? How does this even make sense? They are using students that work hard and devote their time and effort to education as something to stomp on and look down upon. Its disgusting. we have Obama and democrats basically saying that everyone should go to college. not even, "everyone should have a chance to go to college" but straight up everyone SHOULD go to college. This is a blatant LIE. He NEVER said that. He said that everyone should have ACCESS to college. That you shouldnt be turned away for moentary reasons. He in the same speech youre referencing, said that everyone should have access to a proper education based on what they want to do. He listed off multiple trade schooling programs and more that should all be available to people based on their desired path. You are 100% disengenuous with your rhetoric. Santorum said "Obama wants everyone to go to college, what a snob". This is a fact. He said this. This is also a blatant lie, as Obama NEVER said that. The republicans are using educated young people as a target dummy for their bullshit, and it is terrible. These young people have put their time, effort, and money into their craft, are likely in deep debt for doing so, and you write them off as liberal puppets. Its disgusting. i said Obama and democrats. don't focus only on obama. the rhetoric is clearly: everyone should go to college. either that or they've created a false problem and are trying to "fix" it, because if you have the grades and you want to put in the effort: you can go to college.
The "rhetoric" is that everybody should get some sort of post-secondary education or training, be it college or vocational training. Considering that you can do roughly zero things with only a high school degree in the modern economy, I have no idea how this is even remotely contentious. Explain please.
|
On March 15 2012 05:27 xDaunt wrote:
The whole problem here is that republicans are misrepresented by democrats as being only social conservatives, which isn't even true. The more core elements of being republican (ie the other facets of being conservative) are being pro-free market, anti-government regulation, and pro-American (in terms of nationalism).
Then why are Republicans using social issues to get votes? Why is Romney suddenly coming out against Planned Parenthood?
|
On March 15 2012 06:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 05:27 xDaunt wrote:
The whole problem here is that republicans are misrepresented by democrats as being only social conservatives, which isn't even true. The more core elements of being republican (ie the other facets of being conservative) are being pro-free market, anti-government regulation, and pro-American (in terms of nationalism). Then why are Republicans using social issues to get votes? Why is Romney suddenly coming out against Planned Parenthood?
I think he's thinking of the traditional values of the Republican party, as represented by people like Dwight D. Eisenhower. The modern Republican party appeals to its base by being as far right, socially, as possible, because they pick up that voting bloc while keeping the moderate republican vote on principle alone. (How many rational Republicans do you know who actually wouldn't vote for Romney in spite of all the socially conservative tripe he's been spewing lately? By contrast, there are plenty who will withhold their vote or vote for a 3rd party candidate if the Republican nominee doesn't come out against gay marriage and abortion with a similar level of vitriol to what they themselves feel.)
|
On March 15 2012 06:03 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 05:27 xDaunt wrote:
The whole problem here is that republicans are misrepresented by democrats as being only social conservatives, which isn't even true. The more core elements of being republican (ie the other facets of being conservative) are being pro-free market, anti-government regulation, and pro-American (in terms of nationalism). Then why are Republicans using social issues to get votes? Why is Romney suddenly coming out against Planned Parenthood?
Romney's shifting hard right because that's what he needs to do to win the nomination. Once he had that, I think he'll go back to being a business-friendly social moderate.
And yes, Romney clearly thinks the Republican base, especially in the South, is stupid. His self-mockery in trying to be like the common man remind me of Kerry's bullshit with the hunting trip and whatever else he did back in 2004.
|
United States22883 Posts
On March 15 2012 04:44 sc2superfan101 wrote:
especially when we have Obama and democrats basically saying that everyone should go to college. not even, "everyone should have a chance to go to college" but straight up everyone SHOULD go to college. what?!? that's ridiculous. there are plenty of good jobs that don't require a college education. not everyone should go to college. that's part of our problem in this country, is too many people going to college and getting women's studies degrees and coming out thinking they are smarter than everyone and have actually learned anything. and worse, expecting a well-paying job.
You bought into Santorum's misleading narrative. :/
This is what Obama actually said in one of the speeches Santorum tried to "call him out" on:
And so tonight, I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training. This can be community college or a four-year school; vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma. And dropping out of high school is no longer an option. It’s not just quitting on yourself, it’s quitting on your country — and this country needs and values the talents of every American.
This is what Santorum said later that week on Stephanopoulos's show:
“There’s technical schools. There’s additional training, vocational training. There’s skills and apprenticeships. There’s all sorts of things that people can do to upgrade their skills, to be very productive and great workers here in America who provide for their families and build their community.”
Santorum then went on to say, "64 percent of those currently enrolled in a traditional four-year institution have curbed their attendance habits" as evidence to why college secularizes kids and they become less religious. As it turns out, the same study that he got the 64% from also said 76% of young people who didn't attend college become less religious. 13% of those who went to college renounced all religious affiliation, whereas 20% of those who didn't go to college renounced all religious affiliation.
This is the conclusion from that study:
In conclusion, the college experience—more than the education itself—seems corrosive to religious
faith only among those who were at an elevated risk of such corrosion when they arrived on
campus. This spells good news and bad news for all parties here. First, it suggests that
antagonistic professors are having little effect on the religious faith of most students. Faith
challenges and belief systems hanging in the balance are not the norm (though they do of course
occur). Second, it suggests that Christian “revivals” during college rarely connect those that
entirely lack a religious sense. Instead, evangelistic efforts tend to connect best with the dormant
faith and inactive-but-intact belief systems of previously religious youth. Accounts of completely
new conversions—from either one religion to another or from no religion at all to a committed
faith—are uncommon. They happen, but they are rare. Each, however, is far less frequent than the
“revival” of dormant faith, which in turn is much less common than the temporary religious exit
that the early twenties often witness.
The tldr is that the experience of being at college, not the education or "indoctrinating" itself, is why college kids have lower religiosity. In some cases, it's because they don't want to seem too religious (and that is a case of a social bias affecting them) but in many other cases it's simply because they're too busy or doing other things. So while they become less religious, they still maintain inner faith and that's what most college religious groups connect to.
http://financialpress.com/2012/02/28/santorums-misfire-on-obama-colleges-and-religion/
http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Regnerus_Uecker.pdf
Again, I implore you to not take stump speeches or cable news stations seriously. If you hear someone cite something, whether it's Romney, Santorum, Obama or Pelosi, go find the actual source and see what it says.
|
May I ask a question of the Republicans in this thread?
Though it was not what he said, why would it be controversial that Obama would want everyone to go to college? Considering that this narrative would come with the implication that they should also have the fiscal means to do so, through assistance and lowered tuition?
|
On March 15 2012 01:59 tree.hugger wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 01:17 Pillage wrote:On March 15 2012 00:48 Jibba wrote:
The candidates say anything they can to get a vote, and the media says anything they can to get ratings. All three cable news networks are just terrible. I implore people not to watch them for election coverage, just go to the NYTimes or Washington Post front page instead. Try the 538 blog through the New York times if you want some real insight, the people that run that blog seem to have all the knowledge when it comes to elections. 538 is brilliant, but if you follow the main NYT Caucus Blog, they add in Nate Silver's analysis and they include the rest of their political bloggers as well. They do a much better job of remaining neutral and avoiding sensationalist nonsense.
Yeah that's really my only beef with it. I suppose I'm a big enough of a nerd to the point where I just look at the data more than I read the articles XD
|
On March 15 2012 05:27 xDaunt wrote:
The whole problem here is that republicans are misrepresented by democrats as being only social conservatives, which isn't even true. The more core elements of being republican (ie the other facets of being conservative) are being pro-free market, anti-government regulation, and pro-American (in terms of nationalism).
I don't really know what you mean by pro-American. Does this mean being against criticism of the government? Does this mean protectionism ie anti-outsourcing? What exactly is your terminology here? I hope you don't mean calling other people out on being 'anti-american' all the time like McCarthy did just because they like keynesian economics.
I'm pretty sure Libertarians usually don't associate as Republicans (but as independents), so I don't think this is a fair point. Maybe someone can offer up some statistics? Ron Paul is generally considered crazy by most Republicans. And social conservatism has definitely become a core element of Republican values over the years. Now look who's delusional.
|
On March 15 2012 06:24 Vega62a wrote:
May I ask a question of the Republicans in this thread?
Though it was not what he said, why would it be controversial that Obama would want everyone to go to college? Considering that this narrative would come with the implication that they should also have the fiscal means to do so, through assistance and lowered tuition?
Well, I'm not exactly a Republican, but the answer is pretty simple. There's no reason to spend four more years studying whatever if you're trying to be, say a carpenter. That time would be better spent apprenticing or gaining expierence in the era. The same goes for a lot of what we could collectively call "construction jobs" and to a lesser extent, manufacturing jobs.
I don't believe any Republicans don't want people to go to College, they just don't believe it should be forced upon someone. I personally agree with that, but as someone stated above, Obama's words are being twisted in this sense from "everyone should get some higher education, be it college, mentorship, apprenticeship, etc" to "everyone must go to college."
|
On March 15 2012 06:24 Vega62a wrote:
May I ask a question of the Republicans in this thread?
Though it was not what he said, why would it be controversial that Obama would want everyone to go to college? Considering that this narrative would come with the implication that they should also have the fiscal means to do so, through assistance and lowered tuition?
Sure I'll give you my take on it.
For me the concern is that we'll be using taxpayer money to educate people in whatever they want. Now before you go on a rant, consider the whole point of education, it's to gain a set of skills. People like to fluff it up about being about learning and discovering yourself, and it can be that, but one must be able to take out concrete, applicable things to the professional world, including private and public jobs that keep the world running.
What's concerning is to see is college students like in the OWS rallies who were fiscally irresponsible, and picked a major that is in low demand (it didn't teach them enough skills) in the professional world who are now unemployed or working fast food / other min wage shit jobs. The issue is when you introduce government into the equation, no field of study can be refused, because that's just how government works, they give you a choice to do what you want. So now we'll see an explosion of people going to college which can lead to a heavy over saturation of the market, thus wasting all of the money that was supposed to set them up for a job where they're financially independent from the government. That is my concern.
As an anectode, the reasons outlined above are the reason I picked a hard ass, but very applicable major in college. I want to maximize the skills I develop so I stand a great chance at getting hired. Applicable, difficult majors allow you to do this. A degree in underwater basket weaving does not.
|
On March 15 2012 06:24 Vega62a wrote:
May I ask a question of the Republicans in this thread?
Though it was not what he said, why would it be controversial that Obama would want everyone to go to college? Considering that this narrative would come with the implication that they should also have the fiscal means to do so, through assistance and lowered tuition?
I am a liberal Canadian, not the group youre looking for a response from, but heres my take on it. I am in university currently, and it really isnt for everyone. Academics doesnt appeal to everyone, and academia isnt everyones strongsuit. Furthermore, society couldnt function purely off of college grads. Many degrees are highly theoretical, whereas many jobs are entirely technical. You really do need all types to make the world go round.
With that said, everyone with the drive, desire, and the grades to get into college, should most certainly have the means to do so. We have very affordable, heabily subsidized tuition here, as well as many grants, as well as no interest student loans, which are all at the disposal of every citizen. If the only factor keeping someone from going to school is that they cant afford it, and this ends up preventing them from going, society has failed that person.
Poverty is a terrible thing, and whether you want to argue whether or not its poor peoples faults or not based on a case by case basis, I personally believe having a structure in place that takes care of the poor, whether or not some people take advantage of it, and allows them to have the neccessities of life, health care and a good education, is extremely important so that those that are truly working hard to escape poverty do not remain trapped, sick, and uneducated.
College should be accessible to all who have shown they WANT to be there, and to those who have worked hard enough in school to show they DESERVE to be there.
|
On March 15 2012 07:10 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 05:27 xDaunt wrote:
The whole problem here is that republicans are misrepresented by democrats as being only social conservatives, which isn't even true. The more core elements of being republican (ie the other facets of being conservative) are being pro-free market, anti-government regulation, and pro-American (in terms of nationalism). I don't really know what you mean by pro-American. Does this mean being against criticism of the government? Does this mean protectionism ie anti-outsourcing? What exactly is your terminology here? I hope you don't mean calling other people out on being 'anti-american' all the time like McCarthy did just because they like keynesian economics. I'm pretty sure Libertarians usually don't associate as Republicans (but as independents), so I don't think this is a fair point. Maybe someone can offer up some statistics? Ron Paul is generally considered crazy by most Republicans. And social conservatism has definitely become a core element of Republican values over the years. Now look who's delusional.
I said "pro-American in terms of nationalism." I suppose I could also say "patriotic." This is a foreign policy issue. One of the biggest criticisms of democrats and liberals is that they are too quick to be apologists for America and too slow to be advocates for American interests. For example, who can forget Obama's "world apology tour" at the beginning of his presidency when he was bowing to foreign heads of state? More recently, how about the administration's gung-ho policy of prosecuting American soldiers accused of war crimes and concurrent refusal to take the Afghanis to task for their actions? There are simply countless instances of this type of stuff from the left, yet they complain when their patriotism is questioned (remember Hillary's rant on this point from several years ago?).
|
On March 15 2012 07:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 07:10 DoubleReed wrote:On March 15 2012 05:27 xDaunt wrote:
The whole problem here is that republicans are misrepresented by democrats as being only social conservatives, which isn't even true. The more core elements of being republican (ie the other facets of being conservative) are being pro-free market, anti-government regulation, and pro-American (in terms of nationalism). I don't really know what you mean by pro-American. Does this mean being against criticism of the government? Does this mean protectionism ie anti-outsourcing? What exactly is your terminology here? I hope you don't mean calling other people out on being 'anti-american' all the time like McCarthy did just because they like keynesian economics. I'm pretty sure Libertarians usually don't associate as Republicans (but as independents), so I don't think this is a fair point. Maybe someone can offer up some statistics? Ron Paul is generally considered crazy by most Republicans. And social conservatism has definitely become a core element of Republican values over the years. Now look who's delusional. I said "pro-American in terms of nationalism." I suppose I could also say "patriotic." This is a foreign policy issue. One of the biggest criticisms of democrats and liberals is that they are too quick to be apologists for America and too slow to be advocates for American interests. For example, who can forget Obama's "world apology tour" at the beginning of his presidency when he was bowing to foreign heads of state? More recently, how about the administration's gung-ho policy of prosecuting American soldiers accused of war crimes and concurrent refusal to take the Afghanis to task for their actions? There are simply countless instances of this type of stuff from the left, yet they complain when their patriotism is questioned (remember Hillary's rant on this point from several years ago?).
Really, you're bringing up the bowing thing? Really? Come on, man, I expect better of you. I don't see how good relations with other countries and encouraging human rights is not directly in the interests of America.
I mean I could come out and say "That's not a tenet of Democrat values" if you'd like and just do what you did.
Of course, prosecuting American soldiers accused of war crimes I would argue is patriotic. I mean if you believe America has some authority over the world then you shouldn't undermine that authority by bending the rules to your favor or acting overtly superior. Self-criticism is incredibly important to American interests. And Self-criticism of our government's actions is extremely American.
|
On March 15 2012 06:24 Vega62a wrote:
May I ask a question of the Republicans in this thread?
Though it was not what he said, why would it be controversial that Obama would want everyone to go to college? Considering that this narrative would come with the implication that they should also have the fiscal means to do so, through assistance and lowered tuition?
Well, the part about government assistance for college is itself going to be an issue for Republicans. Republicans tend to be against that kind of thing.
I guess you deleted this following part, but I think it is actually helpful if you want to understand why conservatives feel the way they do about college/academia/scientists/etc. I'm responding because, while I'm very socially liberal now, for most of my life I was a conservative Republican, so maybe I can bridge the gap a little?
If the concern is that colleges are frequently liberal places, so what? Is the notion of being exposed to an atmosphere of ideas different than your own frightening? Are you so cynical that you really think that liberals want to somehow indoctrinate the public, rather than simply giving them the fair shot at a better life that college provides?
YES. Although cynicism isn't the right word. Cultural conservatism is a totally different way of looking at the world. Liberals view the world as a work in progress, slowly getting better over time. People with different ideologies or different cultures interact and influence each other, and over the long run things get better. Science and our growing body of knowledge help this process along. Having discussions where both sides are open-minded (liberals don't do this nearly as much as they think, but liberalism is still broadly an exploratory ideology) and willing to change their minds ultimately results in improved thinking.
From a cultural conservative perspective, this is wrong. The world has been getting steadily worse with each generation since The Fall of mankind as broadly depicted in the Bible. Some areas have gotten better - the spread of the free market and the abolition of slavery for example. (yes, most cultural conservatives aren't really racist anymore, although many are xenophobic which is easy for a liberal to perceive as the same thing) Technology has made our lives longer and better, but has not improved our morality and has played a role in eroding our faith. In any case this is all outweighed by murder being on the rise (most people are unaware that this is false), people getting dumber (again, not aware this isn't true) and most importantly there is sex and drugs everywhere and our culture is spiraling down the toilet because of it. With few exceptions, there is no reason to be open to change, because we already have a Book that tells us all of the answers that we need to know, at least as far as cultural and political questions go. Liberals may or may not be bad people - there's some of each - but even the ones that aren't evil are unknowingly furthering Satan's plans.
From this perspective, cultural differences aren't friendly disagreements that can ultimately be worked out. One way is the way of God and the other is the way of evil (keep in mind, people of all stripes tend to project their own political/cultural beliefs onto their idea of God and cherry-pick passages to support that). The Apocalypse will probably take place within our lifetimes so this shit is serious. (a disturbing percent of my Texas high school friends think 9/11 was our nation's Sodom & Gomorrah chapter. fwiw I went to a high-performing public high school in an affluent suburb, not some redneck town) And in the meantime, they're destroying the conservative America that our founding fathers intended us to be.
I don't know if I ever thought all of those things at once in such an explicitly laid-out format, but that's the gist of the cultural conservative stance on our society and on academia - the bastion of liberalism. I grew up believing most of that stuff and my parents are cultural conservatives both with masters degrees, who believe very strongly in the value of education, have both spent a few years overseas, and aren't creationists. So imagine how ingrained this is for a more typical Republican family.
I think a liberal can understand the concept of being frightened about the possibility of exposure (especially widespread exposure by teenagers) to a different ideology being frightening. Imagine if the overwhelming majority of college professors held social views similar to Santorum and Bachmann, and college campuses were overrun not by sex-craving fraternities but by fundamentalist Westboro Baptist knockoffs. Suddenly they're a terrifying place, and the fact that so many of our children end up going there is troubling.
The difference is that conservatives actually do have to face this dilemma where, to have the best chances of financial success in life, they have to go to this place where 70-80% of the authority figures are liberal. Worse, their children will have to go there too. What is the equivalent dilemma for liberals? Even the military doesn't lean as heavily toward Republicans as colleges lean toward Democrats. About the only thing I can think of that would be the same cultural experience for a liberals is the choice to attend something like a Southern Baptist church. But there's no reason a liberal would have to do this -- if they want to go to church, they can always find a mainline or liberal denomination. (likewise I guess conservatives could just go to Bob Jones U, but everyone on both sides knows you aren't getting the same education here that you get at an Ivy or top state school) So it's hard for a liberal to really know how they would react to such a situation.
|
On March 15 2012 07:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 07:10 DoubleReed wrote:On March 15 2012 05:27 xDaunt wrote:
The whole problem here is that republicans are misrepresented by democrats as being only social conservatives, which isn't even true. The more core elements of being republican (ie the other facets of being conservative) are being pro-free market, anti-government regulation, and pro-American (in terms of nationalism). I don't really know what you mean by pro-American. Does this mean being against criticism of the government? Does this mean protectionism ie anti-outsourcing? What exactly is your terminology here? I hope you don't mean calling other people out on being 'anti-american' all the time like McCarthy did just because they like keynesian economics. I'm pretty sure Libertarians usually don't associate as Republicans (but as independents), so I don't think this is a fair point. Maybe someone can offer up some statistics? Ron Paul is generally considered crazy by most Republicans. And social conservatism has definitely become a core element of Republican values over the years. Now look who's delusional. I said "pro-American in terms of nationalism." I suppose I could also say "patriotic." This is a foreign policy issue. One of the biggest criticisms of democrats and liberals is that they are too quick to be apologists for America and too slow to be advocates for American interests. For example, who can forget Obama's "world apology tour" at the beginning of his presidency when he was bowing to foreign heads of state? More recently, how about the administration's gung-ho policy of prosecuting American soldiers accused of war crimes and concurrent refusal to take the Afghanis to task for their actions? There are simply countless instances of this type of stuff from the left, yet they complain when their patriotism is questioned (remember Hillary's rant on this point from several years ago?).
How we all long for the good old days, when you could ride your humvee through Iraq blowing up civilians and burning Korans, and only your sexual orientation could get you in dishonorably discharged as a soldier. Back when the president didn't take the wishes of the international community into account, but only those of Israel.
In all seriousness, I personally don't see anything unpatriotic in apologizing for past behavior (as a state), or in upholding the military code of justice. Being a world leader is about more then doing whatever the hell you want, and I personally think Obama has done so better then both Bush and Clinton before him.
|
On March 15 2012 07:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 07:10 DoubleReed wrote:On March 15 2012 05:27 xDaunt wrote:
The whole problem here is that republicans are misrepresented by democrats as being only social conservatives, which isn't even true. The more core elements of being republican (ie the other facets of being conservative) are being pro-free market, anti-government regulation, and pro-American (in terms of nationalism). I don't really know what you mean by pro-American. Does this mean being against criticism of the government? Does this mean protectionism ie anti-outsourcing? What exactly is your terminology here? I hope you don't mean calling other people out on being 'anti-american' all the time like McCarthy did just because they like keynesian economics. I'm pretty sure Libertarians usually don't associate as Republicans (but as independents), so I don't think this is a fair point. Maybe someone can offer up some statistics? Ron Paul is generally considered crazy by most Republicans. And social conservatism has definitely become a core element of Republican values over the years. Now look who's delusional. I said "pro-American in terms of nationalism." I suppose I could also say "patriotic." This is a foreign policy issue. One of the biggest criticisms of democrats and liberals is that they are too quick to be apologists for America and too slow to be advocates for American interests. For example, who can forget Obama's "world apology tour" at the beginning of his presidency when he was bowing to foreign heads of state? More recently, how about the administration's gung-ho policy of prosecuting American soldiers accused of war crimes and concurrent refusal to take the Afghanis to task for their actions? There are simply countless instances of this type of stuff from the left, yet they complain when their patriotism is questioned (remember Hillary's rant on this point from several years ago?).
This is exactly why Americans are disliked around the world. This idea of "patriotism" is so flawed. That whole "world apology tour" Is so overdone and bullshit, its not even funny. I love how bowing WITH a foreign leader, where bowing is the proper form of greeting in their culture is seen as submissive. Your leader is trying to respect peoples culture and customs, and because hes not there being ignorant and demanding, hes "weak"? Why do you think his foreign approval is so much better than most presidents? Maybe its because hes respectful.
As for the apologizing for, and prosecution of your soldiers, you have got to be kidding me. You better fuckign apologize for things such as shooting up a civilian village, pissing on the corpses of Afghans and videotaping it, burning their "holy books", etc... YOU INVADED THEM. You did this under the guise of "freeing" them. If you want to represent the better society you are trying to produce for them, you better fucking hold yourself to the highest standards that society represents. It doesnt matter what they do to you, you need to be 100% accountable for your actions. All of these christian republicans crying about him apologizing for Koran burnings, would flip their shit if Afghans invaded America and burned their oh so precious bibles. Could you imagine the uproar if ANY of the things I listed above happened on American soil? Your dismissal of these events is disgusting.
I feel so sorry for the president. If you arent a douchebag, who is ignorant and demands to be treated like a dominant king everywhere he goes, you are seen as weak. Do you actually think you deserve that kind of treatment? If you come to my country, or visit anyone elses, you better respect the traditions and culture of that place. You are a guest. Not the other way around. You cant expect to work well with others if you dont treat them as equals. Period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
