| A email debate between Peter and Paul, but no Mary! Sorry but you have to read this from the bottom up. | |||||||||||||||||||
Ah yes, the good old thought that foreign policy and
domestic policy are two different things, even though "you can't
separate the two." But then you do. Hey, my friend, just take note that
Obama just signed legislation that suspends habeas corpus - here at home.
And what do you think the "Cold War" was about if not imposing
discipline at home? McCarthy attacked us here. And of course all
"moderates" like Obama sign laws that violate the Bill of Rights,
right? Not so much. At least that isn't my idea of "moderation."
Modernity is radical, that is, divorced from real reality and engaged in a
politics that is little more than manipulation in attempt to become a
"great" nation. Moral nation? Not so much. Free nation? Not so
much. Relatively equal society? Not so much. Ah, but militarily predominant?
Oh yeah. Engaged in inhuman acts, like torture [including Obama]? Oh yeah.
That works. And Obama, your "moderate," just contributed to the
cause. Isn't it amazing how language can be distorted so badly so that radicals
are taken for "moderates" and moderates are taken for
"radicals." See Orwell generally, and especially his essay on
language and politics. He saw through the bullshit we call
"reality." Until we see through this fog we have nowhere to go but
down the road we are on now, the road to perdition. But at least we will be
well armed when we get "there," if there is a there there!
Oh, and if you want "domestic" just consider the bailout and the fact that our level headed "moderates" thought that lowering interest rates would get us out of our troubles when it was that that got us into them! Or where most of that money went. Unintentionally, you say? Sure and the moon is made of cheese. Or consider the size of the prison/jail population in the United States. Another "moderate" policy? Not so much. Or consider that we put teenagers to death or the mentally incompetent as well. "Moderation?" Really? And the problem with your argument about Stockman and shock therapy is not that you or Stockman is wrong; rather, it is that both parties collude in this policy because otherwise it could never have happened. For me, this is just further evidence that those in charge are radicals, not moderates. Only a radical could think and act like these guys and actually think such policies could work, in which they are just like the powers that use to be in the Soviet Union pursuing policies that could not possibly work, ever, except in their dreams. And for me this includes the Democrats as well as the Republicans.
On
Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 10:57 PM, Paul Gallagher <thepgallagh@gmail.com>
wrote:
Peter,
I'm
not saying you are a fan of Ann Coulter. Our big problem, I think, is
that you think primarily in terms of foreign affairs (note your examples) and
I think primarily in terms of domestic policy. Maybe you can't separate
the two, but, rightly or wrongly, I tend to.
My
only point is that with regards to domestic politics, the political center in
this country has moved significantly to the right in the last 30 years, and
that from 32-79, the New Deal was largely accepted as a Done Deal, and
domestic policies worked under that paradigm. Since Reagan, but
especially since W., that paradigm has been rejected and is being attack more
and more by conservatives. And I do think that "Starve the
Beast" accurately describes the right's domestic strategy. David
Stockman admitted as much in the mid-80s. He may have been the one to
coin the phrase. Run up the deficit, claim to be shocked, and then
claim that the only way that can be addressed is to ax domestic programs.
Be
that as it may. Have a good 2012, my friend.
Paul
On
Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 9:02 PM, Peter Schultz <lpkschultz@gmail.com>
wrote:
You
have totally misunderstood my "radical" comment perhaps because you
cannot escape the idea that there are only two political alternatives,
liberal and conservative, as currently understood and that if one calls
Democrats "extremists" one must be a fan of Ann Coulter, et. al.
Kissinger and Nixon not radicals? You're kidding right? Those who overthrew a
democratically elected president in Chile and destroyed an essentially
democratic society there are not "radicals?" JFK trying to kill
Castro, assassinating Diem in Nam, and Trujillo and Lumumba, bringing the
world to the brink of nuclear war because he was obsessed with overthrowing
Castro not a "radical?" Even Eisenhower overthrowing a democratically
elected premier in Iran and supporting a hateful dictatorship while praising
him as a bastion of decency not a radical? Carter praising the same dictator
even as he was about to be overthrown and rightfully so not a
"radical?" Bush declaring war on a tactic not a "radical?"
FDR, stricken with polio, arguing that we have nothing to fear but fear
itself not a radical? What about polio? Thankfully Jonas Salk did not listen
to FDR! Why is it these people, all labeled "moderates" by the
establishment, thought they could get away with supporting dictators and
condone assassination and murder and terrorism if they were not
"radicals?"
On
Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 3:01 PM, Paul Gallagher <thepgallagh@gmail.com>
wrote:
Cool.
Skip the rest and go and get "In the Garden of the Beast."
Very good and disturbing book. History written like a good novel.
And while you're there, check out any book by Ann Coulter
(especially her Demonic: How the Liberal Mob is Endangering America) or any
book by Sean Hannity (a good start is "Deliver Us from Evil:
Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism) and show me a book from
the American "Left" that engages in anywhere close to a
similar elimiinationist rhetoric. The titles and five minutes of
perursing is enough.
On
Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Peter Schultz <lpkschultz@gmail.com>
wrote:
Too
far apart here to have a decent conversation. Will resume on some other
topics.
On
Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Paul Gallagher <thepgallagh@gmail.com>
wrote:
There
are no extremists that control the Democratic party. That's right wing
media hype. Obama, by any standards is a very moderate, overly moderate
Democratic. What you are seeing now is the dismantling, with Democrats
wimpishly agreeing, or the social system put into place by FDR and expanded
by LBJ. Eisenhower was far to the left of most any Democrat in Congress
right now. Nixon was domestically to the left. Those guys worked
within the context of the New Deal. We now are working within the
context of the devised dismantling of that social structure. The Tea
Party is a lot closer to the SDS than to John Kerry.
"Starve
the Beast." Take a surplus, enact massive tax cuts that
disproportionately benefit the rich, conduct an expensive, totally unneeded
and unsuccessful war, cut way back on regulatory oversight of the financial
sector, and create a huge deficit. Create a crisis. Then use that
deficit/crisis to justify cutting back the social system that the wealthy
have always hated.
I'm
afraid we are seeing the status quo being shaken up, in a very,very bad.
It's
right wing enacted class warfare. And that's bad, bad, news.
The
amazing thing that the right are starting to be called on is the bizarre
attempt to mix Ayn Rand, staunch anti-Christian, pseudo Nietzschen
"capitalist superman", heartless nut, with fundamentalist Christianity.
Certain mainstream Christian groups are calling them out on this.
Almost finished with "In the Garden of Beasts"
by Erik Larsen. A very good, and very disturbing read. A story
about the new American ambassador to Germany four months after the ascension
of Hitler. Political paranoia throughout the air.
On
Sat, Dec 31, 2011 at 8:20 AM, Peter Schultz <lpkschultz@gmail.com>
wrote:
Yeah, well, Lind could be right but I am more concerned
with the extremists who control the Republican and Democratic Parties than I
am with the Tea Party. Anything, or almost anything that shakes up the status
quo is fine with me. I don't support the Tea Party and have no intention of
doing so but this kind of stuff merely serves to preserve the status quo both
at home and abroad.
On
Wed, Dec 21, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Paul Gallagher <thepgallagh@gmail.com>
wrote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||
7
No comments:
Post a Comment