Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the pages of http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/Liberals on my web site.


at http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org .
WE are the Answer to the "Christian Coalition" & "Religious Right" .
YOU are the way to get the word out, because unlike THEM,
WE are the friends of the POOR and the downtrodden,
who can't give US the kind of support the RICH give to THEM

Thank you for publishing this; I am very pleased to see it. BTW, I like Christ and I'm a Jew ... I just see him as a very decent Jewish teacher (ie rabbi). :thumbsup:

Jesus being "a very decent rabbi". There's a great book by a Jewish scholar, named Hyam Maccoby, "The Mythmaker", which I am reading and he argues that it's Paul of Tarsus who invented what we now call "Christianity", and made his own epistles and even the Gospels the sources of "anti-semitism" that they became.

"Liberals Like Christ" has many friends who are not "Christians", including Jews, Muslims, Agnostics, and Atheists, and many Roman Catholics, too!

As a Jew, you might especially appreciate http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/RCscandal &
http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/PopesvsChrist , which deals in part with the way the Catholic Church treated Jews over the centuries.

Another difference; they are assholes, we are not. They see large government as benefiting people who aren't the "right" color, or who don't have the right kind of sex or who aren't in the right income bracket. Another big difference, Conservatives don't believe all citizens should benefit from constitutional rights. They have had a perpetual Contract on America!!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"They want CHEAP LABOR"

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/

Great stuff, Pete.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The right-wing does NOT believe in smaller government. They want BIG government to support the miltary, not social programs. Conservatives do not believe in the separation of church and state. They want government support of the Christian church. Conservatives do not believe in due process: The "Patriot Act". Conservatives do not believe in equal protection under the law: Defense of Marriage Act.

So the truth is, liberals believe in strict adherence to the Constitution, with a lean, efficent government not bloated with military spending to finance global intervention.

I would add that they also want big government to maintain and nourish the top 1% Plutocracy by creating War, Debt (who benefits?) and dominating weaker nations so they can rape their resourses.

The people that you are referring to are authoritian statists.

the opposite of "liberal" would be "authoritarian." I wish we could make them own that label. I also think they can be fairly labeled "anarchists" in foreign policy--their aim being to stir things up so that the US can then come in and rearrange things to "our" satisfaction.

I also agree with your "statist" label, but wonder what the opposite of that could be called (recognizing that the extremes along many axes are not the ideal).

they want less government when it helps them get away with more theft and more government when it helps them get away with more theft. their idea of govt is whatever helps them put money in their pockets.

yes, absolutely, the right is morally, not to mention cognitively, deficient.

oh, yeah, and they're insane and ugly, too. seriously.

The key to understanding the motivation of the right is to understand the historical development of our current political/sociological condition.

Religious authority for centuries held sway over western society. Around 500 years ago we started to lift the yoke of this control from our collective backs. We managed to break free and establish ourselves as the rulers of our lives. We began to explore secular government. Nations ruled by the people for the people and from the people.

However there came with this new way a new problem. Uncertainty. Religions with all their problems as ruling bodies carried one thing that was comforting. They carried certainty. They mandated that they alone new the one truth. They defined right and wrong. With people governing people there is doubt.

These differences are defined as absolute moral authority and relativistic morality. This is the bulk of the difference behind the varying motivation of the left and the right. The left embraces a pluralistic society where a variety of moral and ethical codes are able to coexist. The right tends to hold to the notion that there is one true way and they just happen to have this handy book that details the way.

> In a nutshell, the right seems to embrace a political and social
> vision that is devoid of a larger humanitarian purpose. So what's
> the use of it?

The Right exists to support those people who are lucky enough
to be members of its "club".

In the process, they make a lot of other people feel like
they are members of the club (religious fundamentalists,
angry white guys, Log Cabin Republicans, Clarence Thomas),
but those folks aren't really members of the club, not even
associate members. They're just allowed to pay dues, given
a paper membership cards, and expected to help do the club's
work.

Then, helped by these poor dupes, the real club members sit
back and enjoy being the self-appointed, self-annointed
Masters of the Universe.

Atlant

From personal observation, I suspect the conservatives are largely motivated by fear. My own father was a man with a huge inferiority complex, who tried to overcome it by imposing his views on his family. He could think of himself as right, when in reality all he could do was dominate those under his control.

Conservatives are so insecure that it's easier for them to try to impose their version of the world on the rest of us, than to make it on their own merits. They can't accept a world that welcomes and respects many points of view, because it confuses them, and forces them to open their minds and hearts.

They live in a fearful prison of their own making.

Do WE, as liberals and progressives, really want a bigger government?

Before you answer that, think about this: A Government that is Big Enough and Powerful Enough to Care for every social need is probably also a government that, in the hands of someone like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell, to cause all sorts of havoc.

One of my biggest nightmares is a Big Government in the hands of someone like, oh, Geroge W. Bush and John Ashcroft. I would much prefer a government that is smaller and incapable of doing lots of things to one that is Big, Capable of doing much, and which could fall into the hands of someone with views contrary to my own.

big or small isn't really the issue.

the issue is: is the govt capable of doing what needs to be done?

the other issue is: destroying the right (an ongoing task through ongoing exposure of their lies/deception/greed/moral bankruptcy/actual crimes/etc)) so they can never have power.

"The Republicans say: Look out for Number One"
"We say: Look out for one another"

It's obvious that the right doesn't give a shit about community.


:kick:

> It's obvious that the right doesn't give a shit about community.\

But they DO! It's just that the community that they
give a shit about is a very, very small community of people
just like them and not at all like us; see my post (above)
about the "club members".

Atlant

own separate universe.

F**K 'em. Those pukes are living in a fool's paradise; and they'll probably spend their last hours on earth worrying about setting of the place cards for their latest dinner party while the rest of us get our rights, our jobs, our dignity, and our nation back. By any means necessary.


:kick:

"It's obvious that the right doesn't give a shit about community."

They think it leads to communism.
:-)

I completely agree with your analysis. I like your question about Right Wing ideology: "What's the use of it?" I wish I had an answer. I have no idea.

Every single thing they do revolves around money ~ Everything. There is no higher purpose only money. The Left can be summed up in one word also ~People. We care about people they care about money Simple.

Money may be the motivation for the the economic conservatives but that is not where they are getting the massive influx of new voters. The motivation of the common right wing voter is a weariness of trying to work within a pluralistic society. They want thing to be simple and defined. Clear right and wrong based on values they were taught in their culture.

I think part of the conservative philosophy is assigning a moral quality to wealth. By giving wealth the status of a virtue they are able to justify the means through which they pursue their end. (more wealth) It also provides a bit of a smoke screen, as the general public *at least during the 80's, 90's and early 00's* tends to lionize those that have. Think of Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and the extremely positive press they receive. Further, by misleading the public about the reality of money and the ability to generate income they perpetuate the Horatio Algier mythos; anyone can become rich through luck and pluck. All the while they make pretty noises about the American Dream, they do their best to dismantle it. What is wealth without the masses of peons to lord it over? Take a look at the things Repug luminaries say behind closed doors when they think the mic is off. It sounds like a chorus line of Rogers and Hammerstein's, "Screw the rest we got ours". This coupled with their intense tribal behavior, makes them fairly dangerous to the body politic. People will always work towards what's best for themselves, but it's up to the liberals to make the public realize that by helping others get ahead... They themselves will advance. The middle class needs to be told: You aren't rich enough to be a republican.

I've been trying for months to figure out what the fundies and the social Darwinists on the right have in common, and something I read just recently finally gave me the key. It's a reverence for worldly success.

American Protestantism largely began with people who believed in predestination. That is, you were either destined for salvation or you weren't, and since the difference was a matter of God's will (and not of your own actions), you could never know for sure. The Puritans in New England used to make themselves nuts over this uncertainty. But as the country grew more prosperous, a new idea emerged -- that worldly success was a sign of divine grace, and therefore an indicator that you were destined for salvation.

That is the attitude that the fundamentalists have inherited. They literally believe that successful people are favored by God and that unsuccessful people are damned.

Social Darwinism starts with very different premises but ends up with the same conclusion. If the entire history of life on earth is ruled by the principle of "survival of the fittest," than the supreme moral value must be fitness to survive. It doesn't matter what you do, how unscrupulous you are, or how many atrocities you commit -- if you survive and the next guy doesn't, you must be doing the right thing. For example, if you can win an election through dirty tricks or vote fraud, that's fine, because winning is all that matters.

From the point of view of people with these attitudes, the problem with the Democratic Party is that it is on the side of the poor and downtrodden. For us, this seems like the right and natural thing to do. But for the right wing, the poor and downtrodden are either life's losers, whose natural fate is to become extinct, or else an abomination in the eyes of God. Either way, helping them is going against the moral order.

There are some obvious answers to this. Social Darwinism can be easily countered by the latest ideas about evolution, which increasingly emphasize cooperation, symbiosis, and non-zero-sum games. And fundamentalist worship of worldly success suffers from the fact that it is so radically at variance with the message of Christ. But we have to put these arguments together and start getting them out in public.

I wasn't quite ready to bring out the social darwinism gilded age truck, and you said it better than I could have. I appreciate your post.

There is a big difference between the Pseudo-Conservative Right Wing, and people who are honest conservatives. Or who have some conservative instincts.

True conservatives believe in freedom in a positive sense. They do not like to have someone else's vision imposed on them. They believe in helping others. But they object to mandatory social programs that force them to contribute to things they don't agree with.

That is not much different from our instincts on the left. We object to being forced to pay for a war we disagree with, for example.

Most people have a mix of that type of conservatism, and the recognition of common social obligation that is the basis of liberalism.

The GOP and Corporate Right Wing successfully tapped into that instinct. What we have to do on the left is to address that side of human natire honestly, as well as pushing for the social instincts that fuel liberalism.

Sheep and Shepards. But there is a concerted effort on the part of the Economic conservatives to woo more Sheep. Greed is not about sharing. Thus it is in the interest of the economic conservatives to bring individuals into the fold that will fight their fights for them based on some principal that they can manipulate. Thus the combination of the economic conservatives and the religious right.

we cannot live without some preservation of long-standing values, nor can we live without being open to new ideas.

the trick is to distinguish the values to be held that keep our society grounded in some tradition from the ones that keep us mired and stagnant in dogmatic darkness.

my view is that at the present moment we are living in such a darkness that we (as a society) can't make appropriate decisions anymore. in that sense the right has already won. perhaps all we can do is to keep exposing their lies and distortions, keep shedding light on the truth.

For my brother, the libertarian, it's all about the constitution. At least that's how he argues it. It makes for an arguement that is solid because he just goes back to what the constitution allows for and the states should deal with everything else. Not that he wants the states to deal with much else, either.

It's funny because he thinks he is soooo religious and yet it seems like an almost darwinian attitude (he doesn't believe in evolution). Survival of the fittest. Everyone has to make it on their own. (Or with a little help from ones father-in-law.)

To him - giving should be voluntary and everyone will be taken care of because everyone is going to help the needy of their own free will. I don't buy it.

As far as "the right seems to embrace a political and social vision that is devoid of a larger humanitarian purpose. So what's the use of it?"
My brother would say that the use of government are the basic things set out in the constitution like national security and interstate commerce and the government has no business and no reason to do anything else. Anything else is taking his money for no good reason and infringing on his rights.

(I think he gets some/most of this from right-wing media based on how much he villifies Clinton and thinks Bush is just wonderful.)

the rhetoric of the Republican Party. The average conservative likes what he hears, but doesn't look deeper into the reality of what's going on.

The average Democrat is no different. You guys believe the rhetoric of the politicians, ignore the historical record, and somehow hope that "this time it will be different."

I guess would consider myself on the right. I do not want to see more religion. As far as I am concerned government should remain neutral on issues of morality (most of them anyway).

Some are religious idealougues trying to force their religion on everyone else.

Some are just plain greedy.

Most conservatives are degreed (though not necessarily educated), religious, less than intelligent, and selfish.

Their party has been taken over by religion, which is why it must be stopped.

Communists have always worhsipped absolute fairness and equality.

Each extreme is wrong and the answer, as it almost always does, lies in the middle.

The Cheap Labor Party stands foresquare with the extreme Social Darwinists, now that the Confederate Broederbund has successfully and in Orwellian Fashion redefined so many terms of the language and falsely generated their multi-billion dollar Fantasy Bubble.

Further, the Cheap Labor Party is in the process of purging their few remaining "moderates", who after this tectonic shift, appear to be Stalinists in their warped world view.

I'm not so sure the question here, Pete is Left vs Right, it is more of the deleterious effects of psychomanipulation practiced by the thoughtless followers of Goebbels v2.0.

THAT is where the moral deficiency lies. Not the beliefs, which are as valid as your or mine, but the means with which they have falsely magnified their power, the strategies of which have a disturbing number of similarities to Goebbels v1.0.

And let us remember that the Extreme Left would be as scary or scarier than the Busheviks if they had this much unchecked power and uninvesitgated ability to forment fraud and corruption.

It is the motiff of Corporations though as they have no biological drive to help others. Humans are social creatures. There may be some jockeying for position within the social structure but the overall effect is to work together for the betterment of all. Corporations are not built on the same social factors as humans function on. Their drive is pure survival and thus is subject to the depravity that comes with Social Darwinism.

Imperialist Capitalism.

All the other domestic issues are methods of controlling the people.

I am for all the left goals you mention AANNDD for smaller government, less regulation and less taxes. How could i be so odd? Because i'm left libertarian. The US government is proof that i would be better off keeping my hard earned cash in the bank. It is a TOTAL waste of money. It murders people and imprisons them criminally.... and does nothing worthy or noble at all.

End the drugs war, end corporate welfare, and all forms of subsidy, tax and otherwise. End the huge military subsidy and end all forms of finance-campaign-loobby relationships in a "democratic republic"... and voila! lean and mean government back to the people.

The simplistic sense to paint all people who want to be taxed less is below your own philosphical background, Pete.

I have 1 standard of government... impeccability. An impeccable government achieves the absolute best with what it has for all its citizens in terms of human rights, justice and all that good stuff.

Since no american party is impeccable, rather sloppy and stupid, i loathe having them leech away my live's work in tax. A government needs no more than 20% of its citizens industry taxed... any more than that is a crime of bad management.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

When considering WHY extremists think the way they do, the real answer lies in their emotional and psychological pathologies.

In other words, there is no reason.

forward to in the late 90's would have gone a long, long way to lowering taxes in the future on everyone. This misadministration has gotten us into such a hole that we probably will never have such a rosy outlook again. Five years ago I had an optimistic outlook for our future. I no longer do. It's very sad.

It's only greed. It's a story that's as old as time.

They don't want a smaller government really.
They want a large government that has no employees except the Republican "contractors" who can take all the taxpapyer revenue, provide as little "service" as possible, and put all the difference in their pockets.

Also, they don't want to pay any taxes to suport this systems because they're "investors" and capital should be sacred.

They just tell us the "story" about wanting smaller government and lower taxes because it's a shell game. Distract the public over here, do the stealing over there.

Greed, pure and simple.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.