What I want to know is why are all the supposedly conservative airheads suddenly seem to be pulling for Romney, who is less of a Republican than McCain...
I believe every word that McCain has said in reference to immigration. He has emphatically stated that he will end illegal immigration and not give benefits to illegals already here. He's telling the truth...he will make them all legal and open the borders to whoever wants to come in.
I have decided to back a new candidate for President: Osama bin Laden...He's the perfect candidate. He will stop terrorist attacks against the US after his election. He's got a business background, he comes from a family in the construction business, so he would know how to get the housing industry going again. He's got connections with the oil industry so we could get prices back down in that area. After six months in office the Democratic Partys base would have disappeared from the face of the earth, so what's there not to like about this guy! Go Obama..no, no, I mean go Osama!
And if you go back and read what he said when he was running for the Senate in '94, or when he was running for Governor, he was even further to the left. For example in the '94 campaign he supported a plan of campaign finance reform that would make McCain-Feingold look like small potatoes.
Silence, I'm not disagreeing with you. The question is, will Romney respond to pressure from the electorate? I think he will. I think the same of Obama. Hillary I'm not sure about.
I think McCain will tell the electorate to get fucked, he's going to do what he wants to do.
"I think McCain will tell the electorate to get fucked, he's going to do what he wants to do."
So will Hillary, Kevin. In my unhumble opinion, she will not only tell the electorate to get fucked, she will see to it that they get fucked.
I have stated before that I try very hard to not confuse possibility with probability. The expectations I have of her approach certainty, but predicting the path of the other candidates is much more difficult.
I will NOT vote for her, no matter who is running. It might well be that she gets elected and does great harm to the country, in which case the blame will belong not just on her and her party, but on all those who put her in office. I will NOT be one of them.
I recall an incident (unfortunately, I recall only the incident, not the issue) during the Clinton administration when a bill passed the House by one vote and tied in the Senate, at which point Owlgore's vote broke the tie. The bill passed by smallest margin possible. When Slick Willie signed it into law, he called the vote a "mandate".
Hillary Clingon has that same chutzpah, even though she doesn't quite have Bill's ability to induce the suspension of disbelief in her audience. If Hillary Clingon is elected, I expect she will call her election a mandate during her inaugural address. We don't need a landslide, as a result of disgust with the Republican Party, to give her a real one.
At this point, I look to the long-term future, the idea being to balance two competing goals: 1) to minimize the harm she would cause by minimizing the mandate she would claim; and, 2) to maximize the ability to get her, her party, and her politics condemned for that damage. It's like killing flies with sewage.
Now, in fairness, I wrote the above comment before reading the transcript of Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin, intentionally so. They make a damned good case, but, unfortunately, "None of the Above" isn't on the ballet.
This is shaping up to be the worst Presidential election I've been through.
Man, it really must stink right now for conservatives...or should I say "real" conservatives, whatever that means.
I think this could be one of the best elections in US history-incredible if my guy wins. More importantly, I think it might just spell the end of conservatives like Malkin. If Republicans put up Romney or McCain, what is her raison d'etre?
But the trainwreck that this whole election is heading towards is of such chaos, that I don't know for sure what the end result would be.
(Well, yes, I do, and you're right. The (D)s will vote en-bloc for their candidate, no matter who it is... though I'd love to be surprised/disappointed.)
But right now, you've got left McCain, who a large portion don't like. Romney, who another portion don't like. P4u1, well, enough said.
But on the D side, the wheels are starting to come off the wagon. The true believers are backing Obama, and the Clintonian dirty tricks (that for 16 years we've had denied that exist) are really PISSING THEM OFF. The "establishment" is behind the Clinton's, cause, well, it's... the Clintons, and we don't want them mad at US.
There's a real possibility that well over 1/2 of the D's will be sitting home if Clinton wins the nomination, I think....
So you've got McCain and Romney who aren't well liked, and Clinton who's utterly hated....
Meh. Hell, screw it. Somebody call Fred, dammit, let's make this sucker INTERESTING AGAIN!
>I don't like Romney either. But I
>would like to hear your list of
>reasons why he's less conservative.
My big problem with Romney is he seems almost pathological liar. One everything from his constantly changing positions, to blatant panders like his 'I'll bring back all the auto jobs' speech in Michigan, to weird throw aways like his 'double gitmo' debate line, he seems like he'll say literally anything, no matter how obviously false and stupid, if he thinks it's what the listener wants to hear.
"are there any outspoken conservative women you do respect?"
Well, apparently liberals like Ann Coulter now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc
I don't like Malkin because she represents that element in the conservative wing that lives in fantasy land filled with bigotry and fear. Her shtick is to find a topic, make up a bunch of shit about it, based on her "inner rage", and spew it out of the neo conservative fake outrage machine. Example: Sally Field makes her comment at that awards show about the war...Malkin then says, "I bet Field is the type of mom who buys liquor and condoms for her teenage children and gets them hotel rooms."
Mark,
What is Malkin "Making up?" You toss that hand grenade out there in the most casual of ways "my friend." (opps, started channeling McPain there).
Why don't we get it over and make it a McLame/Hitlery. They can flip a coin for who gets the oval office.
They both lie and are corrupt. A political marriage made in .. er.. um D.C.
Well, it happened more quickly than I thought it would, and by Captain Ed, of all people. We have a new political term, coined here: McCain Derangement Syndrome.
"are there any outspoken conservative women you do respect?"
Well, apparently liberals like Ann Coulter now.
That doesn't answer my question. I asked if there were any outspoken conservative women you respected. Still curious...
As for Malkin, I don't always agree with her, but I think she's on-target more often than she's not. Incidentally, are there any outspoken liberal pundits you dislike?
Plenty. I really don't like anyone at Moveon.org. They're pretty much all morons. I think Janeane Garafolo is terribly naive. Not a fan at all of Huffington Post.
On the conservative side, I used to like Christine Todd Whitman but she blew it with me with the whole 9-11 EPA thing. I would say that if I had to pick someone I respect it would be Laura Ingraham. I listen to her show from time to time and she has some pretty astute things to say, although I disagree with her most of the time.
I know that you are gloating over the fact that there are no Conservatives left in the mix and that some of us are upset about it. You see, there are some people left in this country who believe in personal freedom and liberty. We believe that people are responsible for their actions, we do not believe in collectivism, we believe in free markets, we are anti-communists. That's why we are not Democrats.
It's hard not to like/respect Laura Ingraham. She's my favorite female conservative pundit. Of course, my view is far different from yours: I think she's right most of the time.
Sarah, would you say she was right when she said this back in 2006
"The Republicans better get the message that working class families need help financially. If they don't they are going to lose this year and probably lose the White House in 08."
Dennis, I am not gloating about anything. I think it is terribly sad that you think that if Obama wins you are going to lose personal freedom and liberty and that he doesn't believe that people are responsible for their actions. It's just so far from reality I really don't know where to begin...
I would need to know in what context Ingraham said that and what she meant by financial help. She has advocated in the past that we need to stop the influx of cheap labor into the country, because that drives wages down and makes it harder for working families to make ends meet. Is that the conext of the quote?
I think it is terribly sad that you think that if Obama wins you are going to lose personal freedom and liberty...
Among other things, if Obama plans to raise taxes and increase gun control, then we are going to lose personal freedom and liberty.
Obama is a socialist. I don't think that even you could disagree with that. So, socialism=slavery/death. 20th century socialists murdered more than 100 million of their own citizens. So you say, why are we skeptical about electing a socialist? History, Mark, read it!
She was talking within the context of corporations in this country, CEOs specifically, making too much money. She has just gotten back from her trip to Iraq and was affected by her visit with the troops, most of whom were middle class to poor. I have to say I was quite surprised by what she said and it made me respect her more than I have in the past.
Accurately describing Obama as a socialist and then noting the continuing, inevitable failure of socialism is not "appeal to fear" - it's "application of history."
I like to appeal to fear. I feel that a healthy understanding of fear can keep you alive. I don't think that I would have made it 58 years without having learned to apply a healthy dose of fear to many of the things and events around me. Fortunately I have not had to experience these things myself but have been able to learn from other peoples misfortunes. This is where a knowledge of history can really help you out. I know from history that I do not want to find out whether socialism is a good form of government. It's been proven to be very unhealthy for anyone who disagrees with socialism in a socialistic society, and you see, that would be me!
If you think that you would like this type of government then go ahead and vote for Obama.
I suppose this as good of a time as any to throw out something I have been mulling over for the past few weeks. The two arguments I inevitably get when I talk about my views is that history is against me and I don't use scientific method.
First of all, Obama is not a socialist. Nor is he a communist. He just favors more government control than most of you do...which is basically saying he favors a teaspoon of government and you favor an eighth of a teaspoon. Our culture is far too ingrained in capitalism (mostly a good thing)for there to be any chance of socialism. History :) shows us that the only time we ever came close to socialism (FDR), it was really capitalism that bailed us out. Remember, though, it was "collective capitalism" that won us WWII.
I am not a socialist nor am I a communist. I also don't believe that the free market is a wondrous magical place where only good things happen. A free market with some government oversight is what I would like. We don't have that now. We have a CEO president who is a boot licker for corporate America.
How about some current history? I know someone who works for a company that contracts with the Department of Homeland Security. In the area of our government that her company services, there are six employees. Nice and lean like you folks like it, right? Small budget for that area so all is well...
...not quite. Her company employs 3,000 people that are all working because of the government contract which, by her estimation, costs the taxpayers (that's us) 20 times as much than it would to have the same service inside the government with many less people. The waste that all of you speak of has been transferred to the private sector with no competition at all because....it was a no bid contract!!!
We have also seen over the last few years how "competent" the private sector can be, which is to say about the same as a government operation. I say it's worse because when you lack the infrastructure to take care of things like....oh...bridges....people die. People also die when it is better for profits (see: US Health Care system) I would say that an awful lot of people have died in the last eight years because an ideology that, in the end, makes about as much sense to me as communism. What we really need as a balance and that is what Obama is all about. Continue to believe the lies of right wing pundits, Dennis, and you will continue to live in ignorance.
As to my lack of use of the scientific method, I would submit that it is scientific method that shows both the good and bad of a society like ours. Individualistic societies have greater innovation, creativity, and rewards and human rights. These are all things I cherish about our culture. But they also have more frequent loneliness, more divorce, more homicide, and more stress related disease. Western individualism has increased while the priority place on social obligation and family ties has decreased. These traits have all been scientifically proven in studies over the last 30 years.
Researcher Martin Seligman has argued that "rampant individualism carries with it two seeds of its own destruction. First, a society that exalts the individual to the extent ours does now will be ridden with depression. Second, and perhaps most important, is meaninglessness which occurs when there is no attachment to something larger than you are."
He wrote that in 1988. Look where we are 20 years later...a society filled with very unhappy people with little or no inspiration or motivation...no one part of anything greater than them. The question is...how do we get back in balance?
Researcher Martin Seligman has argued that "rampant individualism carries with it two seeds of its own destruction. First, a society that exalts the individual to the extent ours does now will be ridden with depression. Second, and perhaps most important, is meaninglessness which occurs when there is no attachment to something larger than you are."
He wrote that in 1988. Look where we are 20 years later...a society filled with very unhappy people with little or no inspiration or motivation...no one part of anything greater than them. The question is...how do we get back in balance?
I agree with this, Mark, but unlike you I don't see government as the solution to this problem.
In my husband's native Finland, which is very socialistic, individualism is not valued. Anyone who tries to succeed is brought down by his peers much like crabs in a bucket. Finland has the highest male suicide rate in the world, one of the highest rates of violent crime in the Western world, and an extremely high incidence of alcoholism. This is what happens in a culture that subjugates the human spirit to the group.
The solution to "rampant individualism" is for government to back off and mind its own business. Personal responsibility and all the risks and consequences that that entails has a way of keeping the negative aspects of individualism in check.
More to the point, Sarah, inspiration and motivation die out when the gubmint provides everything one needs. The solution to "rampant socialism" is for gubmint to back off and mind its own business.
"Personal responsibility and all the risks and consequences that that entails has a way of keeping the negative aspects of individualism in check."
I agree but that is not what is happening in America today. No one takes responsibility for anything-least of all many of our more defense oriented corporations. Same with the health care industry. While there are good companies out there, many have become greedy little children that are guilty of the same transgressions that big government is guilty of...I don't see much of a difference other than the illusion of choice which is also a farce in 2008.
DJ, an Obama presidency will not provide everything one needs. Hillary....maybe but I really don't believe a word she says.
I'm not sure what national defense and healthcare have to do with individualism, but whatever problems you have with large defense-oriented companies and the healthcare industry, they were created by government meddling. The solution is not more of the same.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/01/if-you-need-another-reason-not-to-pull.html (42 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Surprise Surprise...
Beck is stumping for Romney.
What I want to know is why are all the supposedly conservative airheads suddenly seem to be pulling for Romney, who is less of a Republican than McCain...
by just about any measure of their histories.
I don't like Romney either. But I would like to hear your list of reasons why he's less conservative.
D'oh. That was me.
I believe every word that McCain has said in reference to immigration. He has emphatically stated that he will end illegal immigration and not give benefits to illegals already here. He's telling the truth...he will make them all legal and open the borders to whoever wants to come in.
I have decided to back a new candidate for President: Osama bin Laden...He's the perfect candidate. He will stop terrorist attacks against the US after his election. He's got a business background, he comes from a family in the construction business, so he would know how to get the housing industry going again. He's got connections with the oil industry so we could get prices back down in that area. After six months in office the Democratic Partys base would have disappeared from the face of the earth, so what's there not to like about this guy! Go Obama..no, no, I mean go Osama!
Romney as gov:
Mandatory health insurance
Raised corporate taxes
Raised gas taxes
Assault weapons ban
Pro abortion
Pro civil unions, if not gay marriage
And if you go back and read what he said when he was running for the Senate in '94, or when he was running for Governor, he was even further to the left. For example in the '94 campaign he supported a plan of campaign finance reform that would make McCain-Feingold look like small potatoes.
Silence, I'm not disagreeing with you. The question is, will Romney respond to pressure from the electorate? I think he will. I think the same of Obama. Hillary I'm not sure about.
I think McCain will tell the electorate to get fucked, he's going to do what he wants to do.
"I think McCain will tell the electorate to get fucked, he's going to do what he wants to do."
So will Hillary, Kevin. In my unhumble opinion, she will not only tell the electorate to get fucked, she will see to it that they get fucked.
I have stated before that I try very hard to not confuse possibility with probability. The expectations I have of her approach certainty, but predicting the path of the other candidates is much more difficult.
I will NOT vote for her, no matter who is running. It might well be that she gets elected and does great harm to the country, in which case the blame will belong not just on her and her party, but on all those who put her in office. I will NOT be one of them.
I recall an incident (unfortunately, I recall only the incident, not the issue) during the Clinton administration when a bill passed the House by one vote and tied in the Senate, at which point Owlgore's vote broke the tie. The bill passed by smallest margin possible. When Slick Willie signed it into law, he called the vote a "mandate".
Hillary Clingon has that same chutzpah, even though she doesn't quite have Bill's ability to induce the suspension of disbelief in her audience. If Hillary Clingon is elected, I expect she will call her election a mandate during her inaugural address. We don't need a landslide, as a result of disgust with the Republican Party, to give her a real one.
At this point, I look to the long-term future, the idea being to balance two competing goals: 1) to minimize the harm she would cause by minimizing the mandate she would claim; and, 2) to maximize the ability to get her, her party, and her politics condemned for that damage. It's like killing flies with sewage.
Now, in fairness, I wrote the above comment before reading the transcript of Glenn Beck and Michelle Malkin, intentionally so. They make a damned good case, but, unfortunately, "None of the Above" isn't on the ballet.
This is shaping up to be the worst Presidential election I've been through.
This is shaping up to be the worst Presidential election I've been through.
Absolutely correct.
Man, it really must stink right now for conservatives...or should I say "real" conservatives, whatever that means.
I think this could be one of the best elections in US history-incredible if my guy wins. More importantly, I think it might just spell the end of conservatives like Malkin. If Republicans put up Romney or McCain, what is her raison d'etre?
"to maximize the ability to get her, her party, and her politics condemned for that damage. It's like killing flies with sewage."
Well, that really didn't work all that well for the irrevocable damage Bush has done. I doubt it will be any different with Hillary.
What would it take to get Thompson to run Independent like Ross Perot did? That would really stir the pot, would it help us?
To steal a line from Instapundit:
They said if Bush was elected (or re-elected), political opponents would be threatened and even killed!
spell the end of conservatives like Malkin.
What would it take to get Thompson to run Independent like Ross Perot did? That would really stir the pot, would it help us?
No, it would just ensure a Democrat in the Whitehouse, just like it did last time.
Kevin:
I think so too.
But the trainwreck that this whole election is heading towards is of such chaos, that I don't know for sure what the end result would be.
(Well, yes, I do, and you're right. The (D)s will vote en-bloc for their candidate, no matter who it is... though I'd love to be surprised/disappointed.)
But right now, you've got left McCain, who a large portion don't like. Romney, who another portion don't like. P4u1, well, enough said.
But on the D side, the wheels are starting to come off the wagon. The true believers are backing Obama, and the Clintonian dirty tricks (that for 16 years we've had denied that exist) are really PISSING THEM OFF. The "establishment" is behind the Clinton's, cause, well, it's... the Clintons, and we don't want them mad at US.
There's a real possibility that well over 1/2 of the D's will be sitting home if Clinton wins the nomination, I think....
So you've got McCain and Romney who aren't well liked, and Clinton who's utterly hated....
Meh. Hell, screw it. Somebody call Fred, dammit, let's make this sucker INTERESTING AGAIN!
DJ,
So will Hillary, Kevin. In my unhumble opinion, she will not only tell the electorate to get fucked, she will see to it that they get fucked.
And that they like it. Remember, with a woman it's not enough that you do something. You also have to want to do it.
Mark,
Why this abiding hatred for Malkin? Out of curiosity, are there any outspoken conservative women you do respect?
>I don't like Romney either. But I
>would like to hear your list of
>reasons why he's less conservative.
My big problem with Romney is he seems almost pathological liar. One everything from his constantly changing positions, to blatant panders like his 'I'll bring back all the auto jobs' speech in Michigan, to weird throw aways like his 'double gitmo' debate line, he seems like he'll say literally anything, no matter how obviously false and stupid, if he thinks it's what the listener wants to hear.
"are there any outspoken conservative women you do respect?"
Well, apparently liberals like Ann Coulter now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc
I don't like Malkin because she represents that element in the conservative wing that lives in fantasy land filled with bigotry and fear. Her shtick is to find a topic, make up a bunch of shit about it, based on her "inner rage", and spew it out of the neo conservative fake outrage machine. Example: Sally Field makes her comment at that awards show about the war...Malkin then says, "I bet Field is the type of mom who buys liquor and condoms for her teenage children and gets them hotel rooms."
Mark,
What is Malkin "Making up?" You toss that hand grenade out there in the most casual of ways "my friend." (opps, started channeling McPain there).
Why don't we get it over and make it a McLame/Hitlery. They can flip a coin for who gets the oval office.
They both lie and are corrupt. A political marriage made in .. er.. um D.C.
Well, it happened more quickly than I thought it would, and by Captain Ed, of all people. We have a new political term, coined here: McCain Derangement Syndrome.
I can't help but wonder how fast it'll spread.
Mark,
"are there any outspoken conservative women you do respect?"
Well, apparently liberals like Ann Coulter now.
That doesn't answer my question. I asked if there were any outspoken conservative women you respected. Still curious...
As for Malkin, I don't always agree with her, but I think she's on-target more often than she's not. Incidentally, are there any outspoken liberal pundits you dislike?
Plenty. I really don't like anyone at Moveon.org. They're pretty much all morons. I think Janeane Garafolo is terribly naive. Not a fan at all of Huffington Post.
On the conservative side, I used to like Christine Todd Whitman but she blew it with me with the whole 9-11 EPA thing. I would say that if I had to pick someone I respect it would be Laura Ingraham. I listen to her show from time to time and she has some pretty astute things to say, although I disagree with her most of the time.
Mark,
I know that you are gloating over the fact that there are no Conservatives left in the mix and that some of us are upset about it. You see, there are some people left in this country who believe in personal freedom and liberty. We believe that people are responsible for their actions, we do not believe in collectivism, we believe in free markets, we are anti-communists. That's why we are not Democrats.
Dennis
Mark,
It's hard not to like/respect Laura Ingraham. She's my favorite female conservative pundit. Of course, my view is far different from yours: I think she's right most of the time.
Sarah, would you say she was right when she said this back in 2006
"The Republicans better get the message that working class families need help financially. If they don't they are going to lose this year and probably lose the White House in 08."
Dennis, I am not gloating about anything. I think it is terribly sad that you think that if Obama wins you are going to lose personal freedom and liberty and that he doesn't believe that people are responsible for their actions. It's just so far from reality I really don't know where to begin...
Mark,
I would need to know in what context Ingraham said that and what she meant by financial help. She has advocated in the past that we need to stop the influx of cheap labor into the country, because that drives wages down and makes it harder for working families to make ends meet. Is that the conext of the quote?
I think it is terribly sad that you think that if Obama wins you are going to lose personal freedom and liberty...
Among other things, if Obama plans to raise taxes and increase gun control, then we are going to lose personal freedom and liberty.
Mark,
Obama is a socialist. I don't think that even you could disagree with that. So, socialism=slavery/death. 20th century socialists murdered more than 100 million of their own citizens. So you say, why are we skeptical about electing a socialist? History, Mark, read it!
Dennis,
Please kindly review this logical fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear
Sarah,
She was talking within the context of corporations in this country, CEOs specifically, making too much money. She has just gotten back from her trip to Iraq and was affected by her visit with the troops, most of whom were middle class to poor. I have to say I was quite surprised by what she said and it made me respect her more than I have in the past.
Mark:
Accurately describing Obama as a socialist and then noting the continuing, inevitable failure of socialism is not "appeal to fear" - it's "application of history."
Please read Hayek's The Road to Serfdom.
Mark doesn't understand logic. He's cargo culting.
See all previous posts from him.
And I expect no changes in the future.
Mark,
I like to appeal to fear. I feel that a healthy understanding of fear can keep you alive. I don't think that I would have made it 58 years without having learned to apply a healthy dose of fear to many of the things and events around me. Fortunately I have not had to experience these things myself but have been able to learn from other peoples misfortunes. This is where a knowledge of history can really help you out. I know from history that I do not want to find out whether socialism is a good form of government. It's been proven to be very unhealthy for anyone who disagrees with socialism in a socialistic society, and you see, that would be me!
If you think that you would like this type of government then go ahead and vote for Obama.
"application of history."
I suppose this as good of a time as any to throw out something I have been mulling over for the past few weeks. The two arguments I inevitably get when I talk about my views is that history is against me and I don't use scientific method.
First of all, Obama is not a socialist. Nor is he a communist. He just favors more government control than most of you do...which is basically saying he favors a teaspoon of government and you favor an eighth of a teaspoon. Our culture is far too ingrained in capitalism (mostly a good thing)for there to be any chance of socialism. History :) shows us that the only time we ever came close to socialism (FDR), it was really capitalism that bailed us out. Remember, though, it was "collective capitalism" that won us WWII.
I am not a socialist nor am I a communist. I also don't believe that the free market is a wondrous magical place where only good things happen. A free market with some government oversight is what I would like. We don't have that now. We have a CEO president who is a boot licker for corporate America.
How about some current history? I know someone who works for a company that contracts with the Department of Homeland Security. In the area of our government that her company services, there are six employees. Nice and lean like you folks like it, right? Small budget for that area so all is well...
...not quite. Her company employs 3,000 people that are all working because of the government contract which, by her estimation, costs the taxpayers (that's us) 20 times as much than it would to have the same service inside the government with many less people. The waste that all of you speak of has been transferred to the private sector with no competition at all because....it was a no bid contract!!!
We have also seen over the last few years how "competent" the private sector can be, which is to say about the same as a government operation. I say it's worse because when you lack the infrastructure to take care of things like....oh...bridges....people die. People also die when it is better for profits (see: US Health Care system) I would say that an awful lot of people have died in the last eight years because an ideology that, in the end, makes about as much sense to me as communism. What we really need as a balance and that is what Obama is all about. Continue to believe the lies of right wing pundits, Dennis, and you will continue to live in ignorance.
As to my lack of use of the scientific method, I would submit that it is scientific method that shows both the good and bad of a society like ours. Individualistic societies have greater innovation, creativity, and rewards and human rights. These are all things I cherish about our culture. But they also have more frequent loneliness, more divorce, more homicide, and more stress related disease. Western individualism has increased while the priority place on social obligation and family ties has decreased. These traits have all been scientifically proven in studies over the last 30 years.
Researcher Martin Seligman has argued that "rampant individualism carries with it two seeds of its own destruction. First, a society that exalts the individual to the extent ours does now will be ridden with depression. Second, and perhaps most important, is meaninglessness which occurs when there is no attachment to something larger than you are."
He wrote that in 1988. Look where we are 20 years later...a society filled with very unhappy people with little or no inspiration or motivation...no one part of anything greater than them. The question is...how do we get back in balance?
Mark,
She was talking within the context of corporations in this country, CEOs specifically, making too much money.
Occasionally, I disagree with Ingraham, and this would be one of those instances.
Researcher Martin Seligman has argued that "rampant individualism carries with it two seeds of its own destruction. First, a society that exalts the individual to the extent ours does now will be ridden with depression. Second, and perhaps most important, is meaninglessness which occurs when there is no attachment to something larger than you are."
He wrote that in 1988. Look where we are 20 years later...a society filled with very unhappy people with little or no inspiration or motivation...no one part of anything greater than them. The question is...how do we get back in balance?
I agree with this, Mark, but unlike you I don't see government as the solution to this problem.
In my husband's native Finland, which is very socialistic, individualism is not valued. Anyone who tries to succeed is brought down by his peers much like crabs in a bucket. Finland has the highest male suicide rate in the world, one of the highest rates of violent crime in the Western world, and an extremely high incidence of alcoholism. This is what happens in a culture that subjugates the human spirit to the group.
The solution to "rampant individualism" is for government to back off and mind its own business. Personal responsibility and all the risks and consequences that that entails has a way of keeping the negative aspects of individualism in check.
More to the point, Sarah, inspiration and motivation die out when the gubmint provides everything one needs. The solution to "rampant socialism" is for gubmint to back off and mind its own business.
"Personal responsibility and all the risks and consequences that that entails has a way of keeping the negative aspects of individualism in check."
I agree but that is not what is happening in America today. No one takes responsibility for anything-least of all many of our more defense oriented corporations. Same with the health care industry. While there are good companies out there, many have become greedy little children that are guilty of the same transgressions that big government is guilty of...I don't see much of a difference other than the illusion of choice which is also a farce in 2008.
DJ, an Obama presidency will not provide everything one needs. Hillary....maybe but I really don't believe a word she says.
Mark,
I'm not sure what national defense and healthcare have to do with individualism, but whatever problems you have with large defense-oriented companies and the healthcare industry, they were created by government meddling. The solution is not more of the same.
Sure it is, Sarah! You just have to put the right people in charge!
Kevin,
Did you manage to find any of those mythical "perfect people?" Markadelphia sure hasn't!
Nope. Hell, I can't even find "adequate" people.
To everybody: (except Mark)
Is it true that you guys are lying to me and that I'm going to finish out my days in ignorance?
Continue to believe the lies of right wing pundits, Dennis, and you will continue to live in ignorance.
Dennis:
No, we're not lying to you.
Really.
Trust us.
It's for your own good.
It's for the Children!
It'll hurt us more than it'll hurt you.
The Check's in the mail.
Would we lie to you?
Us?
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>