Jots with dots 2/23

“Un-American” http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/02/Rudy-Giuliani-Obama-Does-Not-Love-America/385647/ And the Zingy position is, we’d like to be able to have that dispassionate, brainy public conversation about how it is that desiring to transform America’s commercial vitality into something opposite of what it’s been, its world leadership position into something opposite of what’s it’s been, its general standard of living into something diminished because its exploitive at its essence and causes climate change… is something other than a ‘love’ for America as we have been right to understand the concept in the past. IE, the inner dialogue of the Democrat party is kind of kook lefty Marxist academic, and doesn’t Venn overlap all that well with traditional American values / ideals of baseball, apple pie, Chevy and whatnot. But we also know that the political environment doesn’t tolerate a discussion of those contrasts without a lot of caterwauling in which the discussers are accused of red-baiting. So if you’re going to bring it up, you better be prepared to host that polly sci seminar it requires to make it stick. And Giuliani is not that guy. So yes, he’s wrong to say it…

Giuliani’s polly sci seminar. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/giuliani-obama-communist. True. But you’re no allowed to say that, Rudy. It’s red-baiting.

I was clued into this Holden Caulfield thing years ago. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/414112/rudy-right-kevin-d-williamson It’s why I always use the word ‘misanthropy’ in describing this superficial high info / low wisdom lefty obnoxiousness. ‘Misanthrope’ is Caulfield-esque that way

Doesn’t Bill Maher question whether the President is a Christian? http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/scott-walker-don-t-know-obama-christian And that’s the inner dialogue conversation of the Democrat party right, that the President is posturing like on gay marriage… See, TPM is dog whistling its readership here. Walker is blowing the question off, but TPM phrases it as if Walker is being provocative.

What is the deal with Walker, is he going to go wire to wire on this thing? It has that feel.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “Jots with dots 2/23

  1. pm1956

    Oh, come on….

    guiliani is a fool, who is trying to stay on the front pages because his ego requires it. He is a spoiled 2 year old playing with words that he clearly does not understand.

    Yes, there are plenty of ways that you can disagree with the President about priorities and policies, but disagreement does not mean that someone does not love their country, nor does it mean that they are a communist. Or the anti-christ, for that matter (much less a muslim born in Kenya). What is it about the right? Thay can’t seem to criticize the President without trying to perform some deep psychology at the same time–and their version of “deep psychology” is really psychotic, and often racist (and certainly unhinged).

    This has perhaps been one of the most briliant things about Obama–he has been fairly mainstream in his policies and programs, yet he has been able to generate this bizarre hyper-exaggerated opposition on a personal level that totally discredits his opponents because of their viciousness and stupidity. I wonder if Hillary will be able to do the same thing–if so, she will win in a cakewalk.

    Winning the “stupid vote” sort of guarantees that you will lose the vote of the normal, rational middle of the road people. Foaming at the mouth really isn’t all that great for the image of a politician. http://theweek.com/articles/540221/gops-scramble-stupid-vote

    Rand Paul has done a good job of avoiding all of this foolishness, as has Rubio and Bush. Scott Walker hasn’t. Suggests that he may not be quite ready for prime time.

    Reply
    1. W.E. Peterson Post author

      I do think the President is a Democrat through and through, and not something more ‘exotic’. It’s a credit to his own capacity for wisdom I think that he was able to escape the radicalism of his family and academia to become a ‘Democrat’.

      But I think to remark that there aren’t any compelling etymological observations to make about the President’s or Democrats’ ideology is to be blithely dismissive and also a double standard. The left never finds it tiresome for instance to trace conservatism’s ideological kernel back to the southern strategy and racism, for instance. This is the same sort of psychological evaluation.

      Reply
      1. pm1956

        No, it isn’t the same.

        First, the “Southern Strategy” is pretty much a fact–just look at how much of the South voted for jimmy Carter (the last time it happened), versus Bill Clinton (also a Southerner). Or, if you prefer, look at the percentage of the minority vote going to the GOP. It is clear that the GOP is getting older and whiter and more and more Southern (well, Southeastern–concentrated in the states of the old confederacy). It is also pretty clear that Reagan went after those areas in his campaigns. So it did not happen by accident.

        As for racism, I do not think that the GOP is racist. i do think that there are more racists in the GOP than in the democratic party, however. and i do think that racists are more attracted to some of the GOP positions (immigration, in particular, although also cutting funding for the welfare state) on issues (which helps to explain why more of them are in the GOP). And there are more people like Dinesh D’Souza in the GOP who say racist things about Obama pretty regularly. So there is some basis for the charge of racism, while there is no basis for the charge that Obama does not love his country, or is a communist, or is a muslim, or was born in Kenya, etc.

  2. pm1956

    BTW, on the topic of psychology and politics: I recently read jonathan haidt’s “Righteous Mind” book, and thought it was great. My wife (very conservative) also read it and really liked it.

    Reply
      1. pm1956

        Yes, i am married to a conservative. She likes to watch Fox News. Reagan is her idol. and, yes, talking politics can be difficult. She is also religious (well, sort of–not a fundamentalist, by any stretch, but definitely a believer). So a very mixed marriage. Oh, just for you–she is also an engineer (Chem), with all that entails as well (talk about being a rule follower!).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s