Barack Obama's Bitter Liberalism

[stephanie]

:clap:

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama may be exactly what his supporters suppose him to be. Not, however, for reasons most Americans will celebrate.

Obama may be the fulfillment of modern liberalism. Explaining why many working class voters are "bitter," he said they "cling" to guns, religion and "antipathy to people who aren't like them" because of "frustrations." His implication was that their primitivism, superstition and bigotry are balm for resentments they feel because of America's grinding injustice.

By so speaking, Obama does fulfill liberalism's transformation since Franklin Roosevelt. What had been under FDR a celebration of America and the values of its working people has become a doctrine of condescension toward those people and the supposedly coarse and vulgar country that pleases them.

When a supporter told Adlai Stevenson, the losing Democratic presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956, that thinking people supported him, Stevenson said, "Yes, but I need to win a majority." When another supporter told Stevenson, "You educated the people through your campaign," Stevenson replied, "But a lot of people flunked the course." Michael Barone, in "Our Country: The Shaping of America From Roosevelt to Reagan," wrote: "It is unthinkable that Roosevelt would ever have said those things or that such thoughts ever would have crossed his mind." Barone added: "Stevenson was the first leading Democratic politician to become a critic rather than a celebrator of middle-class American culture -- the prototype of the liberal Democrat who would judge ordinary Americans by an abstract standard and find them wanting."

Stevenson, like Obama, energized young, educated professionals for whom, Barone wrote, "what was attractive was not his platform but his attitude." They sought from Stevenson "not so much changes in public policy as validation of their own cultural stance." They especially rejected "American exceptionalism, the notion that the United States was specially good and decent," rather than -- in Michelle Obama's words -- "just downright mean."

The emblematic book of the new liberalism was "The Affluent Society" by Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith. He argued that the power of advertising to manipulate the bovine public is so powerful that the law of supply and demand has been vitiated. Manufacturers can manufacture in the American herd whatever demand the manufacturers want to supply. Because the manipulable masses are easily given a "false consciousness" (another category, like religion as the "opiate" of the suffering masses, that liberalism appropriated from Marxism), four things follow:


read the rest and comments..
http://ktkz.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2008/04/15/barack_obamas_bitter_liberalism?page=full&comments=true

[red states rule]

:clap:

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama may be exactly what his supporters suppose him to be. Not, however, for reasons most Americans will celebrate.

Obama may be the fulfillment of modern liberalism. Explaining why many working class voters are "bitter," he said they "cling" to guns, religion and "antipathy to people who aren't like them" because of "frustrations." His implication was that their primitivism, superstition and bigotry are balm for resentments they feel because of America's grinding injustice.

By so speaking, Obama does fulfill liberalism's transformation since Franklin Roosevelt. What had been under FDR a celebration of America and the values of its working people has become a doctrine of condescension toward those people and the supposedly coarse and vulgar country that pleases them.

When a supporter told Adlai Stevenson, the losing Democratic presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956, that thinking people supported him, Stevenson said, "Yes, but I need to win a majority." When another supporter told Stevenson, "You educated the people through your campaign," Stevenson replied, "But a lot of people flunked the course." Michael Barone, in "Our Country: The Shaping of America From Roosevelt to Reagan," wrote: "It is unthinkable that Roosevelt would ever have said those things or that such thoughts ever would have crossed his mind." Barone added: "Stevenson was the first leading Democratic politician to become a critic rather than a celebrator of middle-class American culture -- the prototype of the liberal Democrat who would judge ordinary Americans by an abstract standard and find them wanting."

Stevenson, like Obama, energized young, educated professionals for whom, Barone wrote, "what was attractive was not his platform but his attitude." They sought from Stevenson "not so much changes in public policy as validation of their own cultural stance." They especially rejected "American exceptionalism, the notion that the United States was specially good and decent," rather than -- in Michelle Obama's words -- "just downright mean."

The emblematic book of the new liberalism was "The Affluent Society" by Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith. He argued that the power of advertising to manipulate the bovine public is so powerful that the law of supply and demand has been vitiated. Manufacturers can manufacture in the American herd whatever demand the manufacturers want to supply. Because the manipulable masses are easily given a "false consciousness" (another category, like religion as the "opiate" of the suffering masses, that liberalism appropriated from Marxism), four things follow:


read the rest and comments..
http://ktkz.townhall.com/columnists/GeorgeWill/2008/04/15/barack_obamas_bitter_liberalism?page=full&comments=true



In this election, it seems the Dems want to elect a Nanny who will pamper them and give them things

More handouts paid for by the producers who make America work

[avatar4321]

i think this emphasizes the big cultural divide between right and left. However, i do think some of the right can be just as condescending as the left. Pride doesnt only corrupt those on the left.

[No_Socialism]

Obama is more of a democratic socialist than a modern liberal.

[red states rule]

Obama is more of a democratic socialist than a modern liberal.

Is there a difference?

[No_Socialism]

Is there a difference?

Not much, but Obama falls on the "Democratic Socialist" side more than the "Modern Liberal" side:

Issue: Progressive Taxation
Obama's Platform: Yes
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Yes
Modern Liberals: Yes

Issue: Strong skepticism for capitalism
Obama's Platform: Yes
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Yes
Modern Liberals: Somewhat

Issue: Immigration
Obama's Platform: Less Restrictive
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Less Restrictive
Modern Liberals: Mostly Less Restrictive

Issue: Abortion
Obama's Platform: Pro Choice
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Pro Choice
Modern Liberals: Pro Choice

Issue: More Public Education / Less Private
Obama's Platform: Yes
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Yes
Modern Liberals: Yes

Issue: Same Sex Marriage
Obama's Platform: Yes
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Yes
Modern Liberals: Yes

Issue: Universal Healthcare
Obama's Platform: Yes
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Yes
Modern Liberals: Yes

Issue: More Regulation
Obama's Platform: Yes
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Yes
Modern Liberals: Mostly Yes

Issue: Free Trade
Obama's Platform: Mostly No
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Mostly No
Modern Liberals: Mostly Yes

Issue: Lower Defense Spending
Obama's Platform: Yes
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Yes
Modern Liberals: Mostly Yes

Issue: Gun Control
Obama's Platform: Strict
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Strict
Modern Liberals: Strict

Issue: More Environmental Protection Laws
Obama's Platform: Yes
Democratic Socialists & Social Democracy: Yes
Modern Liberals: Mostly Yes

Obama is more in line with Democratic Socialists than Modern Liberals...

[red states rule]

To me choosing between Hillary and Obama is like choosing between a broken left leg, or a broken right leg

[mundame]

To me choosing between Hillary and Obama is like choosing between a broken left leg, or a broken right leg


http://wade.hu/smiley/kategoriak/%E1llatok/animal-smiley-016.gif I am not perfectly sure the Dems can count on your vote, RSR.

[red states rule]

http://wade.hu/smiley/kategoriak/%E1llatok/animal-smiley-016.gif I am not perfectly sure the Dems can count on your vote, RSR.

As a proud member of Operation Chaos, I will vote for Hillary next Tues

Then I switch back to Republican on my way home

[mundame]

When a supporter told Adlai Stevenson, the losing Democratic presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956, that thinking people supported him, Stevenson said, "Yes, but I need to win a majority."



You have to admit, that was a KILLER line.

Unfortunately, it was also a campaign killer. http://macg.net/emoticons/laughing4.gif



"Stevenson was the first leading Democratic politician to become a critic rather than a celebrator of middle-class American culture -- the prototype of the liberal Democrat who would judge ordinary Americans by an abstract standard and find them wanting."

And this is why he lost, because a candidate HAS to be president of all the people, or at least convince the people he will be! Supercilious egghead superiority expressions ------------ what's to like?

I feel the situation is dire if a candidate can't figure out something so basic as that. High-level politicians have the best social skills in the country: that's what they do, that's why they get where they are and that's how they operate. If one does NOT have good social skills.........

They soon get unelected. If Barama Obrack doesn't get elected prez, would he even survive as Senator? We don't know, because he only in his first term! I've seen state legislators who didn't have the people skills, and they were out on their ears. Politics is a game of people skills, and Obama seems to have a tin ear for it.

[No_Socialism]

As a proud member of Operation Chaos, I will vote for Hillary next Tues

Then I switch back to Republican on my way home

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[red states rule]

[QUOTE=

And this is why he lost, because a candidate HAS to be president of all the people, or at least convince the people he will be! Supercilious egghead superiority expressions ------------ what's to like?

[/QUOTE]

That is Obama or Hillary can never unite the country. Their socialist polices will divide the country even more

Look how well they have united the Dem party

[mundame]

As a proud member of Operation Chaos, I will vote for Hillary next Tues

Then I switch back to Republican on my way home


Bravo!!!!

Hey, I'm not proud; I'll take what I can get. http://macg.net/emoticons/smilebow.gif

[red states rule]

Bravo!!!!

Hey, I'm not proud; I'll take what I can get. http://macg.net/emoticons/smilebow.gif

I will do my small part to keep the civil war in the Dem party going. To help the Clintons (for one day only) to bloody up Barry. To kep the liberal media in a tizzy. And to make the DNC, Barry, and Hillary keep spending campaign money

[red states rule]

:clap: :clap: :clap:

Chris Matthews, one the many Obama ass kissers in the liberal media, is having a fit over Operation Chaos

Matthews: What Kind of 'Klutz' Takes Orders from Rush Limbaugh?
By Geoffrey Dickens | April 16, 2008 - 17:54 ET

Rush Limbaugh's "Operation Chaos," has ticked off Chris Matthews. On Wednesday's "Hardball" Matthews insulted Limbaugh's listeners, who are voting in the Democratic primary, as he questioned: "What kind of klutz do you have to be to take orders on how to vote from Rush Limbaugh and to change your party identity so that you can vote against, for somebody to screw the other party?"

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/geoffrey-dickens/2008/04/16/matthews-what-kind-klutz-takes-orders-rush-limbaugh

[midcan5]

As a proud member of Operation Chaos, I will vote for Hillary next Tues

Then I switch back to Republican on my way home

You are saying then that you are afraid of Obama being about to beat McBush?

Interesting.

[red states rule]

You are saying then that you are afraid of Obama being about to beat McBush?

Interesting.

You are not up to speed on the objectives of Operation Chaos

They are to allow the Clintons to bloody up Barry, to keep the uncivil war going within the Dem party, to make Barry, Hillary, and the DNC keep spening campaign money, and to piss off the liberal media

So far, all obejectives have been exceeded

[midcan5]

You are not up to speed on the objectives of Operation Chaos

They are to allow the Clintons to bloody up Barry, to keep the uncivil war going within the Dem party, to make Barry, Hillary, and the DNC keep spening campaign money, and to piss off the liberal media

So far, all obejectives have been exceeded

So that is the new conservative idea of democracy? isn't that exactly what fascists do.

http://www.reuniteamerica.net/new_facisim.htm

"3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

14. Fraudulent Elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections."

[red states rule]

So that is the new conservative idea of democracy? isn't that exactly what fascists do.

http://www.reuniteamerica.net/new_facisim.htm

"3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause: The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

14. Fraudulent Elections: Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections."

Come off your liberal high horse. it was Dems who gave Rush the idea. They did the same thing in the Dems MI primary

The Daily Kook Kos called on MI Dems to crossover and "have fun" in the Reopublican primary.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/1/10/2713/87225

Libs are pissed we are actully having an impact.

[midcan5]

Doesn't matter who does it, it is still wrong. This moral scale of your wrong is worse than my wrong or you did wrong so I can do wrong is childish and immature.

"It is not enough to ask, ‘Will my act harm other people?’ Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, ‘Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people?’ The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great..."

Derek Parfit

[red states rule]

Doesn't matter who does it, it is still wrong. This moral scale of your wrong is worse than my wrong or you did wrong so I can do wrong is childish and immature.

"It is not enough to ask, ‘Will my act harm other people?’ Even if the answer is No, my act may still be wrong, because of its effects on other people. I should ask, ‘Will my act be one of a set of acts that will together harm other people?’ The answer may be Yes. And the harm to others may be great..."

Derek Parfit

So where was all the liberal outrage when Dems "had fun" in MI? How many people do you libs effect? Oh, they were Republcians so it iwas fine

What we are doing is legal, and if you libs are so upset then change the state laws

Until then, I am having alot of fun watching you clowns rip each other apart