| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
DIsbell
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
|
 Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:40 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I'm curious... what grassroots conservative movements are actually grassroots? the tea parties and town-hall screamers have been appropriately labeled astroturf movements. what's left?
honestly if anything I'd say the only grassroots conservative movement is the pro-life one. that's something that seems to genuinely spring up from little churches across the country, although of course assisted at some point by major conservative thinktanks/institutions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
shifter2009
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| shifter2009 wrote: |
| ...they're nothing but a mob scene. |
By the way, I disagree about the Daily Show. In the long term, it accomplishes little more than instilling and reaffirming a sense of dismissiveness and smug superiority in the grass-roots left with respect to the right and the grass-roots right. Not helpful, Shifter. |
Well, I agree with you a little here. The daily show should just be a comedy show which gets some chuckles off the absurdity of American politics. Unfortunately, there seems to be a lack of accountability for the media and the mass amount of hypocrisy and double speak that is coming out of the major news networks. The show does a fairly good job of pointing it out and exposing it for what it is. That said, it shouldn't be the shows role, should be handled by the news media itself. I also think they do go soft on the crazy wing of the left like the environmental protesters and the free trade people. Go to those rallies and you'll find people saying things every bit as dumb as you will at these town hall meetings. To summarize, while I think there is some truth to what your saying there, I think we are better off with The Daily Show than without it at this stage. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifter2009
Joined: 03 Sep 2006
Location: wisconsin
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 06, 2009 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| DIsbell wrote: |
I'm curious... what grassroots conservative movements are actually grassroots? the tea parties and town-hall screamers have been appropriately labeled astroturf movements. what's left?
honestly if anything I'd say the only grassroots conservative movement is the pro-life one. that's something that seems to genuinely spring up from little churches across the country, although of course assisted at some point by major conservative thinktanks/institutions. |
I think there are some legit spending and deficit hawks out there who could make a fair argument but are surrounded by dudes with Obama Death Care signs that they kind of get lost in the mix. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hater Depot
Joined: 29 Mar 2005
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| honestly if anything I'd say the only grassroots conservative movement is the pro-life one. that's something that seems to genuinely spring up from little churches across the country, although of course assisted at some point by major conservative thinktanks/institutions. |
Much of the "social conservative" movment seems to be grassroots in the way that you describe. I doubt that your average corporate executive, for example, really feels himself to have any direct interest in whipping up anti-gay marriage sentiment in California. I think any power that movement has results from grassroots resentment, combined with Republican strategists willingness to exploit that resentment in order to keep their coalition alive. Not from big-league corporate donors getting on the phone with party headquarters and saying "We gotta stop gay marriage NOW, or my portfolio's gonna sink next year!!" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 10:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
There is a literature on grass-roots conservatism and political activism. Lisa McGirr and others.
________
Hater: you talk as if you do not believe that the last several days did not force the administration and its speechwriters to modify not only their proposed lesson plan but the speech itself, too. I think it most likely that they did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DIsbell
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 07, 2009 3:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| honestly if anything I'd say the only grassroots conservative movement is the pro-life one. that's something that seems to genuinely spring up from little churches across the country, although of course assisted at some point by major conservative thinktanks/institutions. |
Much of the "social conservative" movment seems to be grassroots in the way that you describe. I doubt that your average corporate executive, for example, really feels himself to have any direct interest in whipping up anti-gay marriage sentiment in California. I think any power that movement has results from grassroots resentment, combined with Republican strategists willingness to exploit that resentment in order to keep their coalition alive. Not from big-league corporate donors getting on the phone with party headquarters and saying "We gotta stop gay marriage NOW, or my portfolio's gonna sink next year!!" |
to a degree, but for example in CA much of the funding and organizing to oppose gay marriage came from the upper echelons of the Mormon Church, which makes a distinction of grassroots a little bit fuzzy.
but anyhow, cynically, it would appear that the only legit grassroots movements of conservatives involve controlling the personal lives of others and/or outright bigotry. You're kinda hard-pressed to find any significant truly grassroots movements about tax reform, maintaining the status quo for healthcare, continuing the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan, fighting against pro-environment/sustainability regulations and programs, etc. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Konglishman
Joined: 14 Sep 2007
Location: Nanjing
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 4:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| At first, I did think it seemed a bit much for the administration to be providing lesson plans, but now I think this is all much ado about nothing. President Obama wants to give a speech to students about taking responsibility. That is about as apolitical as you can get. Further, I would think that any good teacher or parent would want their children to be encouraged to the ethos of responsibility seriously. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DIsbell
Joined: 15 Oct 2008
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
to a degree, but for example in CA much of the funding and organizing to oppose gay marriage came from the upper echelons of the Mormon Church, which makes a distinction of grassroots a little bit fuzzy.
|
Yeah, I thought about that as well. Hard to say where you would classify the Mormon bigwigs on the "elite/grassroots" continuum. I guess it sort of depends what your definition of "grassroots" is.
I guess my idea of an elite-driven movement was one that is being manipulated at the top by people who have some sort of direct economic interest in the policies advanced by the movement(say, for example, an oil company donating money to an astroturf movement against environmentalism). In the case of the Mormons in California, I knew the church elders were the ones putting out the bad word against Prop 8, but didn't a lot of the money donated come from Joe Blow Average Mormon? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| President Obama wants to give a speech to students about taking responsibility. |
The Just Say No campaign, which had clubs in schools across the US, was founded by Nancy Reagan. Even if it wasn't always Mrs. R visiting the schools to give the speeches, the program was closely enough associated with her in the public mind to make that distinction rather obsolete.
And anyway, I'm pretty sure Nancy Reagan DID visit the schools on occassion. At least, she was portrayed as doing such on an episode of Diff'rent Strokes(in which she told the class a story about a teenaged boy who smoked pot and "hurt his little sister very badly"). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
| President Obama wants to give a speech to students about taking responsibility. |
The Just Say No campaign, which had clubs in schools across the US, was founded by Nancy Reagan. Even if it wasn't always Mrs. R visiting the schools to give the speeches, the program was closely enough associated with her in the public mind to make that distinction rather obsolete.
And anyway, I'm pretty sure Nancy Reagan DID visit the schools on occassion. At least, she was portrayed as doing such on an episode of Diff'rent Strokes(in which she told the class a story about a teenaged boy who smoked pot and "hurt his little sister very badly"). |
That's my era. I was still in lower elementary when the Reagans started their Drug War. Anyone remember DARE? I don't ever remember any concerns over the autonomy of States or Localities then.
And Obama's feel-good speech is supposed to outrage me now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I don't ever remember any concerns over the autonomy of States or Localities then.
|
Nor when Reagan brought in the nationwide 21 drinking age. Though I guess states were still technically free to set their own age, if they wanted to forego federal highway funding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
I don't ever remember any concerns over the autonomy of States or Localities then.
|
Nor when Reagan brought in the nationwide 21 drinking age. Though I guess states were still technically free to set their own age, if they wanted to forego federal highway funding. |
good point. More political hypocrisy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 08, 2009 9:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
I don't ever remember any concerns over the autonomy of States or Localities then.
|
Nor when Reagan brought in the nationwide 21 drinking age. Though I guess states were still technically free to set their own age, if they wanted to forego federal highway funding. |
This one I go both ways on. Check out South Dakota v. Dole.
| Quote: |
The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision authored by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, ruled that Congress had engaged in a valid exercise of its power under the Taxing and Spending Clause, and did not violate the 21st Amendment. Rehnquist said that Congress's conditional spending is subject to four restrictions:
1. The condition must promote "the general welfare;"
2. The condition must be unambiguous;
3. The condition should relate "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs;" and
4. Other constitutional provisions may provide an independent bar to the conditional grant of federal funds. |
Now, studies have shown that raising the drinking age to 21 does decrease rates of drinking and driving. And this does fulfill condition #3, namely that if the Feds fund highways, they'd want to ensure that they're not used as bumper cars for sloshed teens.
But, then again, it seems like the Federal interest can always be found, just like its always been found under the Commerce Clause. So we shouldn't ever trust the Feds, ever, until they have solid and unambiguous studies in hand.
I do think they may have them in this case. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
