Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

In your estimation, how accurate is Fred Thompson's description of the Democratic Party?

"The Democratic Party of today would abandon many of these principles and what they would not abandon they would distort. They have their own principles. They believe:


In highlighting and dwelling on America�s imperfections.
In isolationism.
In policies that will give the world the impression that we are weak and divided.
In declaring defeat even when we are winning.
In stopping or reneging on free trade agreements with other countries, and making the word of the United States less reliable.
In turning over the education of our children to the NEA.
In continuing to expand our entitlement program spending even as these programs are headed bankruptcy.

Today�s Democratic Party would persuade the American people that the government is the solution to all of their problems and that every economic downturn is because of a conspiracy against them.

They would change the definition of marriage and appoint liberal judges to set our social policy. In fact, they have thrown our court system into turmoil in order to ensure that President Bush will not be able to appoint any more judges in hopes that next year a new Democratic president can give us a new batch of judges approved by MoveOn.org.

They would bring about the biggest tax increase in American history."


I'd say he's about 3% right.

Full article: http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/FredThompson/2008/06/08/adhering_to_the_principles_that_keep_america_prosperous__free?page=full&comments=true

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

Outside the DLC it is about half right.

[No_hite_pls]

I think he is 0.1% right, there would be a tax increase on the richest .01% of the countries population.


Some other things that would happen if the Democrats where in power; they would stop the huge budget deficits to be paid for in the future,
end the costly pointless wars,
the population would have lower healthcare costs than the private healthcare system (very easy to do), and there would be respect for civil discourse (repeal of the patriot act).


Some results of Democrats polices; Bankruptcies would decrease because of cheaper healthcare costs (healthcare is leading cause of bankruptcy)
The middle class would have more money to spend do to less bankruptcies, resulting in increased corporate profits and strengthened stock market.

And a final result would be a stronger US currency.

[Gopher]

Thompson has stereotyped "the Democrats" while expressly drawing our attn to Moveon.org. We all often stereotype those who stand outside our circle. It seems part of the human condition.

In any case, Thompson's stereotype, like every other stereotype, is insightful into the Democrats' worldviews -- and especially how they appear to Republicans like Thompson -- while at the same time unfairly essentialistic and biased by the stereotyper's hostility to the stereotypee (another of stereotyping's most common features).

It carries pros and cons, then, Ya-ta Boy. I hope you would not dismiss it as 99.99 or 97 percent false anymore than you would want me to accept it as 99.99 or 97 percent accurate. The truth, if there is one, lies somewhere between. This one, "highlighting and dwelling on America�s imperfections," seems mostly accurate to me; the left's worldview sees the United States' glass as half-empty, and a half-empty glass that was deliberately made so by malicious people acting in bad faith, etc. On the "isolationism" charge, that seems more complicated. I think Democrats want American interventionism in the Sudan and Tibet, for example.

And the solution to the problem would seem to entail Republicans like Thompson's asking themselves why they talk about Democrats that way, and Democrats' asking themselves how they might better get their message out without provoking such reactions to their politics as we see here.

Finally, any chance you might shorten that link?

[Ya-ta Boy]

[Gopher]

One: I did not present that as "a complaint." Two: no problem; either you will or you will not.

[Kuros]

[pkang0202]

If the Dems had their way they would:

1. Launch a crusade against Bush, his cabinet, staff, and Republican party leaders.

2. When they had some time leftover from crucifying, they would raise taxes. And yes, if you are middle class with any disposable income, you are considered "rich" by Democrat standards.

3. Balance the budget by FIRST going after defense spending. They would close bases, pull money from research, and neuter our military.

[Gopher]

[No_hite_pls]

[Gopher]

Thanks. I will try to read something of what these professors have read and perhaps even interact with one or two in the future.

Perhaps I have it all wrong and ought to become better educated.

By the way, political science professor and feminist Rosalind Pollack Petchesky once denounced American society as "a capitalist, racist, male-supremacist society" in Feminist Studies. Before she could publish that, incidentally, it had to pass the scrutiny of her peers, who all agreed with her assessment. Where I heard it discussed, only several weeks ago, an entire panel of professors and grad students predicted that this terribly repressive society was on the verge of overturning Roe vs. Wade and would soon commit to a course of action that enforced heterosexuality onto the entire population.

[No_hite_pls]

Gopher, I see your point but I think your talking about a very very small minority.

I also think it is dangerous when the extreme right bashes any professor that says anything remotely negative about American history.

[Gopher]

"Remotely negative?" Is that how you characterize the positions I have referenced here?

Look at this from another angle. Former Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara served JFK and LBJ. He published his Vietnam memoir, In Retrospect, in the mid-1990s -- during the Clinton years, I remind you, long before W. Bush allegedly created negativity and antiAmericanism simply by being president during 9/11 and then when he erroneously and probably in bad faith invaded Iraq.

In any case, who and what do you think he addressed when he explained that he was writing this account because "I have grown sick at heart witnessing the cynicism and even contempt with which so many people view our political institutions and leaders?"

"Many factors helped lead to this," McNamara continues, "Vietnam, Watergate, scandals, corruption. But I do not believe, on balance, that America's political leaders have been incompetent or insensitive to their responsibilities and to the welfare of the people who elected them and to whom they are accountable. Nor do I believe they have been any worse than their foreign counterparts or their colleagues in the private sector. Certainly they have shown themselves to be far from perfect, but people are far from perfect. They have made mistakes, but mostly honest mistakes."

Professors, leftist or otherwise, understand better than anyone else that we produce knowledge, and that it does not arise naturally and produce itself -- we fabricate, craft, and sell it. Who has fabricated, crafted, and sold the knowledge that you call "the truth," above? And what purposes have shaped this fabircation, crafting, and selling?

And, finally, why do you think that Thompson has cited this tendency in Democratic circles? Do you think that Thompson is just crazy and not able to see "the truth" that you know because he is mindless, brainwashed, etc.?

If so, that helps explain why people are no longer exchanging views amicably in this country but rather calling each other names (e.g., "racist," "patriotic drone," "fascist," "General Betray-us").

[No_hite_pls]

[Gopher]

No, I do not dismiss her as "a nutjob." I have colleagues who strongly adhere to such beliefs, and strongly believe that leading their classes to adopt such beliefs is the right thing to do. I also believe they are well-balanced and intelligent and act in good-faith.

I just wish they would recognize and acknowledge the good in American society from time to time and stop seeing the United States and indeed the world as pessimistically as Thompson describes, above -- purely black and irredeemable.

And I would extend that to Obama's wife and former spiritual advisor as well.

I just reviewed the rest of what Thompson alleges. I think he is likely off-base and/or playing fear-based propaganda games, to one degree or another, on several of the other claims, esp. turning all education over to the NEA. We have a pretty strong tradition of state and local govts setting their own educational agendas in the United States. I do not care who the Democrats elect, I do not see anyone, not even an FDR, changing that.