|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:18 am Post subject: 1912 vs 2012 |
 |
|
Today, conservative insurgents have taken over the Republican Party, reviling President Obama, repudiating George W. Bush and renouncing business as usual. For the 2012 election, no Republican presidential candidate can ignore them, and few will defy them.
But what is it they want? For the best answer, look back 100 years, to the seminal presidential election whose result they would like to repeal...
This brings us to 2012. What tea partiers and their ilk seek to do is relitigate the election of 1912. Taft, they think, was right all along. Progressivism was a catastrophic mistake.
In 1912, however, progressives were the insurgents. Today, in a fascinating ironic twist, the progressive Obama plays the role of Taft a century ago. In any substantive sense, he is the one who is the conservative today, defending a century of progressivism now woven deep into the country�s social and political fabric.
By the same token, the tea partiers� campaign to undo the 1912 election, whatever you think of its merits, is less conservative than it is radical. Former House speaker Newt Gingrich, a Republican presidential candidate, knew what he was talking about when he called the party�s proposal to abolish Medicare as we know it �radical change from the right� and �too big a jump.� When the party howled, Gingrich had to repudiate his comment � not because his comment wasn�t conservative, but because, in truth, it was.
http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/06/27/062711-opinions-column-1912-rauch-1-2/
This pretty much nails it on the head. Let's repeal the last century and confront the 21st Century with the failed wisdom of the 19th. 'Hurray'...or should that be 'Yarruh'? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 6:08 am Post subject: Re: 1912 vs 2012 |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| This pretty much nails it on the head. Let's repeal the last century and confront the 21st Century with the failed wisdom of the 19th. 'Hurray'...or should that be 'Yarruh'? |
Sounds like someone needs a history lesson.
The 19th century was certainly flawed in many ways (esp. during the Civil War, when Lincoln the proto-fascist railway lawyer/lobbyist turned president waged a barbarous, ruinous, illegal war of aggression against the south, destroying much of the country and killing untold numbers simply to consolidate federal power and convert the US into an imperialist system). Yet due to free market principles, and power still being less centralized than it is today, it was also generally the time of greatest economic expansion, innovation, and freedom in United States history.
After Wilson was elected, however, the first thing he did was hand the bankers the thing they coveted above all else (a dream which had been previously been foiled by presidents like Jackson, and rightly so): a central bank. Thus the Federal Reserve was created in 1913 (along with income tax, so that the public would be forced to pay off the interest to the private banks, on debt accrued by the government).
Within a decade the government had taken our unwilling country into WWI (funded by money "borrowed" from the Fed, as always), resulting in millions of deaths for the countries involved, and more federal power. By the 1920's Wall Street had taken over America and was lending out mad money created out of thin air, (the "roaring twenties" - a decade of waste, decadence, and general criminality, an environment befitting the likes of Charles Ponzi and Al Capone), followed by the inevitable collapse and the Great Depression. All of this was predicted in advance by the Austrian economists (who have continued to be correct in nearly all their predictions to this day, having most recently also predicted the current depression).
Indeed, the 20th century was one of the most brutal in all of human history - with most of the evil stemming from the policies enacted during Wilson's time (namely the hijacking of the nation by the Federal Reserve banking cartel). No doubt that's why it appeals to ya-ta so much. Criminality and fraud in peace time, followed by ruthless consolidation of power during war (which the government simply can't do without) is what the so-called "progressives" (Orwellian language at its finest) have always been about.
Ya-ta in particular seems to get off government sanctioned criminality. That's why he's so thrilled about all the crimes Obama has committed (including waging illegal wars of aggression without Congressional approval, which under the criteria used in the Nuremberg Trials would classify him as the very worst sort of war criminal, literally on par with Hitler). He also loves the fact that Obama gets to hand trillions over to Goldman-Sachs and JPMorgan-Chase and use his Left-cover to dupe the idiot public into thinking it's "progressive", when in fact it's more akin to feudalism than anything else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
catman
Joined: 18 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Progressive have no power today. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visitorq
Joined: 11 Jan 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| catman wrote: |
| Progressive have no power today. |
You mean besides the Clintons and Obama? And of course everyone knows the Rockefellers have no power today  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
