Skip to comments.Politics as religion in America [hilarious liberal fears]
Posted on 10/05/2009 2:35:40 AM PDT by Ron C.
For decades now, liberals have been agonizing because conservatives seem to win even when polls show that the public generally disagrees with them. In their postmortems, liberals have placed blame on the way they frame their message, or on the right-wing media drumbeat that drowns out everything else, or on the right's co-opting of the flag, Mom and apple pie, which is designed to make liberals seem like effete, hostile foreign agents.
It's understandable that liberals prefer to think of their subordination as a matter of their own inadequacies or of conservative wiles. Theoretically, you can learn how to improve your message or how to match wits with adversaries, and a lot of liberal hand-wringing has been dedicated to doing just that. But it is becoming increasingly clear that liberals haven't just been succumbing to superior message control, or even to a superior political narrative (conservatives' frontier individualism versus liberals' communitarianism). They are up against something far more intractable and far more difficult to defeat. They are up against religion.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I found it absolutely hilarious - laughing all the way through it... so I had to share the laughs with fellow FReepers!
Liberals complain they are fighting against religion, but what they are really fighting against is basic ethics.
I'm tellin' ya, sometimes I get the feeling that other countries are reading this dribble and laughing their ass off at the breathtaking ignorance in this country. It's like a third of our citizens are acting like North Koreans. Completely oblivious to everything except their dear leader.
OK, let's just stop and ponder this thought for a minute.
Nope, not working
Still not getting there.
ain't gonna happen
I just couldn't grasp it.
To beat your opponent you need to understand them. Problem is, if Liberal understand Conservatives well enough, they’ll become Conservatives, thus Liberals will never have the brain power who understand their enemy
While Conservatives understand Liberals perfectly. We don’t fool ourselves. We know what we’re up against.
The Revolution was preached from the pulpit (a very liberal minister, Jonathan Mayhew fired the first shot). Abolition, woman's sufferage, temperance, the fight against Jim Crow were all intensely religious efforts. I suspect this writer would have had no problem with most of that or with the Rev. William Sloan Coffin and the Berrigan brothers involvement in protesting against the Viet Nam war.
The essence of conservatism is it does look to the culture, to faith to improve society. Law and politics are the last resorts.
A first step, is to stop viewing your enemies as evil. Conservatives believe they have a better idea to help the poor that is different to Liberals
... which is designed to make liberals seem like effete, hostile foreign agents.
"Seem"? I thought they were.
If there is ANY single group who has embraced liberal politics as their "religion" and worship at the altar of the Central-Planning-Big-Gubmint-Nanny-State, it is the left and their approach is that with the zeal and fervor, not usually seen with even the most religious zealot of any faith or denomination--well, perhaps with the exception of the Islamo-Fascist, which btw, the left routinely defends, if not embraces.
One big pile of bovine excrement and I believe the term "projection" comes to mind?
"Seem"? I thought they were.
They were from the git-go too. When Federalists warne of factions, warned of Jacobins and atheists, warned Americans not to side with the French Revolution, they were warning of the danger of liberalism. In fact, the word "democrat" entered the American political lexicon as an accusation, not a label many attached to themselves. Jefferson ran from it and declared himself a republican. Only once they got power in 1800 did liberals start to slowly admit they were "democrats".
It’s classic projection. Leftists seem to honestly believe they treated Bush nicely and are therefore shocked to see even 1/10 the bile they had on Bush thrown at hussein.
See even Neal admits what liberalism is. And IF liberalism really was/is the utopia liberals claim it is then why after owning all three branches of government are they still raging. Liberalism is and always has been a destroying force by depriving individualism from each individual.
Given what Neal has to say about conservatives I can't wait to see how he glorifies the old 'lion' of the senate.
Also important, Democrats would not get anywhere unless they were voted for by constituencies who are NOT AT ALL liberal by nature, but vote Dem for other reasons.
This from the party that worships government as god. Creator of all that is good, the source of all blessings and sustenance. The all seeing, all knowing god that lays low the wicked capitalist and showers the spoils upon the anointed.
So, tell me again why government employees need unions if government as god is their messiah and savior?
“...when in a war, foreign or intestine, the enemies get a final victory, so as, the forces of the Commonwealth keeping the field no longer, there is no further protection of subjects in their loyalty, then is the Commonwealth dissolved, and every man at liberty to protect himself by such courses as his own discretion shall suggest unto him.”
Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan, 1651
that might be because we FLY the flag-not walk on it, we love our Mom, NOT heather has TWO MOMMIES and we eat real apple pie not tofu pie.
Your feelings are well founded.
The sadomasochistic tendencies of the Islamists and treatment of women is rooted in their latent homoeroticism... i.e., ROMAN POLANSKI!!!
(Also note the misogynist attack on Miss California by the Hollyweird gaystapo.)
A cursory psychoanalysis of the masochistic left in the West will find that most of those submissive, feminized males are most often allied with Islam because of such militant, misogynist attitudes in their deviant thinking concerning sexuality. Like Islamics, nothing sets them off more than any criticism at all, even if it is founded in the facts of biological reality.
Like the National Socialists and their minions, the Gaystapo and Islamofaggots want you to submit as well...
We also referred to ourselves as a “Republic” until FDR started using the term “Democracy”. I wonder why the words of the Pledge of Allegiance haven’t been changed from “the Republic for which we stand to the Democracy for which we stand.
Describes the left perfectly.
Try and find a democrat-run city that isn't a cesspool of violence and corruption. There's all the evidence one needs that the Left are faith-based rather than evidence-based.
A truly stunning article.
I’ve never read anything so absolutely wrong as this.
It is a complete inverse of reality. As Rush says, 180 degrees out of phase. Clearly it is the left that substitutes politics for religion - after all it’s the only religion they have.
Its almost as if he’s trying to be satirical, he cites a “rightness so unshakable that it is not subject to political caveats” as if he’s oblivious to “We hold these truths to be self-evident’.
He may be right on the reciprocal point though - for people as far gone as he is - there may be no hope.
Thanks. I didn’t know when it started. Lots of FDR’s crew came out of Wilson’s Creel Committee. They refer to America as a democracy under him? Or hadn’t America “progressed” yet to the point people would let it pass unremarked?
Remember Keep the world safe for Democracy? I dont remember FDR, but from Truman on Ive been hearing that phrase.
The Library of Conress has a great online exhibit on Religion and the Founding of the American Republic. I am from Muhlenberg County Kentucky which was named after General Peter Muhlenberg. The Library of Congress website says:
A Fighting Parson
Peter Muhlenberg (1746-1807) was the prime example of a "fighting parson" during the Revolutionary War. The eldest son of the Lutheran patriarch Henry Melchoir Muhlenberg, young Muhlenberg at the conclusion of a sermon in January 1776 to his congregation in Woodstock, Virginia, threw off his clerical robes to reveal the uniform of a Virginia militia officer. Having served with distinction throughout the war, Muhlenberg commanded a brigade that successfully stormed the British lines at Yorktown. He retired from the army in 1783 as a brevetted major general.
And here is a pic of the statue of Gen. Peter Muhlenberg in the U.S. Capitol. It clearly shows the preacher pulling off his robe as described above.
OK, douchebag. Let's see how your side treats the flag, Mom, and Apple pie.
"Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at."
"Listen Bitch, I don't care about you or your baby"
"Dig It. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim's stomach! Wild!"
Look, I got two daughters 9 years old and 6 years old, he said. ... but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
Hey Neal, stuff it.
They are fighting against God and His natural laws.
Everything about leftism is contrary to Reality, ie, the way God created the Universe, the “Rules” thereof, and the human nature that He put in it.
Do we? How many of us realize that, given the power to do so, leftists would use the power of the state to kill all of their ideological opponents?
“Framing their message” means “figuring out how to conceal their beliefs in the most convincing manner possible”.
They DO understand this. They know their beliefs can’t be widely know, because the hoi-paloi aren’t smart enough to understand the superiority of those beliefs.
You are correct about your comment on human nature. The basic difference between liberals and conservatives is their view on basic human nature. Liberals believe that mankind is by nature good, virtuous, instinctively communitarian. They believe people are only corrupted later by corrupt influences in society, primarily what they perceive as the unfairness of abilities, the capitalist system, prejudice. Further, they believe mankind is evolving into higher forms and hence they discount the argument that their prescribed cures for society have never worked in the past. They believe this time it will work because mankind (meaning themselves) are smarter, wiser, more perfect. (Remember Obama’s oft-cited “more perfect” union talk regarding American society.)
Now conservatives believe that mankind’s nature is basically selfish, greedy, individualistic, competitive. It is informed partly by the religious philosophy of “fallen man”. Conservatives don’t pretend that capitalism is anything other than a private means of channeling mankind’s basic nature into something that can benefit everyone (”enlightened self-interest”). Conservatives believe that any combination of people has the capacity to merely concentrate and feed upon mankind’s basic venal instincts. Capitalism does this. No conservative in his or her right mind believes that unfettered capitalism is any better than the humans who run it. So, conservatives believe, is government. Conservatives believe (and facts bear this out) that government is also a collection of venal, greedy, power-hungry people. The difference is that government has coercive powers denied capitalist organizations and therefore government is more dangerous than capitalist combines.
Liberals believe, religiously, that government is a refining, virtuous organization intended to allow people to remain as perfect as they were designed to be by nature, even if it must do so by force. Conservatives believe, religiously, that mankind is not perfectable by natural means but only by supernatural means and that government fulfills its mandate by placing consequences on mankind’s most egregious evil and leaving the rest alone to private controls. The writer is correct that the views between the two philosophies are quite irreconcilable.
The sentiments, if not the phrase itself, goes back further than FDR, into the days of Woodrow Wilson..
I think Republicans ran from the “Democrat” label to distance themselves from the Democratic-Republican Societies that Washington considered treasonous because it was a political party that disagreed with him. Later, after taking power, Madison and Monroe embraced the moniker. Unlike today however, the Democrats were the party of limited government.