[Peace-discuss] ideology etc.

[C. G. Estabrook]

Who do you think is looking down on whom as "less worthy," Robert?

There do seem to be a number of people on this list who don't agree with 
Jefferson's description* of the "two parties" -- which I think is pretty 
accurate.  Perhaps that's whom you mean.  Regards, Carl

_____________________________
*Jefferson wrote that people are "naturally divided into two parties: 
(1) Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all power 
from them into the hands of the higher classes; and (2) Those who 
identify themselves with the people, have confidence in them, cherish 
and consider them as the most honest and safe, although not the most 
wise, depository of the public interests."


Robert Dunn wrote:
> 
> this is exactly why i have become disillusioned with "The Left!" The 
> constant looking down on those whom have a disagreement as less worthy. 
> This elitism has alienated working class America. Thank you Bob for your 
> comment. Its time for the Left to turn back to its populist roots and 
> purge itself of the University based intellectual elite class! Return to 
> the union halls, churches, and out of the Lecture Halls!
> 
>> From: "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>
>> To: Bob Illyes <illyes at uiuc.edu>
>> CC: peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] ideology etc.
>> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:17:56 -0500
>>
>> These are such inane statements (on important issues) that I can't 
>> imagine anyone taking them seriously.  But the issues themselves -- 
>> America's relation to Israel, the goals of US/Israeli policy, the 
>> situation of the Palestinians, the nature of the American political 
>> parties, and the political economy of the United States -- are 
>> inescapable if one wants to understand the war and oppose it.  I 
>> thought that was what AWARE was trying to do.
>>
>> It's not enough simply to say that Bush and Cheney (or Clinton and 
>> Osama) are morally responsible for the war and leave it at that.  We 
>> have to say why they are wrong, why the war is immoral, and what 
>> should be done about it.  Nor can we possibly say that a group -- the 
>> American electorate -- is not morally responsible for the war.  Why, 
>> that would be to contend that capitalists have completely subverted 
>> democratic government...
>>
>>
>> Bob Illyes wrote:
>>> ...
>>> 1) Israel is simply America's proxy.
>>> 2) America is simply Israel's proxy.
>>> 3) American and/or Israeli governments are consistently on the side 
>>> of evil.
>>> 4) Palestinians are not as responsible for the chaos in Gaza and the 
>>> West Bank as are Israelis, but are rather as pure as wind-driven snow.
>>> 5) Democrats are to the right of Republicans.
>>> 6) Capitalists have completely subverted democratic government.
>>>
>>> These all are blanket statements about groups, and are no more 
>>> appropriate than racism or anti-semitism. It is not the group that is 
>>> morally responsible, but the individual. As Mort might put it, this 
>>> sort of talk leads to more heat and less light.
>>>
>>> If we are to reach both sides of the isle, and Jews as well as 
>>> Gentiles, this sort of over-generalization should not be in our 
>>> literature. If there is substantial evidence that there is something 
>>> to any of these claims (which I doubt), we should give our readers 
>>> the evidence and let them draw the conclusion, rather than looking 
>>> down our noses at them and assuming that they aren't smart enough to 
>>> understand where the evidence leads.
>>> ...
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Don't get caught with egg on your face. Play Chicktionary!  
> http://club.live.com/chicktionary.aspx?icid=chick_hotmailtextlink2
>