[Peace-discuss] What the Right thinks

Thu Dec 29 09:20:58 CST 2011

In contrast to those anti-democratic sentiments, Laurie, Jefferson  
seems to me to have it right:

"[People] by their constitutions are naturally divided into two  
parties: 1. Those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw  
all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes. 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 depositary of the public interests. In every country  
these two parties exist, and in every one where they are free to  
think, speak, and write, they will declare themselves. Call them,  
therefore, Liberals and Serviles, Jacobins and Ultras, Whigs and  
Tories, Republicans and Federalists, Aristocrats and Democrats, or by  
whatever name you please, they are the same parties still and pursue  
the same object. The last one of Aristocrats and Democrats is the true  
one expressing the essence of all." --Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee,  
1824 [emphasis added].

On Dec 28, 2011, at 11:18 PM, Laurie Solomon wrote:

> > She represents (& even influences) the views of some of or fellow  
> citizens, so it's worthwhile to know what those views are, in order  
> to know how to answer them.
>
> Even if she represents or influences the views of some, those are  
> not the people whose minds are going to be changed by rational  
> discussion, debate, or arguments.  Many of them are not only  
> unintellectual but anti-intellectual. To attempt to answer her or  
> their arguments is a fool’s errand, a waste of energy and resources,  
> and typical intellectual and/or academic approach which only goes to  
> support the opponent’s views of the those who get into “so-called”  
> rational arguments with them as indicating how out of touch they are  
> with ordinary unintellectual populations and how much of an egghead  
> position your position is.  Hell, it may even alienate the  
> uneducated and non-intellectual persons in your own groups of  
> supporters, who may not understand a thing you are offering up as a  
> counter-argument.
>
> It might be best to completely ignore people like her and not even  
> attempt to answer her or press who might quote her and continue to  
> focus exclusively on present one’s own arguments, viewpoints, or  
> policy proposals in a non-intellectual and non-academic (and even  
> non-rational polemical) way that even the uneducated non- 
> intellectual population will understand and get motivated by.  You  
> don’t bring a knife to a gunfight.  If you intend to do battle, you  
> either fight dirty, find a new manner of fighting that the opponent  
> is unprepared to deal with, or by-pass the immediate fight or  
> battlefield and attack on an entirely new and different front or  
> battlefield of your choosing.  The question always is if you plan to  
> do battle with them to destroy your opponent or merely wish to play  
> chess with them and win the engagement at hand with an eye to future  
> engagements like a sports contest.
>
> From: Carl G. Estabrook
> Sent: December 28, 2011 10:37 PM
> To: David Johnson
> Cc: Peace-discuss List
> Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] What the Right thinks
>
> She represents (& even influences) the views of some of or fellow  
> citizens, so it's worthwhile to know what those views are, in order  
> to know how to answer them.
>
> "If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to  
> worry about answers."
>
> An example is the charge that Obama is a socialist. To those of us  
> who really are socialists, in a tradition more than two centuries  
> old, that's not worth a reply. But when Americans today make that  
> charge, they're saying Obama heads a government that runs an economy  
> for the benefit of a few. (Where could they get the idea that that's  
> what socialism is?) And of course they're right. So it won't do  
> simply to say (correctly), "No, Obama isn't a socialist."
>
> Even though (to quote that contemporary cultural artefact, Talladega  
> Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby) "with all due respect, and  
> remember I'm saying it with all due respect, that idea ain't worth a  
> velvet painting of a whale and a dolphin getting it on..."
>
>
> On Dec 28, 2011, at 9:36 PM, David Johnson wrote:
>
>> With all due respect Carl,
>>
>> Who gives a shit what this elitist nazi nutcase Ann Coulter thinks  
>> or says ?
>>
>> David Johnson
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Carl G. Estabrook" <galliher at illinois.edu 
>> >
>> To: "Peace-discuss List" <Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:15 PM
>> Subject: [Peace-discuss] What the Right thinks
>>
>>
>> It's interesting to see that Coulter thinks the two most important
>> issues are (1) immigration and (2) Obamacare. But both are supported
>> by the currently regnant ideology of the right, neoliberalism:
>>
>> [1] Neolberals support immigration, legal and illegal. "First, there
>> isn’t a single US corporation that doesn’t have an HR office  
>> committed
>> to respecting the differences between cultures, to making sure that
>> your culture is respected whether or not your standard of living is.
>> And, second, multiculturalism and diversity more generally are even
>> more effective as a legitimizing tool, because they suggest that the
>> ultimate goal of social justice in a neoliberal economy is not that
>> there should be less difference between the rich and the poor—indeed
>> the rule in neoliberal economies is that the difference between the
>> rich and the poor gets wider rather than shrinks—but that no culture
>> should be treated invidiously and that it’s basically OK if economic
>> differences widen as long as the increasingly successful elites come
>> to look like the increasingly unsuccessful non-elites. So the model  
>> of
>> social justice is not that the rich don’t make as much and the poor
>> make more, the model of social justice is that the rich make whatever
>> they make, but an appropriate percentage of them are minorities or
>> women..."
>>
>> [2] Neoliberals also support Obamacare because it staves off tax-
>> supported single payer while funneling money to the insurance  
>> companies.
>>
>> But Coulter opposes both, apparently for fear that they will lead to
>> higher taxes to support further social services (that Obamacare e.g.
>> will slip over into single-payer rather than guard against it).
>>
>> "Only One Candidate Is Right On The Two Most Important Issues"
>> by Ann Coulter 12/28/2011
>>
>> http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48423
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20111229/46e32f76/attachment-0001.html>