There seems to be a growing divide between conservatives and liberals in terms of the ever changing world order. It appears clear from the Brexit vote, national elections abroad, and the rise of Trump and his anti-immigration stances, that on a worldwide scale conservatives are pushing back against the concept of the borderless society that so many liberals see as the utopia of the future. Of course, this conservative push back has been dealt with by the same means liberals always deal with any opposition to their thought process... with name calling and over the top hissy fits about how someone else's ideas will destroy their world as they would like to know it.
As a matter of historical perspective, the removal of borders and a consolidation of control to fewer people making governing choices over a larger number of
But if history tells us one thing, it's that people do not want to be ruled by any emperor not accountable to them, and will fight (and die) if need be to keep their freedom to self rule. Does anyone seriously believe that the people who fought again and again against losing their local control to a centralized power (including our founding fathers) did so out of bigotry or racism?
If history tells us anything else, it's that empires have issues with greed, corruption, and ultimately maintaining control. Eventually they crumble under the weight of too much consolidation of power over way too many people. In other words, if centralized power and vast borderless empires was the best way to manage our society, those empires would not have fallen. The fact that these empires did not ultimately succeed, should provide us a hint for why we shouldn't be so fast to accept expanding centralized power in today's world order.
So as it generally seems to be... liberals believe that they are on the right side of history, even as all tangible evidences seems to suggest that the path they seek is by all historical measures doomed for failure. What they choose to seek, may seem all fine and dandy in a happy world of rainbows and unicorns, but in this world not everyone holds the same values, same beliefs, and same ambitions. We have separate countries and separate laws and separate leaders because universally such separations of power works.
Demanding others follow your values, your beliefs, and your ambitions, just because you like yours better is fundamentally a blatant form of fascism. It doesn't matter one bit if you attempt to spread your control by military, social, or political means. People will resist you, just as you would resist someone else demanding you follow their values, their beliefs, and their ambitions. Such resistance to the values, beliefs, and ambitions of the consolidated power has always been seen as just and heroic. Only those who are blinded by the corruption and greed of consolidated power see the resistance as unworthy and in need of stomping out by whatever means possible.
42 comments:
I want to respond intelligently to your article, Ch, but first let me ask you a question.
If you substitute "communism" and "communist" for "fascism" and "fascist" in the yellow box above, doesn't the box read equally true?
And if so, does that not suggest to your mind that there must be something wrong with your definition of fascism and fascist?
You should replace "conservatives" with "nativists" for accuracy. Unless, of course, you believe conservative == nativist.
I responded on the other side.
Demanding others follow your values, your beliefs, and your ambitions, just because you like yours better is fundamentally a blatant form of fascism.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
indeed. and it is on full display in H.R. 2578 - the anti-gun bill that liberals threw their little tantrum over:
“No district court of the United States
or court of appeals of the United States
shall have jurisdiction to consider the
lawfulness or constitutionality of this section…”
https://www.scribd.com/doc/316629817/Infamous-No-Fly-No-Buy-Gun-Bill-HR-2578
Semantics - Communism, fascism, and even socialism... none has proven to be a viable way to govern long term.
Ultimately, James... most people desire a certain degree of autonomy. The more government attempts to remove autonomy and replace it with totalitarianism the less likely that government can survive.
In other words, just because you want to turn your life and your decisions over to a centralized control... doesn't mean most people want to.
Indy - I believe that part of the point of my piece was to point out that nationalism vs globalism is becoming another wedge issue between conservatives and liberals.
All you need to do is look to how liberals are not so subtly making "nationalism" to be a negative thing, associating it with racism or bigotry (as they do with pretty much everything they disagree with).
Did you notice how often those pushing the exit vote usually referred to the concept of people in Brussels pulling the strings for the people of the U.K. They made it out as if it was mainly about regaining their own control.
Whereas they were accused by the left of the vote being all about racism and bigotry by stupid uneducated aging white hicks who didn't understand what is good for them.
Yes, open borders and the overflow of immigration was an issue for many who voted for the Brexit. But didn't much of that also stem from the fact that they seemed powerless to control it, because they didn't have the national ability to do so?
What a stench the Clinton's have about them.
CH SAYS: just because you want to turn your life and your decisions over to a centralized control... doesn't mean most people want to.
_________________
JAMES SAYS: Just because Ch wants to turn his life and his decisions over to the centralized control represented by a Republican party that kowtows to Wall Street and its millionaires and billionaires by suppressing the vote among the masses and by giving the bastions of power unfair advantage over WE THE PEOPLE in the marketplace of ideas and in freedom of speech and in the halls of government, doesn't mean most of us want to.
NEITHER
a fascist-like government of the right
NOR
a communist-like government of the left
BUT
government
OF the PEOPLE,
BY the PEOPLE,
&
FOR the PEOPLE
Government
OF the PEOPLE,
BY the PEOPLE,
&
FOR the PEOPLE
and by the way, black lives matter too, as do women's lives, and young people's lives, and Asians' lives, and Latinos' and Latinas' lives, and LGBTs' lives, etc., etc., etc.,
But not white lives?
"too" implies white lives... :-)
To Believe Hillary and Bill you have to believe that during their entire Political Life from the beginning in Arkansas to TODAY, they are merely victims, that all the Investigations, the Impeachment of Bill and now the Criminal Charges being recommended by the FBI to the AG are not of their own doing.
Remember the Democrat Socialist buying the movement called Occupy Wall Street what ever happened to them, answer defunded and died.
BlackLiesMatter have damaged the Universtiy of Mo and I could not be more happy about it, because of the fake protest, that University have had to raise rates a lot as enrollment plummeted.
Success by failing is how Obama has Governed, and Hillbilly was going to do the same, but THE FBI Ended her chance.
Now, what do to the Socialist do, do they activate Biden or go all in with Bernie?
"too" implies white lives... :-
In the context you use the word "and by the way, black lives matter too, as do women's lives, and young people's lives,"
It means "also".
It was all explicite nothing was implied.
A government "of the people" "by the people" and "for the people" would allow the representatives elected "by the people" and "for the people" to create the laws "for the people".
But liberals seem to gain all of their political victories in the courts, after losing those political battles at the polling stations and in the legislative branch of the Government.
So James... the reality is, from abortion rights, to gay rights, to affirmative action, to school prayer, to almost whatever issue you want to talk about, the American people "spoke" through elections... and the consolidation of power at the USSC shot down the people.
Your modern liberalism has only been implemented by court caveat. Not "by the people".
When faced with recalcitrant leaders who refuse to do what everyone knows is right -- comprhensive immigration reform that does not just simply deport eleven million people who are living and working here, many of whom have children who are full, productive citizens, healthcare not just for the fortunate privileged but for all, equal women's rights to equal pay and to health care including birth control and the right for WOMEN to decide the difficult matter of abortion, reasonable gun laws that do not put semi automatic weapons in the hands of potential terrorists or nutcases, etc. etc. etc.--
---in cases like that, when the party in power refuses to pass sensible, responsible legislation, the courts may be the only resort for the constitutional carrying out of the will of WE THE PEOPLE.
James - legislators are supposed to do what the people who elect them want them to do. They are called representatives for a reason.
What "you" believe is right, someone else believes is wrong. What you believe is wrong, someone else believes is right. What you believe is responsible, others believe is irresponsible. What you call choice, others call murder. While you blame the guns for what terrorist do, others actually blame the terrorist.
In a Republic (which is what we are) those who share your opinion must elect enough representatives to represent their beliefs. When you do not have enough votes to elect enough representatives to champion your beliefs, then you are not "we the people" no matter how right you think you are.
When you do not have the votes in congress, and resort to the courts, then you are bypassing "we the people". Plain and simple. The courts overriding congress, or overriding a state referendum is never, ever representative of "we the people". In fact in the case of overriding a referendum, it's quite literally overriding "we the people".
Perhaps you believe that the preamble should have actually read "We the justices" rather than "we the people".
But, at the very least, James... you (like Roger) prove the point that you don't really care about the opinions of the American people, representative government, democratic referendums, or anything having to do with "we the people" other than trying to redefine "we the people" into... "The opinion of James".
In several of our states (all, in earlier days) a majority of WE THE PEOPLE believed that people should not have the right to practice interracial marriage and passed laws to make interracial marriage illegal.
The Supreme Court struck those laws down as unconstitutional.
Explain to us, please, what was wrong with that?
James, by the time the US Supreme Court ruled on that issue, there were only 16 states that were still banning interracial marriages. The courts stepped in and settled an unsettled issue, according to the best judgement of the 14th amendment, and based on the fact that congress had just past the Civil Rights amendment two years earlier.
I have no issues with the Courts striking down laws that clearly violate the constitution, and other existing laws passed by Congress.
Nationalism and nativism are two different things. It was nativism that drove the vote in the UK, and nativism is the force that Trump and Le Pen tap into for their support.
It was Conservatives that led the UK into the Common Market in the first place, just like it was Republicans who approved the US joining NAFTA. Conservatives realized that larger, open markets are better able to provide economic opportunity and growth. To state that the Brexit vote was the act of conservatives is as silly as saying Trump is a conservative.
6:24PM
Then would you have "issues" with the Courts striking down a law or executive action order that mandated the forceful removal of eleven million undocumented migrants, many of whom had lived and worked here (and been paid by someone) for a generation or more and had children and other family members here who were citizens?
And while you are answering me, Ch, answer Indy at 6:57.
Then would you have "issues" with the Courts striking down a law or executive action order that mandated the forceful removal of eleven million undocumented migrants
Except the court won't strike it down. You use the euphemism for illegal alien, nevertheless they are people who are here in violation of the law.
Protecting borders is a right of all nations and the duty to protect those borders is enshrined in the Constitution; "provide for the common defense".
Removal would be enforcing the law and is consistent with the duty set forth in the Constitution.
All those unwashed immigrants constitute a clear and present danger, don't they Commensa? They are on the verge of overthrowing our government, aren't they?
My question was directed to Ch, not you.
All you can do is respond with hyperboley.
You can't make a real argument.
Too bad.
*hyperbole
In case you didn't notice, I DIDN'T answer you.
That's how little what you said impressed me.
I WOULD be interested, however, in what Ch might have to say.
James...
We have immigration laws in place. The President (as leader of the executive branch) is required to execute those laws. Technically every last one of those 11 million people are here illegally.
The court's job in this case is to make sure that the executive branch is following and executing the law. The President's "executive action" did not do anything to further enhance the current laws, but rather it actually worked to supersede them. Therefor was challenged in courts... and the judges who ruled on it, shut it down.
Again, James... you want to ,change the immigration laws, you change the immigration laws. That means convincing enough Americans to vote for candidates who support immigration reform... that you either win enough votes, or put the scare into enough politicians that new laws pass.
That is how "of the people" work, James... having one person attempt to bypass the laws, and trying to convince the courts that nobody has standing to stop it (because they couldn't really win the case on merits)... is not "we the people". It's a President acting like a dictator.
Indy - there is a difference between trade agreements, open markets, and open borders. I believe that you can make a pretty solid argument that trade agreements that open markets can benefit everyone, while not making the reach that the next logical step is open borders.
Certainly nativism is probably a better term than nationalism in this case. No disagreement from me, as I may have been interchanging the terms too loosely. But, either way, I would argue that nativism is not a dirty term, an insult, or anything else. It's a simple concept that people believe that they have the right to live in their own society without having to assimilate to the customs and ethics of "new inhabitants".
The idea that "I was here first" is pretty much part of human nature, and has been a societal norm since the beginning of history. You simply do not move to another area of this world, and demand that the people who already live there, cater to your beliefs and norms. Not without a larger army than the army that is currently standing guard.
Bottom line: there is nothing "wrong" with the people who want to keep their own customs, morals, beliefs, and societal norms. There is no reason why those already there, should have to assimilate to those new to the scene.
But Indy... ultimately this is a wedge issue between conservatives and liberals. That's how these issues are treated in an American society where everything is lumped into one or the other. There just isn't enough people in this country willing to look at the nuances to get into whether something is conservative, nationalistic, or nativistic. It's all basically one in the same as a matter of practical argument.
Nobody would really understand the concept of a post about how our country is split by feelings about nativism.
What a stench the Clinton's have about them.
Their use of Raw Political Power to protect and defend themselves should give those on the left real pause.
"JV Team" is having a Global Field Day in my Opinion. Islamic State struck again yesterday Killing over 200 Humans and injury many, many more.
Hillbilly, has zero plan. Because she has the same plan as Lynch, her protector. Talk to the Terrorist with a loving voice.
Lynch who will remain AG into the Hillary Term IF there is one, wink, nod, use all raw political power to protect and defend Hillbilly. We know what the secret Meeting on the plan was about.
AG Lynch was promised she keeps her job, just protect and defend Hillary at all cost$.
So you ARE saying conservatives == nativists. George Will, George W. Bush, John McCain, Marco Rubio, and Paul Ryan no longer are conservatives in that case.
Before I read and perhaps comment on your last response, Ch, I ask you, How do you respond to the following?
Do you regard this as Court interference with our basic rights and freedoms?
________________
July 4, Wall Street Journal:
Christian Mingle must now allow same-sex matches following discrimination lawsuit
Dating site ChristianMingle.com will soon allow users to search for same-sex matches, courtesy of a "judge-approved settlement of discrimination claims," the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.
Under the terms of the settlement, the outcome of a lawsuit filed in California against dating site operator Spark Networks Inc. in 2013 by two gay men who claimed the company's refusal to provide same-sex matches constituted discrimination, Christian Mingle and other sites operating under the company's purview will simply ask whether users are men or women. The settlement also requires the company to introduce features to Christian Mingle making it easier for gay and lesbian users to find others on the site.
----The WSJ article continues...
*Delete July 4
Indy - first and foremost, I don't believe that conservatives or Republicans agree on every issue. There are pro-choice conservatives, there are pro-immigration conservatives, there are pro-gay marriage conservatives. In fact, such fundamental disagreements are very prevalent within the conservative community or Republican party.
Would it be more accurate to suggest that abortion is a wedge issue between pro-choicer and pro-lifers, rather than a wedge issue between conservatives/liberals or Republicans/Democrats?
Sure... and it's quite possibly that's a better way to describe it.
I would also completely agree with you that describing this as an issue between nativists and non-nativists is more accurate. By nature, it's more accurate. But in the broader sense of things, sometimes it's easier (even if not more accurate) and makes a broader political point to describe it in terms people understand and in terms of how it "might" effect an election.
I don't make these rules, necessarily... and maybe I shouldn't follow them. It's a thought provoking observation.
12:14
2nd excerpt:
...lawyer for the plaintiffs Vineet Dubey argued the exclusion of same-sex matches was a clear violation of California's anti-discrimination laws.
"I am gratified that we were able to work with Spark to help ensure that people can fully participate in all the diverse market places that make our country so special, regardless of their sexual orientation," Dubey told the paper.
James...
I would also be curious if this also means that dating websites that exclusively cater to the gay and lesbian community, can no longer exclusively cater to gays and lesbians? How about dating websites who cater to older singles? How about if I join "It's only lunch" but want to go to a movie?
Is it now impossible within our society to cater to anything specific without being sued for discrimination?
Not to mention, someone who joins Christian Mingle looking for a same sex partner, isn't exactly making a sound investment. I would be curious, if this person actually spends the money to join now that they are allowed to. I'll bet there will be literally dozens world wide who will join.
On the flip side, this is a business venture. Christian Mingle would benefit financially from allowing it. Certainly it doesn't effect men looking for women, or women looking for men.
Christian Mingle must now allow same-sex matches following discrimination lawsuit
Dating site ChristianMingle.com will soon allow users to search for same-sex matches, courtesy of a "judge-approved settlement of discrimination claims," the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.
In Christian theology, to facilitate a sin is a worse sin than the sin itself.
If the company is indeed owned by a Christian believer then his/her soul is in mortal danger.
Certainly the judges soul is in danger as well as his understanding of the first amendment.
Luke 17 1 And he said to his disciples, “Temptations to sin[a] are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come!
2 It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin.
In Christian theology, to facilitate a sin is a worse sin than the sin itself
So. Discrimination is your middle name, menstral child.
Post a Comment