in the end IMO its simple in these discussions - if you're not willing to consider the other side, your mind is made up and no matter what happens, you won't stray, because in your mind (as with just about everyone), you're right

Thank you for the response. I wasn't sure how to frame groupings of people I was referring to without overemphasing the dichotomy.

That is, I am comfortable with stating that class divisions exist, but reluctant to claim particular class divisions characterize party affiliation.

I wanted the thrust of my point to focus on the division between regular working people and the disdain I hear them say about ivory tower intellectuals. I tried to draw that out by using working class, rural individuals (not necessarily uneducated) contrasted against professional, urban individuals (usually working in academia or in closer contact to it both in proximity and ideologically). I wasn't specifically limited this to particular regions. My point was supposed to have been that most Americans live in rural areas and that in both regions (rural and urban) the vast majority of people are not part of academia nor the wealthiest slices of society. Their is a definate ideological debate between academics and corporate representatives--although some members from both groups shift into the other.

So here I am speaking about an ideological schism between bus drivers, cab drivers, steel workers and professors, graduate students, and people with jobs that place them in contact with such people. I wanted to point out that Republicans are traditionally associated with corporate interests and Democrats are traditionally associated with working class interests. It is not surprising that professionals would feel served by Republicans, but it is surprising that a steel or mill worker would feel their interests are being protected by the people who are aligned with the interests of their corporations' owners--Republicans.

The way I think it is being done is through ideological manipulation, which is surprising to some economists, political scientists, and sociologists because we predominantly expect people to vote according to their economic interests, everything else being equal. Everything else isn't equal because conservatives are posturing themselves as safeguaring American ideals--so people are willing to sacrifice certain economic expectations to protect what they regard is the higher good--protection of liberty, individualism, national safety, national sovereignty, and etc.

This is fallacious, in my mind. Neither liberals (nor Democrats) are attempting to subvert liberty or individualism or national safety--we believe in an alternate course to achieve those goals. Rather than presenting both sides of the debate, which should center around those two alternate paths so that people can decide which one they agree with and vote accordingly, the conservative side is undercutting the democratic process by injecting the sceptre of anti-americanism. Who in their right mind would vote in an anti-american president? By deliberately framing the entire liberal platform as anti-american rather than a valid, alternate course of action, which reasonable people can agree or disagree with, an entire branch of ideology is withering as liberal thought is being brutally forced from the podium.

The worst thing, in my opinion, a liberal can be branded is anti-american. Furthermore, it goes against their very ideological structure to be anti-intellectual (by intellecualism I mean willing to explore alternate belief structures and reject or accept them on their merits) and unwilling to explore new options. Conservative thought, however, is defined by maintaining the status quo. It is, by nature, resistant to change. This may or may not be a course I am willing to follow--but I don't claim that people who are willing to change social structure are more american than those who are not. Once that damaging critique is raised, many people are prone to shut their mouths for fear of reprisal and/or refuse to align themselves with others who espouse such sentiments.

Disagreement is fine and healthy to a liberal. But to brand someone as against his or her own nation is damaging to the political process. I claim this because the political process is supposed to be an amalgam of the citizenry. That is, since the political process is supposed to embody my beliefs as well as yours, I can't possibly be opposed to my nation--it's, at least in part, comprised of my ideas. Once one group locks a particular branch of thought out of the political process, or poisons the well sufficiently enough to choke off oppositional ideas, that presents a threat to one's political efficacy specifically and democracy in general.

I think I've written enough on that. But could you please explain why you believe class divisions are a foreign notion to Republicans?

Oh yeah, irate, I'm not equating "bumblings" with rural people or uneducated southerns or anything like that. What I meant by that statement is that average joe's (wherever they are from, north or south) are more likely to feel affinity with someone who makes mistakes while speaking. It makes them seem more real, or down to earth. Academics and professionals (it's actually well-documented that upper-class people do this to each other, in general) are more likely to judge one's intelligence level on one's verbal or writing articulation. Some of us criticize Bush because we think it's a sham (I can almost bet he wasn't saying ain't and nucular at the dinner table, prep school, or Ivy League) to connect to the common people (who haven't been to speech class or manners prep). I should point out that Eisenhower, Carter, and Clinton mangled that particular word, as well. It's a common mispronounciation. The difference is that all four of these people have been prepped on what to say, are surrounded by people who would look disparingly on such word usage, and would certainly point out the "correct" way to speak in public--so the conclusion some of us make is that it's intentional.

Others actually do make accusations that he isn't intelligent based on the way he speaks. I don't think that's necessarly true--but their isn't any way to verify either contention unless we can somehow proctor an IQ test to him. The result, however, is that both arguments are looked upon by the common people who don't particularly give a shit about their language skills in this respect (although they may still judge various racial group's intelligence based on speech differences--see the irony there?) think both arguments are just liberals grasping at straws when in reality judging one's actions by speech is pretty common among all groups of people--valid or not.

If you haven't read all that I'll put it in a nutshell: When Bush flubs a word, most people think, "so what, real people make real mistakes." I like Bush cuz he's a real person.

Others say, "Bush is unintelligent because he can't speak straight."

And still others say, "Bush flubs words constitently. We know upper class people are tutored in how to present themselves in public and we know that members of the upper classes judge other members based on their speech and writing. We don't expect he would have gotten very far in life if he didn't conform to upper class expectations. Since he did get far in life, we think his flubbing is intentional. We don't like Bush because we think he's trying to be folksy to get more votes."

in a nutshell anyways i'd put it:

America has long been a country where multiple truths exist and where different ideas and values can live together.

When you start challenging the other values and beliefs and believe in only a single truth/course, that creates dangers to the traditional America.

smooth,

i find it hard believe that you were not originally associating bumbling with rural people given the relationship between the first and third sections of text in the post i was referencing. but, given the informality of the discussion and the nature of the medium i will give you the benefit of the doubt.

i suppose i will do the underhanded job of taking your own verbage and twisting it into a rebuttal. we can all agree that the abstract words that appear in our political discourse carry with them lots of association and baggage. just think of the many things words like freedom, working class, patriotism, american and liberty mean to eachother.

your post alluded to the idea that liberals want to take an alternate path (being by nature progressive) and conservatives tend to prefer the status quo. ok, i'll go with that for a little while... but that idea soon runs out of steam.

the term "america" and "anti-americanism" are being used differently by each side of the discussion. one side is using the word primarily in a geographic context (america: the country between canada and mexico) and the other uses the term to invoke a more idealistic definition.

when a conservative describes a liberal as being anti-american... he is using that term to communicate the idea that the liberal in question is not aligning with the principles america stood for in the past. you admit that liberals often desire an alternate path, and that conservatives desire a status quo. so... by using that very same language, we are saying that conservatives promote the continuance of past belief systems (your words) while liberals encourage an alternate path to other belief systems.

if you define america by its past principles, actions, and history (as millions do, whether that be wise or not)... then you are forced to do something anti-american (using the preceding definition) if you choose to adopt something that is unlike the traditional belief system.

so, using the conservative view of what it means to be american... they can be perfectly even-tempered and intellectually honest when they describe a liberal as being anti-american.

there is no demagoguery or hypocrisy involved, simply a radically different view of what being american really is.

i know i haven't touched the sociological issue of the perception of class and how it affects voting on economic issues... but this will have to do for now.

good discusion, best i've had on TFP in a while.

words, semantics... i feel we're nearing a new tower of babyl sometimes.

irateplatypus,

sorry, i don't buy into your little game. it sounds like you're actually saying conservatives are justified in classifying liberals as "anti-american". you're pretending that there is no negative connotation associated with that term, and i'm sorry but it just doesn't jive.

Straight from m-w.com:

Main Entry: an·ti-Amer·i·can
Pronunciation: -&-'mer-&-k&n, -'m&r-, -'mar-, -i-k&n
Function: adjective
: opposed or hostile to the people or the government policies of the U.S.
- an·ti-Amer·i·can·ism /-k&-"ni-z&m/ noun

sure liberals are opposed to many present government policies of the u.s., but so are conservatives (especially when a democrat is in the white house). associating liberals with the term "anti-american" is exactly what smooth said it is - ideological manipulation.

there is no game... and by no means am i saying that there is no negative connotation. if a conservative accuses anyone of being anti-american... then they are saying that that person is promoting something that undercuts the ideals of our country. a very serious, grave thing to say... and certainly gives a negative impression to anyone who fits that bill.

you really are responding to an argument i wasn't making.

OK, let me try this again.

Irate, you originally interpreted my statement to say that rural dwellers mispeak words regularly or as part of their dialect.

I'm not stating that rural dwellers talk like that. I am saying that they don't attach as much significance to it as someone who has been taught that speaking in a particular way is indicative of one's social class.

The only two reasons I even singled out rural dwellers were because:

1) given that they comprise the majority of the population, a political figure needs to appear to be like them

2) they are working class individuals, save for the few wealthy people who own property in rural cities. Working class people aren't specifically trained to make judgements regarding one's social position based on how one speaks or writes while members of the upper class are taught that these are valid ways to identify one another.

Consistent with my claim that rural dwellers actually comprise the vast majority of our nation's population, I never limited them to region. In contrast to your interpretation that I was referring to southerners or the plains states, there are more rural cities than urban cities in California, Oregon, Washington, New York, Vermont, and etc.

I agree that you take no more liberty with our language than someone in New York. My point is that mispronunciation is going to raise less eyebrows in upstate New York than it will in Manhattan, it's going to matter more to people in Wall Street or Berkeley than people in Wal-Mart or at the beach--not that New Yorkers or Californians are more intelligent or talk better than people in Arkansas or Oklahoma.


In regards to your american notion:

Liberals are not operating with a different definition of "american." First of all, re-read all of my posts and you would find extremely limited instances of me even using the term "american." I only did so in the last few posts because I was juxtaposing it against the term "anti-american." Speaking for myself, I view Canadians and Mexicans as Americans and almost always refer to our nation's population as US citizens.

Secondly, you mixed goals with means. Both liberals and conservatives rely on a common ideological background--but we differ in the actions we want to take to retain them.

One of the most cherised US value is the notion of freedom of political expression. When liberals say that we want to consider an alternative to the current actions, that is one of the most "american" things one can do.

Some people claim that calling someone else a traitor is a justified form of freedom of expression. I doubt the framers would believe that to be the case given how I explained how that can result in choking off ideas.

There is a huge difference between saying, in rebuttal to one's expressed political belief, "that belief would not serve the nation's long term interest because..." and "you are a traitor for holding that belief."

The only thing I can think of that would justify a label of treason would be when someone actively tries to abolish the US political system/nation and replace it with the values and structure of another nation.

Liberals aren't trying to do that--we are trying to change the actions of our government and sometimes the beliefs of other citizens around us. But we still want it to be the United States of America, with a government that embodies the beliefs of its citizentry. If half of us are conservatives and half of us are liberals, then the government should recognize both belief systems and work to provide a consensus that we can both agree to. Labeling one side of the debate as anti-american is essentially claiming that a subset of the entire population is holding invalid beliefs.

That stance is not appropriate behavior for a government because it derives it's power from the people as a whole--not just the ones in political power.

see, this is where we part ways. conservatives often believe that changing the beliefs of the citizens is un-american in and of itself because they define what it is to be an american by those beliefs. it seems that liberals (i'm not assuming this about you smooth, although it may be so) define the american belief system by the current environment while conservatives define it as something less subject to change.

if you define the United States of America with a belief system that has constants... then any attempt to change those constants fundamentally changes what it is you're believing in. if conservatives feel a liberal is attempting to change the foundation of what they define as the United States of America (and it is agreed between us that liberals advocate the change of beliefs in some cases) then it logically follows from those premises that those actions are un-american as defined by the conservative definition.

you simply cannot claim that a common usage of the word "american" is being used. if liberals seek to change beliefs that conservatives use in their definition of what it is to be american... then the conclusion points to itself.

i'm unsure where calling someone a traitor entered the mix. certainly you're not suggesting that everytime someone is called un or anti-american the caller is implying treason.

except that when the concervatives say that protesting the actions of a government is unamerican, they're just plain wrong. this country was FOUNDED because its citizens protested and finally rejected the actions of their government. To protest perceived government wrongdoing is the ESSENCE of being American.

i'm RICK JAMES BITCH :thumbsup:

Bush is doing his best to try and play all the markets and all the people he is trying to aelienate as few as he can while reaferming support from others also the rural support of the republican party goes a lot deeper than just being manipulated a lot of people pay homage to them for the homestead act back in the 1860's because it was a republican that gave them their home mybe that is more of a subconscience thing but it is there and personally i think he is not trying to appeal to them because they are already in the bag, he is trying to come accross to the boarderliners as a harmless country boy where behind the curtains he is the puppetmaster pulling the strings

i know we all felt this president was going to be controled but every decision that is made is reviewed by him and he is the one that makes the final OK,i think he is a lot smarter than he comes accross as, just my opinion though

my bad on the threadjack, I just got caught up in the civil debate! ;)

the treason thing came from the connotation numerous conservative talking heads have ascribed to anti-american. I can see the logic you are using, although I don't necessarily agree with it.

thanks for playing, irate.

The 1860's republican was very different from today's republican. Remember, Lincoln was a republican who pushed for one of the biggest changes ever in this country. Back then, the republicans were much more like the democrats are today.

I understand the statements alone, but when you string them together like that they stop making sense. :D

Democrats and Republicans of today are anti-change. They want campaign finance reform .. as long as they can get around it. They want universal healthcare .. as long as they don't actually have to use it. They want to throw our money at a broken public school system .. they send their kids to private schools anyways. The last major bills that I've seen have seen (from both Dems and Reps) are about buying votes, not bringing about positive change in this country. As much as they seem to hate each other sometimes, the DNC and RNC are both very interested in stone-walling any third-party from their shared spotlight.

Politicians should want to empower the people to govern themselves, not seek to increase their own political power and line their own pockets.

I think President Bush would be a great guy to hang out with if he was just a regular blue collar working guy. I don't think he is fit to be the President of the United States. That's certainly not an insult. It's just that some guys are better suited for other lines of work. Bush's hobbies of working outdoors and playing sports seem to suggest he'd be better suited for a more labor-intensive job. Does anyone other than Bush himself believe he would be President if he didn't happen to be born to George Bush I?

I think the President has tried his best to fit the role. He certainly struggled quite a bit initially after the close election and no clear mandate. But then came 9-11. America was desperate for a strong comforting leader and he fulfilled that role well. He reacted like a normal person would and I think most Americans appreciated that.

Since then, however, Bush has deluded himself into thinking he's the next coming of Jesus. He actually believes that God wanted him to become President in order to carry out His mission. Just the other day, he was unable to name a single mistake he's made since 9-11. Those who agree with the President's policies see a President who is strong, steadfast and determined. Everyone else sees a President who is so committed to his views, going so far as to believe they are part of his mission from God, that he will not listen to contrary evidence. And that kind of President is a dangerous President.

Why are people so surprised Bush isn't going out listing his mistakes? For Christ's sake its an election year.

Bush Needs to go. I can't wait until Jan 2005 when the new president is sworn in..........................

And that will never happen for the same reason communism faile.d Human nature will rebel against it. Those in power want to stay in power. Douglas Adams had it right - the only people who should lead us are the ones who don't want the job.

Because one of the biggest criticisms against the man is that he can't admit a mistake even when it's obvious. Because knowing that, it would behoove him to come up with one to prove those critics wrong. Because saying "guys, I fucked up, and I'm sorry" instills more confidence than pretending you never made a mistake when it's obvious to everyone that you have made many of them.

Bush is a cowboy who runs the office like one.....



.... The moderators are circling around you guys like you are a bunch of rappers bout to pop a cap in someones ass

:crazy:

Can you back this statement up with something specific? Say...oh, I don't know...news footage of a herd of longhorns grazing on the White House Lawn? Barring that...this is a troll...and strike two.



Interesting analogy. Yet these "circling moderators" have allowed this thread, which was doomed to oblivion, from the start, to grow to well into its second page. Good job, one and all. I'm glad that I didn't follow my gut instinct, and close this thread in the beginning. See...you guys CAN hold a civil political discussion...when you want to. :thumbsup:

well, as a matter of fact.....

http://www.isoc.net/sjdesign/images/white-house.jpg


Strike two? What about strike one?

Just because this is politics does not mean we all can't get along and play together right or at least have a little fun?

:thumbsup:

http://www.sensorsmag.com/isensors/dec01/6/headache.jpg

Strike one was back on the first page. And no, there's nothing wrong with having a little fun. That was a clever image, and made me laugh. However, it's the statement that you made previously, that caused me to call foul.

I am glad it put a smile on your face, that was my intention.

Everyone has opinions, mine was just not elaborate.


You have a wonderful day Sir.

I wouldn't have used that term, but I agree in principle. IMHO the "nice job guys but watch it or your ass is busted" stuff is getting a bit old and is hampering the thread. I don't see any problem with the thread other than the spelling in the title ;) This is a politics forum. It's logical to want people's opinion about the leader of our country. I also don't see the point in counting strikes against the thread just because someone posts an OPINION like "Bush is a cowboy," but if you really want evidence of that, how about when Bush said in a nationally televised address to terrorists everywhere "don't mess with Texas." ONLY a cowboy would say stupid shit like that, especially in a venue where the entire world could hear you.

...not to mention that terrorists haven't messed with Texas.

Sorry about the spelling in the title! But it could also be some kind of statement?

I'm sorry, but it's your ("Politics") own fault.

Every time we back off, about a week or two goes by and it's back to the same ole.

I'm a huge proponent of free speech, but everytime I give out a little more rope, you guys hang yourselves with it.

eh, then why not just shut this forum down? Seems to me it'd be smarter to wait until the thread degenerates, and THEN take action rather than breathing down our necks - seems to me that would promote a greater discussion flow, but hey, that's just me.

Because we aren't going to punish everyone for the transgressions of about 6 or so people.

But seriously, we slack off, people complain.

We clamp down, people complain.

So forgive me if I can't take your current complaint too seriously.

Besides, it's your choice to post in this thread inspite of us "breathing down" your neck.

Hey! Quit that, it tickles.

:D

I'm sorry.

I'll kiss you first next time :D

Well that's certainly true, and as I've said before it's your (actually Halx's) playground and we have to play by your rules - my point is that you seem to want a board where we can freely discuss issues, yet you then restrict that freedom before a violation has even occurred. And why THIS thread? From the outset the mods have been acting like they're just waiting for an excuse to lock it, when there are many threads in this forum right now where people truly ARE flaming each other, yet they're not receiving moderator attention.

I'm not asking you not to clamp down - I'm just asking if it wouldn't be a better idea to wait until something actually happens before you clamp down ;)

But we haven't clamped down.

ok, my two cents here.....

What are you afraid of happening? Are these people going to meet each other outside of here and throw down?

I know in a perfect world (and message board) everyone gets along and plays nice with each other. But, this is a unique place to voice your opinion. If you disagree with the next person are you to hold you breath and not say how you feel about his/her views?? I would hope not..... Just like in real life, friends talking amongst each other. One says what one disagrees with. They debate.

I am new to this board, and definitely new to this thread. I do not have real strong opinions on George Bush other than what is stated above. The reason for me being here? I kept reading in other threads about how delicate one must be for this particular topic. I don't understand?

Now, with that being said. I do not, or did not intend to be a smart ass or start trouble in ANY WAY. So, don't take my comments the wrong way. I just feel, and it seems that the others do too that we all need to just relax........... shhhhhhhhhhh. can you feel that?

OK....... moderators slame me now ; ) (joking)

And you thought we were off topic then!

Yeah- and as Bill O'Rights stated, it's not about "busting asses", it's about whether or not to close the thread when it's reached a level we feel is enough.

I'm sorry if it feels like we're "coming down on you" or "circling like cops on rappers", but we (maybe incorrectly?) think a little positive encouragement goes a long way to keeping the peace and making it comfortable around here.

There are lots of people who won't post in here simply because some of you turn the place into flame wars- and no one wants that.

1. "Report this post to a moderator" button. Said it a thousand times, will repeat myself as necessary. Use it, use it, use it, use it, USE IT. If you use it, and see no resonse, it may be that the moderator felt it was fine to leave. If you're still dissatisfied, PM another moderator, or a Super Moderator, or even an Admin if you feel that strongly.

2. We don't close threads before "something actually happens". By all rights, and our rules- any thread that starts off immediately identifiable as a troll thread is subject to being closed. Period. We are, however, quite relaxed in regard to that rule. If we relax on it, and the shit starts hitting the fan, we give little warnings in the thread to let everyone know to cool it.

This is a discussion forum- flaming and trolling are not acceptable forms of discussion.

In an attempt to get this back on target, would some of the more conservative members give us their take on President Bush? I am curious, as most of my conservative friends have a real "love/hate" feeling about him. I get the feeling that the only reason they are standing by him is that he is a Republican(just like many Democrats couldn't have cared less who got the nomination, they just want to beat Bush).