POPULISM IS THE LAZY POLITICIAN’S way to seek power. No doubt laziness has a lot to do with it. But I wonder - how strong is the role of ignorance? How many of these populist politicians really believe the drivel they spout?
Since I don’t willingly associate with them, I can’t read them well enough to answer that with any authority. My impression is that at least half of them believe most of what they say. |
| |
Written By:
Billy Hollis
URL:
http://
|
You’ve described their ideology as "Folk Marxism" in the past.
These days they call themselves "libertarian democrats."
|
| |
Written By:
Aldo
URL:
http://
|
I’m sorry Jon, but you missed an edit here:Edwards’ alleged concern for the poor, he rails against Wal-Mart, whose business model-created efficiencies allow the poorest among us to live more inexpensively, and don’t allow hypocritical politicians to cut in line ahead of the people to buy popular items such as Playstation 3 |
| |
Written By:
shark
URL:
http://
|
and don’t allow hypocritical politicians to cut in line ahead of the people to buy popular items such as Playstation 3 yes, but that was for the children, so he gets a pass on that one. |
| |
Written By:
Come on, Please
URL:
http://
|
The modern liberals’ is a feel-good liberalism, not a classical liberalism. More accurately, it’s not liberalism at all. Liberals are supposed to believe in freedom above all; hence the name. When a man cares for some notion of equality or justice more than liberty, he’s not a liberal no matter how many times he says he is, and for the sake of accuracy in our terms we should stop paying him the compliment of calling him such. He’s tarnished the once-good name of liberalism. |
| |
Written By:
OrneryWP
URL:
http://
|
and don’t allow hypocritical politicians to cut in line ahead of the people to buy popular items such as Playstation 3 I don’t think Edwards was being hypocritical in that example. A volunteer was trying to do something nice for Edwards; Edwards didn’t direct them to Wal-Mart. It’s amusing, but it doesn’t really constitute hypocrisy. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://QandO.net
|
Let’s not forget Kerry’s true compassion for the poor.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/1996/05/16/kerrys_charity_gap/
|
| |
Written By:
Sean
URL:
http://www.myelectionanalysis.com
|
The Left is enamored of the "chickenhawk" trope, implying that anyone who favors military action must go to the front lines. If they were to apply this flawed logic consistently then they personally should be on the front lines in the class war. If John Edwards continues to harp about the rich-poor divide, but does not give away his own money to charity, does this not make him a "chickendove"?
|
| |
Written By:
Aldo
URL:
http://
|
For the sake of maintainint the season’s spirit of ’good will toward men’, I wasn’t going to read this blog until the New Year.
Then, the devil moved my finger on the mouse...
...and here I am, reading the latest installemtn in mean spiritedness.
There is nothing more hypocritical than submitting a one-sided list of political hypocrises like this, as I’m sure you’re quite aware of the hypocrisy among conservative politicians, as well as liberal ones.
The country is in a state of upheaval, due to the rapid changes brought by globalization and a threatening world beyond our shores. Everybody is nervous. Every grouping -labor, business, the haves, the have-nots - are scrambling to protect their interests and the interests of their children. That’s the natural order of things: competition.
Along the way, we see hypocrisy, corruption, and zealotry. It’s everywhere, folks, under every system and in every sector.
My own nomination as the major cause of unrest and animosity is the introduction of religion as a political issue, simply because it came at a time of uncertainty and change. We hardly need this addtitional layer of strife.
With all this going on, your pretense that it’s all on one side is just your own ’feel good’ reading of politics.
|
| |
Written By:
Laime
URL:
http://
|
There is nothing more hypocritical than submitting a one-sided list of political hypocrises like this, as I’m sure you’re quite aware of the hypocrisy among conservative politicians, as well as liberal ones. Indeed. And I’ve often pointed out that hypocrisy. Though — oddly — I don’t recall you complaining about the one-sidedness of those posts. Huh.My own nomination as the major cause of unrest and animosity is the introduction of religion as a political issue, Introduction? Because politics was secular until recently? With all this going on, your pretense that it’s all on one side is just your own ’feel good’ reading of politics. I never made any pretense that it is one-sided. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://QandO.net
|
introduction of religion as a political issue,
—————————————————————
"Introduction? Because politics was secular until recently?"
== Compared to previous decades, the lines have certainly been more blurred between state and church with faith-based groups receiving government money.
== The political empowerment of the intolerant version of Christianiry on a national scale is also something relatively recent.
===Did anyone care what church Eisenhower attended? Even Kennedy’s Catholicism was a short lived controversy, and one much less shrill.
***********************************************
"I never made any pretense that it is one-sided"
?
Your title was Feel Good Liberalism.
**********************************8
I know, I get tired of my own carping.
It’s because I sense a level of inteliigence here that could induce you to make broader explorations of the ills afflicting our country.
It’s like expecting more from the child that can.
Then, too, I’ve had a life-long addiction to defending the underdog, whoever that may be. I can’t help myself.
Now I’m going on a blog-free diet to avoid the attack-attack-attack atmosphere for awhile.
|
| |
Written By:
Laime
URL:
http://
|
== The political empowerment of the intolerant version of Christianiry on a national scale is also something relatively recent. That’s remarkable. The intolerant version of Christianity is only remarked upon now because it was the standard a generation ago. What, do you think we had gay marriage until just recently? Creationism was the standard science class material a couple generations ago. Abortion was out of the question. Nobody was arguing about whether we could use curse words on TV; they were arguing about whether we could show a fully clothed Elvis below the waist. Nobody questioned Eisenhower’s religion, because he was quite open about it. He even added "under God" into the pledge of allegiance.
There wasn’t much fuss about that brand of Christianity because it was the norm. And if you didn’t like it, you kept your mouth shut. It’s not the Christians who spoke up recently — it’s the non-Christians who spoke up.
"I never made any pretense that it is one-sided"
Your title was Feel Good Liberalism. So? This does not seem to support your point. If you need assistance, I can point you to posts in which I have criticized Republicans without any corresponding criticism of Democrats. It’s because I sense a level of inteliigence here that could induce you to make broader explorations of the ills afflicting our country. In the interests of time — yours and mine — I don’t try to cover absolutely everything in every post. If you’re not satisfied with the scope of a single post, try the archives. |
| |
Written By:
Jon Henke
URL:
http://QandO.net
|
