bytor2112 Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 Why has the Democratic Party become so arrogantly detached from ordinary Americans? Though they claim to speak for the poor and dispossessed, Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite, top-heavy with journalists, academics and lawyers (one reason for the hypocritical absence of tort reform in the healthcare bills). Weirdly, given their worship of highly individualistic, secularized self-actualization, such professionals are as a whole amazingly credulous these days about big-government solutions to every social problem. They see no danger in expanding government authority and intrusive, wasteful bureaucracy. This is, I submit, a stunning turn away from the anti-authority and anti-establishment principles of authentic 1960s leftism.I really like Camille Paglia....this is an interesting read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talisyn Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 Why is it so hard to understand why people who want to combat injustice and help others would be drawn to such things as the law and education, and let's never forget the fourth estate, journalism. The left has been around long before the 1960s. The fight for basic rights has been around since before Susan B. Anthony and the Pullman workers massacre. In the '60s the left began to see Gov't as a tool, one that has been used too many times to squash voices and freedoms, and yet one of the few that is available to any who can manage to get into that club despite lack of money or family connections. Camille Page reflects my own growing anger at everything to do with politics. However I disagree with her overall tone. As much as she might have loved the '60s they have little to nothing to do with the Democratic ideals I hold dear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted September 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 (edited) Why is it so hard to understand why people who want to combat injustice and help others would be drawn to such things as the law and education, and let's never forget the fourth estate, journalism. The left has been around long before the 1960s. The fight for basic rights has been around since before Susan B. Anthony and the Pullman workers massacre. In the '60s the left began to see Gov't as a tool, one that has been used too many times to squash voices and freedoms, and yet one of the few that is available to any who can manage to get into that club despite lack of money or family connections. Camille Page reflects my own growing anger at everything to do with politics. However I disagree with her overall tone. As much as she might have loved the '60s they have little to nothing to do with the Democratic ideals I hold dear.I think the point that she is making is that the Democratic Party has become much of what it claims to fight against. It says one thing but does another.The same can be said for the Republican Party. I often muse over the fact that a bunch of lawyers are making economic policy. People who have never had a real job or had a real stake in the performance of a business.The very people that fought injustice have made the government unjust, overbearing and out of touch. And I dare say Academics are a lot different than Educators. Edited September 9, 2009 by bytor2112 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talisyn Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 I agree, Bytor. If I weren't so busy trying to make a living I'd go back to pushing my idea of a one world order, ruled by the only person who knows how to do things right: me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rameumptom Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 I've been reading Camille Paglia for about 10 years now. And she does see things in a realistic, pragmatic light. I like how she takes on anyone who is doing the wrong thing. I agree with her that the Democratic party today is nothing like it was in the 1960s. Liberalism meant freedom and anti-establishment. Today we don't see much of that in either party, although the Republicans do use the word "freedom" more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moksha Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 Democrats have increasingly become the party of an upper-middle-class professional elite ... Redefinitions of reality are not really needed to express ones wish to keep the health insurance industry the way it currently is operating. This make believe of Democrats actually being Republicans is just too darn weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsAri Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 To understand the distinction between the Republicans and Democrats, read their individual party platform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beefche Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 To understand the distinction between the Republicans and Democrats, read their individual party platform. Maybe the Repubs and Demos should read their party platform. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jadams_4040 Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 I think the point that she is making is that the Democratic Party has become much of what it claims to fight against. It says one thing but does another.The same can be said for the Republican Party. I often muse over the fact that a bunch of lawyers are making economic policy. People who have never had a real job or had a real stake in the performance of a business.The very people that fought injustice have made the government unjust, overbearing and out of touch. And I dare say Academics are a lot different than Educators. Were always going to have a few whom are not good people involved with governing this country, it has always been that way unfortunately; but after the previous 8 years, this adminisrtation is looking really refreshing.:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted September 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 (edited) Were always going to have a few whom are not good people involved with governing this country, it has always been that way unfortunately; but after the previous 8 years, this adminisrtation is looking really refreshing.:)How so? Thus far, it has been an unending series of blunders and missteps and the most overreaching government in our lifetimes.....maybe in U.S. history. The debt ceiling was just raised to, I believe $13 trillion dollars. You do realize that you are now outnumbered? Obama's critics outnumber his supporters. The coalition that he built among the so-called independents have turned on him 2 to 1. Refreshing indeed.Side note: Jadams? Could you perhaps provide reasons why you blindly support President Obama? I understand that you are to the left politically and disliked Bush. But seriously, why do you just blindly stay loyal to this fiasco in D.C.? Bush did some good things as President and some things I am strongly opposed to.......President Obama will likely do the same, thus far, it has been nothing but things that I dislike....I hope things will change. Edited September 9, 2009 by bytor2112 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsAri Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 Maybe the Repubs and Demos should read their party platform.I read the Republican party platform before and after it was revised. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
annewandering Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Agreeing with Obama is not BLINDLY following his plans. It is easy to say anyone is blindly following someone you dont like while you blindly following the people you like. Hopefully we all give thought to who we agree with and if we dont agree with each other that does not mean we are blind. It just means we disagree. I am not proud of the democrats at the moment and I am not pleased with the change of meaning for the word liberal. I believe liberal is simple a liberal interpretation of the constitution. Conservative is a conservative interpretation of the constitution. With this definition I am a liberal to a degree but not to the degree of making up stuff and saying it is constitutional. Democrats now are nothing like they were when I joined the democratic party. They are much more indistinguishable from Republicans than they ever were before. Now I am talking actual actions not rhetoric. When it comes down to it neither party seems to care much about us. It's all about their careers and special interests. We need a new party. One that actually pays attention to the citizens of this country and what they want and need. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ADoyle90815 Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Agreeing with Obama is not BLINDLY following his plans. It is easy to say anyone is blindly following someone you dont like while you blindly following the people you like. Hopefully we all give thought to who we agree with and if we dont agree with each other that does not mean we are blind. It just means we disagree. I am not proud of the democrats at the moment and I am not pleased with the change of meaning for the word liberal. I believe liberal is simple a liberal interpretation of the constitution. Conservative is a conservative interpretation of the constitution. With this definition I am a liberal to a degree but not to the degree of making up stuff and saying it is constitutional. Democrats now are nothing like they were when I joined the democratic party. They are much more indistinguishable from Republicans than they ever were before. Now I am talking actual actions not rhetoric. When it comes down to it neither party seems to care much about us. It's all about their careers and special interests. We need a new party. One that actually pays attention to the citizens of this country and what they want and need.Well said! Both parties right now only care about their special interests, and not the voters. That's why I'm registered as nonpartisan as neither party out there reflects what I really want. The way that Republican elected official acted during Obama's speech was an embarrassment as it made him and others who disagree with him look like they don't respect the Office. It's one thing to disagree with the man in that office, but at least wait until you have the chance to debate the bill first before stating your views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted September 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Well said! Both parties right now only care about their special interests, and not the voters. That's why I'm registered as nonpartisan as neither party out there reflects what I really want. The way that Republican elected official acted during Obama's speech was an embarrassment as it made him and others who disagree with him look like they don't respect the Office. It's one thing to disagree with the man in that office, but at least wait until you have the chance to debate the bill first before stating your views.In 1856, South Carolina Senator Preston Brooks whipped Senator Charles Sumner with a cane on the floor of the Senate.....must be something in the water in South Carolina. (the fellow who shouted "liar" was from S.C.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 The way that Republican elected official acted during Obama's speech was an embarrassment as it made him and others who disagree with him look like they don't respect the Office.Wow, I missed that.On the other hand, one can almost kinda sort understand the frustration. That's probably the first word the President has heard from a Republican lawmaker regarding health care reform since . . . well, since last April. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hemidakota Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 When it comes down to it neither party seems to care much about us. It's all about their careers and special interests.We need a new party. One that actually pays attention to the citizens of this country and what they want and need.I do believe there is another agenda than 'making a career' in government. Do you believe, it is now true our currency is worthless after almost a year of fiat printing by both parties? Should the world now revert to a single global currency and based it on commodities if there is a global financial collapse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilered Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 I do believe there is another agenda than 'making a career' in government. Do you believe, it is now true our currency is worthless after almost a year of fiat printing by both parties? Should the world now revert to a single global currency and based it on commodities if there is a global financial collapse?One could make the case that the world is getting closer and closer to a single global currency. We of course are not the only nation having financial problems which further exacerbates the issue. If by another agenda, you are referring to the ushering in of a New World Order, then a single global currency would be necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsAri Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Just a thought... does anyone believe that Obama is a U.S. citizen? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lilered Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 That is a great question. There has been so much controversy that I for one am not comfortable taking either side of the discussion. Here is the latest as I know it.PolitiFact | Obama's birth certificate: Final chapter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Just a thought... does anyone believe that Obama is a U.S. citizen? It doesn't matter at this point. He is president, and that won't be changed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Umm . . . as I understand it, the local (Hawaiian) newspaper printed a birth announcement within a few days. Short of time traveling, I don't see any viable conspiracy that could make that happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsAri Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Thanks for your comments, lilered and john doe. Well, they say that "seeing is believing"...and I've not seen any evidence! Of course, some will liken this to our faith in Jesus Christ, however, Obama isn't the messiah. The Constitution requires that he show proof of citizenship. If he isn't a citizen, he's not the president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsAri Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Umm . . . as I understand it, the local (Hawaiian) newspaper printed a birth announcement within a few days. Short of time traveling, I don't see any viable conspiracy that could make that happen.Anyone may obtain a certificate of live birth (colb). The public have not yet seen Obama's birth certificate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john doe Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Thanks for your comments, lilered and john doe. Well, they say that "seeing is believing"...and I've not seen any evidence! Of course, some will liken this to our faith in Jesus Christ, however, Obama isn't the messiah. The Constitution requires that he show proof of citizenship. If he isn't a citizen, he's not the president. It's a moot point. He has been inaugurated and everyone in the government accepts him as the president. You may not like it, but he is the president. People who go on about this sound like the whiners who claimed that Bush stole elections from Kerry and Gore. What it is, is what it is. Deal with it and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrsAri Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 It's a moot point. He has been inaugurated and everyone in the government accepts him as the president. You may not like it, but he is the president. People who go on about this sound like the whiners who claimed that Bush stole elections from Kerry and Gore. What it is, is what it is. Deal with it and move on.President Bush is a U.S. citizen, therefore, he was legally the president. What greater insult could be paid to our founders than that of one who is foreign-born assuming the role of the president? Particularly when illegal activities were conducted in order to get him elected. What's makes him even more suspect is his constant references to Marxist ideology. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...well, you know the rest of the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.