Sidney Hook, in an address entitled 'A Critique of Conservatism' to a conference of Social Democrats USA in 1976:
"The differences between conservatives and liberals [in the American sense], when the terms are reasonably construed, are family differences among adherents of a free society, defined as one whose institutions ultimately rest on the consent of those affected by their operations. When the security of a free society is threatened by aggressive totalitarianism, these differences must be temporarily subordinated to the common interest in its survival. There is always the danger that in the ever-present and sometimes heated struggles between liberals and conservatives, each group may come to fear the other more than their common enemy. If and when that happens, the darkness of what Marx called 'Asiatic despotism', in modern dress to be sure, will descend upon the world."
Or maybe not so modern. Part of Euston Manifesto signatory Oliver Kamm's 2004 essay "Fascism and the Left."
I suppose it would be asking too much for conservatives to abide the truth concerning items of common interests?
The conservative technique of utilizing lies, smears and deceit to further their narrow agenda is not new to this generation of conservatives. But it is true that they are far more ruthless than all the Nixons or McCarthys who came before.
I mean it is such a boldface fraud these modern conservatives are when they bemoan Americas lack of committment to a war based upon lies and yet are themselves unwilling to make no more strenuous effort than to spin another deceit in its defense. Where is the virtue in that?
ken, it was very kind of you to deliver such an excellent example of the phenomenon Dr. Hook described.
Joe, no sane American expects they should show deference to someone who is trying to take advantage of a common problem for their own narrow benefit. We have plenty of example of this from excess profit taxes to outright criminal penelties for war profiteering.
Today it is conservatives who are blowing the problem all out of proportion and using the resulting phoney national security scare in order to solidify their economic and political gains.
If that is what you are all about, don't expect many intellegent people to follow.
Sidney Hook wasn't talking about conservatives like you guys. He was talking about conservatives who could put American interests above their personal interests, the kind of conservatives that don't exist today.
"Joe, no sane American expects they should show deference to someone who is trying to take advantage of a common problem for their own narrow benefit."
ken, given that you fail to fit the "sane American" category, I expect a bit more respect around here as I do my evil work on behalf of the Zionist/Masonic conspiracy.
It may seem glamorous, but really, until you hit the big time with your own island, babes and superweapon, it's quite a grind and these little tokens matter, ok?
That will be all, people.
Joseph Katzman, M.E.G.I.T.
Global Zionist-Masonic Conspiracy, LLC
Shorter Hook:
"When it's us against you, I'm for us. But when it's us against them, I'm for all of us."
Okay, okay, it's actually a line from the movie "Fraternity Vacation" but I think it encapsulates the sentiment just as well.
Joe,
Who do I contact about getting my direct deposit set up with the GZMC, LLC? Not that I'm complainging about receiving the paper sacks full of nonsequential twenties and hundreds but the midnight sessions at the warf are cutting into game night.
Thorley,
I think Paul Volcker handles that stuff these days. Talk to his henchbabe Brittney and she'll get you squared away. Just don't ask for autographs; she hates that, and the line about "it's really for my teenage niece" is soooo transparent, y'know?....
So Ken, conservatives are more of a danger to western Democracies than an pan-Islamic movement who's core principals include imposition of global sharia (and as a side project, the murder of all Jews) and that has as very active sponsor an Iran led by a firm believer in an apocalyptic vision of Islam (re: the Twelth Imam, and which is also agressively seeking nuclear weapons capabilities?
Damn, whatever that narrow agenda conservatives have, it must be nasty.
(Last time I feed the troll, honest.)
Of course he gave the talk to SD, USA (sedusa, as some liked to mock it) the "right" branch that emerged from the break up of the socialist party (the left branch became DSOC, the democratic socialist organizing committee) SD, USA was close to the (pre-Sweeney) AFL-CIO, was stronly anti-communist, and mildly social democratic on domestic matters. Both neocons and New democrats have some roots in SDUSA, though even the DLCers have moved away from SD, USA protectionism, and its class consciousness. About the closest thing left to the old SD USA pov was the Gephardt campaign of 2004.
Apart from the protectionism, im pretty close to the SD, USA pov myself. That kind of politics has taken many blows, unfortunately.
On the over issue - of course this is precisely what ive been trying to say for years now. And I find folks on both the left and right who are more interested in the kulturkampf against their domestic enemies, than in the struggle for America.
LH, many thanks for the capsule history lesson. Very useful to many folks here.
The left is against imperialism.
So where do they stand on Islamic Imperialism?
http://powerandcontrol.bl*gspot.com/2006/04/war-on-islamic-imperialists.html
You don't hear much about it from the left except on the fringes. I must say that there does appear to be a center of gravity developing on the Iran issue.
The worst of the sane left is perplexed, finding no good options. The best thinks we may have to use force on Iran if nothing else works.
BTW Regime Change Iran reports a run on gold and hard currency in Iran while building projects have pretty much come to a halt in the private sector: 95% of brick factories (original numering around 150) have shut down. The goverment is not paying some workers.
Iran is under immense internal pressure.
Go to Regime Change Iran and have a look around.
Joe covered some of this in his Cash Flow Jihad article. (which has a number of links to some stuff I have written in the economic war).
Large use of gold and foreign currency indicates a lot of folks preparing their escape from Iran. As does the collapse of building production. It may also mean the government has cranked the printing press despite record oil revenues. Perhaps buying internal support is getting more expensive.
I might note that talk of war with Iran has had practically no effect on the American Economy (excepting oil prices), while the Iranian economy seems to be shutting down. They are packing their ermines (w/all due respect to Wm. Burroughs) Dr. Benway Calling.
Six months of rapidly declining economic activity could lead to grave problems for Iran.
BTW Condi Rice said we would use every means including economic warfare to stop Iran from getting the bomb. Except she said it more diplomatically. And wonder of wonders, even France says an Iranian bomb is unacceptable.
I think Bush may be on to something here. Iran is just begging to be punched in the face and Bush is biding his time. I dont know if this is an accurate representation of reality, but this scenario fits the facts. I just wish i trusted our intelligence apparatus more to give us an accurate timetable on nukes. The optimistic part of me suggests between ourselves and the Brits, our intelligence agencies should have much better information on Iran than we ever did in Iraq (its a more open society in general, and has been closer to the west for decades). Bush's posture is extrememly rational if he knows he has a few years and can always strike at the last second. The Mullahs are climbing a ladder, why not wait until they get as high as possible before pushing it over? Of couse the trick is making sure they dont make it to the top...
ken,
What are you talking about? Bush has not lied about anything. Don't you know that?
I suppose you think Saddam Hussein would NEVER lie, being a noble hero of Bush-haters and all.
The Iraq War was voted for in the Senate 77-23, with Kennedy, Cinton, Kerry, Edwards, etc. voting for it. Bush can't go to war without their authorization, and they gave it. I thought you knew how the US government works.