Am reading a particularly frightening book called "The Omnious Parallels" by Leonard Peikoff published in 1982. Peikoff was Ayn Rand's hand-picked successor. He details what was essentially the philosophical bankruptcy of German intellectualism in the 19th and early 20th century and how it primed the German people for the rise of the Nazis. He then compares this to the U.S. and how our country has gone from the product of the Enlightenment we were at our founding, to the Progressive movement that has so fully permeated our society today. THIS is why Glenn has so stressed "The 5000 Year Leap", "Common Sense", and studying the Founding Fathers. We are headed for a huge, HUGE upheaval. And if we do not ground ourselves in the PHILOSPHY of the Founders--reason, values, principles and rights of the INDIVIDUAL vs. the "GROUP", we are doomed. My copy of the book is so inked-up now with current day specifics paralleling that which went on during the Weimar Republic, its terrifying.
Hmmm . . . how about: "For how shall we fill people with blind faith in the correctness of a doctrine if we ourselves spread uncertainty and doubt by constant change in its outward structure?"--Adolf Hitler from Mein Kampf explaining how once a ridgid dogma is established, there can be no changes, no discussion. The debate is over. Sounds a lot like Al Gore, doesn't it?
Ya know, I've been thinking about this. After having read "American Progressivism" and hearing Glenn talk constantly about T.R and Wilson, and seeing the situation where we have Progressives with BOTH Ds and Rs in front of their names, here's where knowing and understanding history has its advantages. Progressivism was (and is) a MOVEMENT. It wasn't until a little while later that it became an actual party, and then only a small, ineffectual one. Instead the Progressive MOVEMENT was absorbed into the two existing parties.
That said, maybe we need to start thinking of the 9/12 Project as a MOVEMENT. Find the candidates that stand for the 9 Principles and 12 Values, regardless of party. However, we may wind up in the same situation. Look at Ron Paul, who ran as a Republican. MS party, but still shut out because he didn't tow the party line.
Aw, hell! Who is John Galt?
Dave,
I do hope you continue to post these thought-provoking challenges. Several times I attempted to respond to your challenge, but found it exactly that--challenging, which requires thinking, writing, rethinking and rewriting. However, every time I came back to respond, your original post was lost in the chaotic design of this web site. That's been my biggest frustration here--the difficulty in following threads. It is disheartening that your post received so many negative numbers as I viewed your post to be one of the reason why I come here--to learn, share, and strengthen my own arguments. How to best approach the argument against "gay marriage" in such a way that those who might be turned off by the religion-only argument but would otherwise be sympathetic if framed in a different way. It's a valid challenge. I've often felt the same holds true for the Intelligent Design argument (Ben Stein offered a great one with "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed). Or the Abortion debate, for that matter. I'm still pondering an answer to your challenge, and still writing drafts. Hopefully when I come up with something coherent, I'll be able to find your post again.
Excellent points and well taken. However, have the elections and Tea Parties really shown them the way? I'm really not seeing that. I'm seeing instead a frantic scramble to discredit fellow GOP members like Palin and Jindal, or desperately pandering to the Tea Partiers. But then, maybe I've just become too cynical.
Ross Perot pulled a heckuva lotta votes away from Bush 41, and as a result we got Clinton. BUT! But . . . within 2 years we got Newt and the Contract with America which drew the reins up sharply on the Clinton/Progressive agenda.
Here is my argument--in 2006, the GOP lost a LOT of seats. Not because their political base suddenly decided Pelosi, Reid etc. had better ideas, but because it wanted to send a message to the GOP members in Congress: "If you're going to act like Democrats, then we'll just vote Democrat." But the GOP didn't get the message. So in 2008 the GOP puts up their most Democrat-like candidates, expecting that will bring back the base. The result? The GOP is slaughtered because those who left in 2006 either voted for the Dems again (again to try and make a point), or didn't vote at all. So now we're seeing the GOP coming right out and saying, "Since we've lost so badly, it must mean our base WANTS us to be Dems!" They have completely missed the point. However, had the dissatisfied base turned instead to say the Libertarian Party, I don't think the GOP could have missed the message.
Oh, I want to keep Gibbs around! He is the most useful member of the Progressive movement from our POV. He's not slick enough to hide how the Progressives really feel about the American people. As a result, we're beginning to see a few of the zombies in the press corps waking up and calling him out--like the reporter from ABC who said about the Biden/Swine flu spin effort (to paraphrase), "Sorry, but that's NOT what the VP said!" To which Gibbs was forced to reveal his Ministry of Truth statement, "I'm telling you what the VP MEANT to say (after we strapped a cage with a hungry rat on his face)". Obama's teleprompter is too slick to make such a slip. Gibbs though just lets it all hang out when he gets cornered, and I LOVE IT!
Thank you for posting this! Miller's posting on state's rights has to be the clearest, most rational argument I've read yet.
I think with the unions taking over controlling interests in the companies has finally revealed what our modern unions are really all about. Power. To hell with the working man. It's about Power with a capital P. Look at how GM is planning on shifting more of their production to Mexico, China and South Korea as part of their restructuring. Not a huge hue and cry from the UAW over this idea. That's because they don't care how many U.S. workers will lose their jobs. They got what they wanted--Power. Fighting for the worker was only a means to an end.
I have to agree he doesn't look up to him. It's just part of the P.R. But Lincoln did go a long way towards wadding up the Constitution and tossing it in the chamber pot, so perhaps that's where Bush/Obama feel a kinship with Lincoln. Yes, I've read DiLorenzo's book, and recently finished reading his latest one "Hamilton's Curse" which I highly recommend. It's the first one I've read that tied together everything I've read about the Founding Fathers, with everything I've read about the Progressive Era. Hamilton was Jefferson's arch enemy. And low and behold, Woodrow Wilson liked Hamilton, but dismissed Jefferson as a political hack. DiLorenzo has several other books (including another one about Lincoln) and I have them tucked away on my Amazon Wishlist. So many books. So little time . . .
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Opus