[Jeliza-Rose]

I saw this in Rolling Stone and thought I'd share...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... s-20120316

"Are right-wingers scarier now than in the past? They certainly seem stranger and fiercer. I'd argue, however, that they’ve been this crazy for a long time. Over the last sixty years or so, I see far more continuities than discontinuities in what the rightward twenty or thirty percent of Americans believe about the world. The crazy things they believed and wanted were obscured by their lack of power, but they were always there – if you knew where to look. What's changed is that loony conservatives are now the Republican mainstream, the dominant force in the GOP."

~~~~~~~~~

The LBJ/Barry Goldwater election was a turning point for American politics; as a Republican Goldwater should have been pro-civil-rights for blacks, but as a flaky "libertarian" he came out against it. Meanwhile, LBJ, as a southern Democrat should have been against civil rights for blacks. Ever since that election (1964) everything flipped, the south flipped from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican, and the north flipped from Republican to Democratic.

http://www.270towin.com/historical-pres ... elections/

[Thunderhawk]

but as a flaky "libertarian" he came out against it.

That is rather unfair. He was against federal policies treading into state jurisdiction. From what I understand he was opposed to discrimination and was quite vocal about it, getting some praise from MLK and Native Americans on it. His position was not flaky, it was principled.

the south flipped from solidly Democratic to solidly Republican, and the north flipped from Republican to Democratic.

I'm sure Nixon's policies of letting the South work their own way, courting the anti-black vote, helped the flip.

[Drlee]

Thunderhawk is right. Goldwater was very much in favor of equal rights. He was also very much in favor of states rights. The two are not incompatible. He was a generation ahead of his time. His most famous quote was:

You don't have to be straight to be in the army you need to shoot straight.

And:

I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in "A," "B," "C" and "D." Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me?

"

Speaking to a group of neocons: Do not associate my name with anything you do. You are extremists, and you've hurt the Republican party much more than the Democrats have.

Goldwater opposed the civil rights act of 1964 on states rights issues. That has tainted his image and causes some to accuse him of racism. But those of us in Arizona remember that he ended segregation in his department stores, ended segregation in Arizona schools and in the Arizona National Guard.

This is most telling:

A lot of so-called conservatives today don't know what the word means," They think I've turned liberal because I believe a woman has a right to an abortion. That's a decision that's up to the pregnant woman, not up to the pope or some do-gooders or the religious right. It's not a conservative issue at all."

I met Barry and can say that he was a very fine and principled man. He stood up for his beliefs even when it hurt him politically. And he was a truely nice person.

[mikema63]

you met Barry Goldwater? cool, i always liked what i heard about him and he didn't sound like a racist, but really what can you expect from rolling stone.

anyway i don't really think a giant chunk of the political spectrum could be really considered one unified thing.

[Drlee]

anyway i don't really think a giant chunk of the political spectrum could be really considered one unified thing

That is true. There are quite a few of us old-time social libertarians and fiscal conservatives left around. Sadly our social libertarian views on subjects such as gay marriage, abortion and privacy leave us at odds with the Republican Party. It is my opinion that these issues (and others) represent a cynical attempt on the part of the Republican Party to distract the voters from the fact that the party has become a corporatist tool.

Look at the opposition to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act. What a joke. Do you really think the republicans are going to make any real effort to do away with this plum handed to the insurance companies? Never. And mark my words. Romney is going to run away as hard and fast as he can from the abortion issue once he starts campaigning in the New England states. You notice he did not mention his opposition to the GM bail-out when he was in Michigan.

There was once a time when most republicans would have said that abortion, gay marriage and religion were matters of private conscience and not a matter for party political discussion. There was a time when a Republican president proposed national health care. But then there was a time when libertarianism was not synonymous with corporatism. In my day the libertarian movement in the republican party was not about some extreme views on property rights. It was about individual rights.

What has happened is that the Republican Party has become marginalized. It hoist on its own petard if you will. There is not place in the center of the party because there is no center to the party. It is truly right wing as far as it members are concerned and solely pro-business in the eyes of the leadership.

Consider this. Romney is trying to run on fixing the economy. Really? The DOW is at its highest level since 2007 and may well hit record highs in the not too distant future. Obama’s proposed government cuts are much higher than those of the Republicans. The jobless rate is falling and manufacturing is leading the charge. Obama signed the Bush tax cut extension and wants it to with perhaps some modest increases in the highest brackets. So what is he running against? He wants to do better? Right.

I suspect you would have liked the old Republican Party more than the radical Christian corporate party it has become.

[hip hop bunny hop]

I find it a source of great amusement that the Left wing assumes that their position has, somehow, remained static; imagine the response to a group of Truman supporters to the concepts of Affirmative Action, Gay Marriage, and transsexualism as anything but profoundly disgusting.

EDIT:

FFS, the drift of the Left to further and further extremes is how NeoCons came to be in the first place.

[Drlee]

I find it a source of great amusement that the Left wing assumes that their position has, somehow, remained static; imagine the response to a group of Truman supporters to the concepts of Affirmative Action, Gay Marriage, and transsexualism as anything but profoundly disgusting.

How could you be more wrong? This entire notion is absurd though I am glad you are amused by it. Why do you think they call themselves progressives? Static my ass.

It is conservatives who eschew change. I ought to know. I am one.

[Jeliza-Rose]

Did anyone actually read the article?
Another excerpt...
"It is a quirk of American culture that each generation of nonconservatives sees the right-wingers of its own generation as the scary ones, then chooses to remember the right-wingers of the last generation as sort of cuddly. In 1964, observers horrified by Barry Goldwater pined for the sensible Robert Taft, the conservative leader of the 1950s. When Reagan was president, liberals spoke fondly of sweet old Goldwater."
The point is, right-wingers are, and have always been - scary.

As for Goldwater, I just wanted to comment on the fact that he was the beginning of a paridigm shift in American politics. Before Goldwater, 'states rights' was the mantra of the racist southern 'Dixiecrats'.

"Dogmatic ideological parties tend to splinter the political and social fabric of a nation, lead to governmental crises and deadlocks, and stymie the compromises so often necessary to preserve freedom and achieve progress."
- George Romney 1964

“I feel that the prospect of Senator Goldwater being president of the United States so threatens the health, morality and survival of our nation that I can not in good conscience fail to take a stand against what he represents” (Martin Luther King, Jr. July 1964).

http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/kingweb/about_king/encyclopedia/goldwater_barry.html

Question - Which of these trumps the other - States Rights or Human Rights?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYuVKbEPgoc&feature=related

[hip hop bunny hop]

How could you be more wrong? This entire notion is absurd though I am glad you are amused by it. Why do you think they call themselves progressives? Static my ass.

Eh? The left =/= progressives.

Did anyone actually read the article?

Yeah; I thought it was rather worthless. That conservatism was objectively bad/evil was taken as a given; it's journalism-lite from a (really crappy) music magazine.

[mikema63]

only people have real rights in the sense your thinking of, and what constitutes human rights depend on who you ask. states rights faces exactly the same problem, before you ask which trumps the other you need to express what you specifically mean.

[xsited1]

I saw this in Rolling Stone and thought I'd share...

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/bl ... s-20120316

"Are right-wingers scarier now than in the past? They certainly seem stranger and fiercer. I'd argue, however, that they’ve been this crazy for a long time. Over the last sixty years or so, I see far more continuities than discontinuities in what the rightward twenty or thirty percent of Americans believe about the world. The crazy things they believed and wanted were obscured by their lack of power, but they were always there – if you knew where to look. What's changed is that loony conservatives are now the Republican mainstream, the dominant force in the GOP."
...

This comment from the link in the OP sums the Rolling Stones article quite nicely:

Ron Foy |10 hours, 3 minutes ago

The first paragraph, alone, is full of so much spin, and words taken out of context, I surely hope this author doesn't consider himself a journalist. Quite pathetic, unfortunately.

Maybe this was a comedy piece from RS?

[DudeWhoGetsIt]

I find it a source of great amusement that the Left wing assumes that their position has, somehow, remained static; imagine the response to a group of Truman supporters to the concepts of Affirmative Action, Gay Marriage, and transsexualism as anything but profoundly disgusting.

EDIT:

FFS, the drift of the Left to further and further extremes is how NeoCons came to be in the first place.

nobody gives a flip about abortion and gay marriage except for people seeking to exploit the feelings of others for political gain: they are fake issues of no real significance.

corporatism is a real issue

[Fraqtive42]

corporatism is a real issue

What do you mean by "corporatism"?

[hip hop bunny hop]

nobody gives a flip about abortion and gay marriage except for people seeking to exploit the feelings of others for political gain: they are fake issues of no real significance.

corporatism is a real issue

Why wouldn't I care about homosexuality? Gay males make up less than 2% of the populace, yet they represent over half of new HIV infections (link); and my government takes money from me to help fund research into this disease, to help fund treatment for this disease which overwhelmingly effects gays.

In regards to gay marriage; again, as long as my tax dollars are going to subsidize gay marriage, I will fight it. These people do not deserve a penny out of my pocket.

[Lexington]

Why wouldn't I care about homosexuality? Gay males make up less than 2% of the populace, yet they represent over half of new HIV infections (link); and my government takes money from me to help fund research into this disease, to help fund treatment for this disease which overwhelmingly effects gays.

In regards to gay marriage; again, as long as my tax dollars are going to subsidize gay marriage, I will fight it. These people do not deserve a penny out of my pocket.

And all of us gay guys have to subsidize all of you straight guys for your marriages.

[DudeWhoGetsIt]

corporatism is a real issue

What do you mean by "corporatism"?

corporatism, corporate statism, crony capitalism, corporate kleptocracy

Basically, powerful people with narrow corporate interests are co-opting the US government to receive favorable treatment for themselves at the expense of the health saftey and freedom of others.

This is a wholesale whoring out of our Constitution, and it makes me sick. And before I advocate or join in on the burning down of this mother, I will at least attempt to advocate for reason and intelligence in problem solving

Issues like gay marriage and vaginal probes are designed by elites to distract and manipulate the public. In an ideal world, educated people would be elevated to positions of leadership, and when asked about gay marriage or abortion, would give rational responses that sound a bit more like, "I will protect your freedom," rather than, "I will make your homophobia feel better, there there little man"

[DudeWhoGetsIt]

nobody gives a flip about abortion and gay marriage except for people seeking to exploit the feelings of others for political gain: they are fake issues of no real significance.

corporatism is a real issue

Why wouldn't I care about homosexuality? Gay males make up less than 2% of the populace, yet they represent over half of new HIV infections (link); and my government takes money from me to help fund research into this disease, to help fund treatment for this disease which overwhelmingly effects gays.

In regards to gay marriage; again, as long as my tax dollars are going to subsidize gay marriage, I will fight it. These people do not deserve a penny out of my pocket.

AIDS = Strawman. I never mentioned it. Are you trying to conflate homosexuality with AIDS? Are you trying to be like, meta, or ironic or something?

But I am curious...why do you believe your tax dollars are going to subsidize gay marriage? What is that process, what are those programs, have you a link for that? I am eager to learn...

[hip hop bunny hop]

But I am curious...why do you believe your tax dollars are going to subsidize gay marriage? What is that process, what are those programs, have you a link for that? I am eager to learn...

Here are some benefits of marriage; the majority of married couples have a lower tax rate than they would have were they to file separately.

It's these material benefits that the argument about gay marriage center around; homosexuals are allowed to have all the private, unrecognized ceremonies they want.

And all of us gay guys have to subsidize all of you straight guys for your marriages.

And? These subsidies were put into place to benefit the single social arrangement which is most likely to produce children. Homosexual relationships, on the other hand, do not have their fertility rates change according to whether they are married or not. So, unless one disagrees with the logic of subsidizing those who, through childbirth, perpetuate society, you'll find that everyone regardless of their sexual orientation benefits from the subsidies given to heterosexual married couples, whereas the only people who benefit from homosexual marriage are those gays who are married.

[mikema63]

i dispute the logic of subsidizing marriage, also your subsidization is a tax break so it doesn't actually take money from you to give to married people. you are just reaching for justifications of your prejudice, i would gladly give up the tax break to get married if i wanted to.

[Drlee]

^^

Very true.

The time for you to have bitched about any imagined marriage benefit was long ago. It has nothing to do with gay people.

On Edit: Oops Mikma. I was agreeing with you. My comments were aimed at the previous poster. Sorry.