« Armstrong Williams – Who Else Did Bush Pay? | HomePage | Sick Reindeer »
10/01/2005
Why the Left is Losing Ground
Why the Left is Losing Ground
If you take a step back and look at the history of American Culture from the 1950s until now we can better understand the problem. In the 1950s the white middle class was happy with life in this country. Problems existed, but those were a long way off in other places.
The 1960s began with the election of John F Kennedy and he told the American middle class that they could make a difference in our countries and around the world. When JFK was shot Americans reacted in many ways to fulfill his dream. They went to the South to battle racism and they went into Outer Space. So, Americans believed that there wasn't anything that they couldn't do. They wanted to end poverty and they wanted to end the Vietnam War. They spent money and they protested the war. In the early 1970s it was clear that the Vietnam conflict was at an end and people were tired of all this hard work. People forgot Kennedy's dream and they began to be concerned with themselves.
Activism was still alive, be the majority of Americans believed that everyone understood that some programs just needed to work for years and years before they would be won. Poverty and Racism would change and people became more race blind. Knowledge would supplant prejudice. Only time would be needed to allow this to happen. People went back to their personal lives and left the country to work on it's own. People believed that everyone was on the same page here.
Unfortunately another group rose up to put the individual first. Greed became the message of the 1980s. But, many people believed that the big picture was still intact, but they were wrong. Gradually selfishness supplanted selflessness.
But, since selfishness is usually countered by religion, people still felt safe and they believed that there were only a few bad apples.
But, when the Fundamentalist Christian churches began to get wealthy from preaching on TV the people began to ask why the wealth was good? The churches began to preach how wealth was good for everyone. Of course the viewers need to send money to the TV evangelists, but if they made more money then they could send more to the televangelists.
Now, the people who wanted to change the prejudice of the 1950s find themselves fighting the same battles in editorial columns in the 2000s some 40 years later.
15:39 Posted in Culture , Politics | Permalink | Comments (12) | Email this | Tags: Politics
Comments
What you fail to mention is that it was the same "me "generation that protested the war that was all about the greed of the 80's. The baby boomers have put into motion the machine to destroy this country in the span of thier lives. Because of their inherent lack of respect for the peace and prosperity they were GIVEN due to their parents stuggles during the depression and WWII, when they rebelled against athority, they started tearing down the basic building blocks of society. Sexual promiscuity and the end of marriage as a lifetime commitment have directly contributed to most social problems in America. The rise in drug use, teenage pregnancy, single parenthood, poor public schools, black underachievement, and illegal immigration can be directly traced to policies put into place by the baby boomers. The fundementalist Christians are merely taking advantage of the current social climate of desperation that people feel that they don't have any control over their live and their families lives. Is it any wonder GW won by a landslide???
Posted by: tfreridge | 11/01/2005
tfreridge wrote:
"Is it any wonder GW won by a landslide???"
If tfreridge can't be honest about the results of the election, how can we assume that he is being honest about any other part of his post? The truth about the election is that Bush won Ohio by 118,000 votes. He did this by lies and deception. The only president that actually won the presidency by a landslide was Richard Nixon in 1972. It was latter shown that Richard Nixon used his henchmen to break into the Democrat campaign headquarters at the Watergate hotel and they stole the election campaign stratagy of the Democrats. Is it any wonder that he won by a landslide?
Now, we learn the George W Bush paid people to support him and talk about him on talk radio. Is it any wonder that he won? The question is, if he didn't use public money to buy support could he have won this election? I doubt it. George W Bush could not win an election if it were based on truth and honesty.
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 11/01/2005
Dr Forbush, I must say that when I saw your blog I assumed you were going to be a right wing fundamentalist and I was scared to read your posts, knowing that it would enrage me. What a pleasant surprise to find the complete opposite. I like your style of writing and agree with nearly all of what you say. I would like to say that the person tfridge who keeps leaving you comments is misinformed and ignorant and I can't see why you would bother even replying to their ridiculous posts (it's a bit like arguing with your sister in law). Anyway, keep up the articles, I love them.
Candy
Posted by: Candy Royalle | 11/01/2005
Candy,
The problem with many today (libs and "neo-cons") is that they can't debate without getting angry and petulant........you are correct in your assessment of the good Dr. as being a liberal, however, he is willing to discuss and debate facts and opinion while people like you (alas, sigh) just get "enraged" and call names. What I don't understand, is why liberals of good will and humour tolerate people like you. I certainly have no respect for the Michael Savages of the world, but I'm willing to bet that you think Michael Moore is "the bomb". Drforbush has created a forum for information sharing and debate. I for one have learned more about minutae in the new testament since reading this Blog than I have in the last 10 years But if the Dr. believes that 5 million votes in the popular count isn't a "landslide" then perhaps he's looking at President C's dictionary "how do you define is?"
Posted by: tfreridge | 11/01/2005
tfreridge:
For starts, the vote in the last presidential election was: 159 million to 156 million. This is a margin of three million not five million votes.
However, since our system is based on the electoral college system, and not the popular vote we need to look at the margin in the electoral college. If we based the election on the popular vote, then history would have been completely different, because President Gore would have been re-elected last year instead of President Bush.
The electoral college margin in the last election was Kerry 251 Bush 286. This is considered a close election based on history. Only the most conservative pundits would claim a landslide.
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 11/01/2005
1.
"If tfreridge can't be honest about the results of the election, how can we assume that he is being honest about any other part of his post? The truth about the election is that Bush won Ohio by 118,000 votes."
Bush won Ohio by more votes than Kerry won Pennsylvania, and Kerry continusouly hinted at ficticious plans for a draft.
IIRC, Nixon's "lonely victory" strategy supplies no help to Congressional Republicans. Meanwhile, Bush swung the senate by 8 seats (+4 GOP, -4 DEM) and increased the party's lead in the house.
2.
"Now, we learn the George W Bush paid people to support him and talk about him on talk radio."
I have a low opinion of the bureaucratic Department of Education, and perhaps this scandal gives evidence that it should be abolished, but did this order originate from Bush? Has anyone shown that? Or even that it started from the Secretary of Education?
Posted by: Dan | 11/01/2005
tfridge,
Today the British ran a story about how Blair is expected to win in a landslide -- about 42% of the vote. By that standard Bush won in an avalanche!
Posted by: Dan | 11/01/2005
Dan:
You wrote:
"Bush won Ohio by more votes than Kerry won Pennsylvania, and Kerry continusouly hinted at ficticious plans for a draft. "
This is not correct. The difference in the Pennsylvania race was 129,000 votes, and in Ohio it was 118,000 votes.
The two states were very close, but so many people were disenfranchised in Ohio because of the polling places not having enough voting machines. People had to wait in line for more than five hours in some places, but in wealthy districts people were in and out in a few minutes.
If the Democrats ever get back in power, the Republicans will feel retribution from angry Democrats. Is that the kind of country you want to live in? If the Republicans don't act to fix these things, we are in for even more trouble in the future.
Why do I say Republicans? Because they now have complete control of the entire government. If things don't work, they are at fault!
Posted by: Dr. Forbush | 11/01/2005
Dr. Forbush stated: "Why do I say Republicans? Because they now have complete control of the entire government. If things don't work, they are at fault!"
I couldn't agree with you more. This is the chance we have (and I say "we" lightly because I'm a Lieberman/Republican who really likes President Bush's Immigration policies) and if we screw it up we'll have no one to blame but ourselves. Some democrat friends of mine are saying now that the republicans are going to screw things up so badly that they won't see power for another 16 years. I doubt it, but remember, the winner gets to write the history, right?
Posted by: tfreridge | 11/01/2005
"If the Democrats ever get back in power, the Republicans will feel retribution from angry Democrats. Is that the kind of country you want to live in? If the Republicans don't act to fix these things, we are in for even more trouble in the future."
The DNC ran Congress from the 1930s to the 1990s. The GOP's only a decade into its reign. Allow a generation or so to go by, and then the tyranny and revenge will start.
Payback is... something-or-the-other.
Posted by: Dan | 12/01/2005
tferidge,
The most important thing we can do is devolve as much power back to the states as quickly as possible. Federal centralization leads to tyranny, regardless of whether the government is right or left. Let Massachusettes destroy itself with bizarre regulations. It effects their voters most, anyway.
Posted by: Dan | 12/01/2005
"This is not correct. The difference in the Pennsylvania race was 129,000 votes, and in Ohio it was 118,000 votes."
Thank you for your correction. I forgot the Democrat's ability to "find" votes during recounts, even when it makes no difference.
I decline from citing the vote-supressing leftist terrorism before and during election day, as victors should be gracious.
-tdaxp
Posted by: Dan | 12/01/2005