"Without entering into 'the challenge,' as I do not disagree with the question you are posing, my question to you, PL, is this: Is there anyone on the 'far right' that is not republican or is democratic? Your manipulation of word choice seems a little slippery to me."
Here's Rick:
"Go Pete! If you're on something, legal or not, 'natural' or not, keep taking it as it gives you great passion and energy.
If you're not on something, maybe you need to start taking something. Shame on you for making the leap from kidnapper, rapist, insane nut job to those who carry firearms and protest things. We've been down this road before and I think we all can agree that no matter the walk of life, or group of people, bad people exist. I already wrote about occupations you questioned about whether it was the institution or the people within them that made them problematic. Teachers, doctors, lawyers, therapists, priests were some of them. Bad people who made selfish decisions abound. The professions were not.
Let me take momma's little helper, gulp. I will become a gun carrier next week (not really) and immediately, I will be overcome with the urge to kidnap young girls and hide them in my yard for years while exacting all kinds of abuse. You are consistently intellectually dishonest, so I guess keep beating that drum in hopes you'll wear people out. I'm tired but not dumb. I will say this, you certainly provide comic relief if not head scratching to these issues.
I have a few requests so I can honestly face this 'challenge' as opposed to walking into the trap you craftily set. (Nice work by the way)
1. Define 'far-right wingers'
2. Qualify/provide examples of what 'further our country + humanity at large' means
3. Distinguish between a conservative/far-right winger and someone who would embrace 'This is where we've been that we must hold onto and not change.'
Lincoln's only goal of the Civil War was to hold onto that which we had. Isn't that, by your definition, a conservative or far right winger? Hopefully, the aforementioned requests will flush all of this out.
Once I get this information, I'll be better equipped to try and entertain your 'challenge.'
Your move counselor."
Here's PL:
Okay, Auntlori and Rick...
Thank you for pursuing this topic to a greater depth.
Let's start with a working definition of right wing, as most often described by those who identify themselves as such, and according to the various political dictionaries and encyclopedias on the web.
The phrase "right-wing" was coined during the French Revolution, when right-wing referred to seating arrangements in parliament; those who sat on the right supported the monarchy, the aristocracy and the established church. Today, the term "the Right" is primarily used to refer to political groups, including conservatives, reactionaries, monarchists, aristocrats, religious fundamentalists, and some nationalists. The Right also encompasses views supporting free markets and making the right of owning private property the paramount right. Interestingly enough, traditional Republicanism, by most definitions, is almost the opposite of right wing ideology. A "republic," technically, is the rule by many and by laws and is anti-monarchial.
Over the last forty years, after a long reign by the Democratic Party from 1932 to 1968 (the moderate Eisenhower interrupting the dominance), the Republican Party sold out to the far right in order to win votes, leading to success for that stretch from 1968 to 2008, on the one hand, but destroying the party ultimately. Are there any far right Democrats? I don't know of any, but I'd be interested if anyone does. Personally, I think the Democrats have many faults, many indeed, but generally, being retrogressive is not one of them.
As to your other comments/questions, Rick, well, this is our old banter, I guess, so I'll try to find a creative way to yet again repeat myself.
I can't subscribe to the "one bad apple" mentality about corruption, when corruption is systemic, as it is in all the professions you mention, including my own. As a "good" therapist, I consider myself an exception, just as I consider good cops, priests, doctors and politicians exceptions. Institutionalizing practices in the pursuit of money and power corrupts absolutely. Likewise, normalizing - or marginalizing - insane behavior, or hiding it behind legality, doesn't change it's inherent insanity.
In terms of what it means to "move our country and humanity forward," first and foremost, I would start with self-awareness and self-examination, and just as important, a connection to the oneness between all people. Exceptionalism, nationalism, racism, sexism, jingoism, homophobia, xenophobia, etc., are hallmarks of the far right in our time, certainly not self-reflective and most certainly not about oneness. The opposite of oneness, wouldn't you say?
And Lincoln, Rick? Really?! The Emancipation Proclamation is what? A right wing manifesto?! That's a beauty! I must admit, I've never heard anyone until now claim that refusing to allow the part of our union that wanted to maintain a feudal system which included slavery to secede was simply an effort to maintain the status quo!
Whew! I guess, then, following that logic, the folks in Texas who want to secede from the Union, you know the ones who want their guns and Hooters left alone, must be real far left liberals?
I repeat... Whew!
You may be scratching your head, but I'm starting to think you're arguing with me just for the sake of arguing.
No comments:
Post a Comment