The unborn dig their own graves
I still haven't gotten round to reading Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas?, but I did catch his appearance on NOW with Bill Moyers back in July, where he had this to say:
FRANK: This is the fascinating thing about the way class is discussed in America now. And it's not just in Kansas but everywhere in the country, is that it's not about economics. It's about cultural issues. Class is about culture. It's not about economics, it's not about… well, I mean it is obviously about, you know, where you work, what kind of money you make. But the way that it affects you, the grievances that you have are cultural ones.
MOYERS: Such as?
FRANK: Abortion is the main one. This is something… it's divided along class lines in Kansas where the moderate Republicans who tend to be affluent, the people that I grew up around, tend to be pro-choice. The working class Republicans are pro-life.
He goes on from there (read the transcript), but his basic premise is that working-class Republicans are eager to screw themselves economically in order to preserve a set of cultural (actually religious) "values". Depressing stuff, and I was actually startled to see Frank's whole theory encapsulated neatly by Tom Ampleman, a "blue collar union member" in Missouri:
"The Republicans will hurt me in the long run in providing for my family, but it's probably more important to watch out for the unborn and that kind of stuff."
Taken on its face, the statement is deeply distressing. I mean, this guy is a Democrat for chrissakes! The hoary Marxist term for this phenomenon is "false consciousness", yet Ampleman seems aware of his own false consciousness, thus it's very creepy and postmodern and difficult to shoot down.
But then there's the funny part, which is that watching out for the unborn should probably include watching out for their economic well-being, yet voting Republican means palming off a staggering and irresponsible deficit onto an unborn generation. It's one thing to consciously screw yourself, but please people, don't let your kids inherit a sinister financially (not to mention morally) bankrupt nation. Vote Democrat and do right by the unborn...
posted by Mark D. @ 1:35 AM |
| 
13 Comments:
The really sad irony of the truth Frank documents, is that republicans don't deliver the progress on the wedge issues their working class supporters think they will. They can't, because a clear majority of US citizens are pro-choice, for example. At the top of the Republican ranks, social issues are just a cynical ploy to consolidate the base. So the social issue voter gets screwed economically and screwed socially.
The other weird irony is that in their rush to abdicate the pluralism on which America is founded, social-issue voters center moral authority away from families and smack dab in the middle of the thing the love to loathe-the goverment.
I have noticed that neo-cons have been publishing Trojan Horse articles and administering websites that epsouse supposidly candid opinions to bolster their assertion that no-fault abortion on demand has coarsened society.
http://www.citypages.com/databank/25/1225/article12158.asp
http://www.imnotsorry.net
Who do they think they are kidding? The opinions on these sites are so callous a two-year old could spot the ruse, right?
Marx had it right you betcha, and not only regarding a penchant for hoary psuedo-psycological constructs. Any student of history can see the elegance of Marxism, right?
We need to teach the Tom Ampleman's of America the importance of more Marxist politicians and more abortions and more homosexuality, polyamory, wiccans, crystal worshippers and more drugs and of course more beer!
We need to get the message across that "we don't need no stinkin' morals", so let's get to work.
Swiftee-
Please enlighten us as to how we may all lead more faithful and moral lives like you. What kind of social norms shall we establish? What shall we do to enforce them? Shall we take everything the Bible says literally... or do we just interpret it as we please?
From what I get, it suggests stoning...
But I think that is a little bit harsh.
Your suggestions???
Swiftee -- nobody is arguing that we don't need morals. I, at least, argue that the seat of moral authority should not be the government. That's really, really dangerous. I argue, as Jefferson did, that people should be free to do whatever they want unless it "picks my pocket or breaks my leg." And yes, that includes letting people do things that I might not consider moral.
And of course, Marxism has nothing to do with anything at all in this conversation, Swiftee, unless of course you are advocating a state crackdown on the sexual, religious and social behavior to which you seem to object. In that case, the question becomes:
What stripe of totalitarian state are you advocating: Marxist, Fascist, Theocratic?
Well Carson, I'm no authority on the Bible but I agree with you that stoning is over the top.
Seems to me that the vacuum cleaner does a pretty good job on 95% of the unwanted cellular masses of undetermined origin that inhibit the party mood and we have the other 5% covered with the D&E trocor.
And morals? Are you kidding? F 'em. Let's all just get out there and Do Our Thing!
I guess I must've been playing hookey from Sunday school the day that Jesus started encouraging bigotry.
Of course we all know that their are no good conservative would be gay, drink alcohol (esp. not while driving!), partake in a strange religion, practice anything but monogamy or use drugs, right? Right?
Ryan, please bear with me here. I'm still relying on the "training wheels" of logic while I become an enlightened free thinker like all of you.
So let me see if I have this right..
"I guess I must've been playing hookey from Sunday school the day that Jesus started encouraging bigotry."
So..the thoughtful, enlightened response to any loony who says anything against abortion is to remind them that Christ just says no to bigotry, is that right?
OK I have that. But we may have a problem here:
"Of course we all know that their are no good conservative would be gay, drink alcohol (esp. not while driving!), partake in a strange religion, practice anything but monogamy or use drugs, right? Right?"
I've heard this thoughtful, enlightened arguement used before Ryan. And unfortunately for us free thinkers those damn neo-cons point out that they are not advocating the acceptance of any of those things, and in fact believe that even their neo-con buddies who engage in them should be punished which is a real buzz kill, know what I mean?
Damn this is hard... Maybe I need to increase my BAC level a bit and then it will become clear to me.
Thanks for your patience!
"So..the thoughtful, enlightened response to any loony who says anything against abortion is to remind them that Christ just says no to bigotry, is that right?"
The mention of bigotry was meant to be pointed toward your eloquent little diatribe that wrapped abortion, homosexuality, polyamory, drugs and new age religion into one little package. Perhaps I'm wrong, but tolerance doesn't seem to be one of your big issues.
"Seems to me that the vacuum cleaner does a pretty good job on 95% of the unwanted cellular masses of undetermined origin that inhibit the party mood and we have the other 5% covered with the D&E trocor."
As for abortion, you seem to be against it. To what degree, I'm not sure. Fine. That's your opinion. I can respect that. However the picture that you paint seems to infer that the decision-making process that one goes through before having an abortion is no more complex than deciding to get a haircut or an oil change. I don't agree.
What I think is most annoying about Swiftee's post is that he labels all of the "immoral" activities by liberals as part of a "If if feels good, do it" mentality.
First, I wouldn't dare to say that a woman getting an abortion enjoys it. But it is her right to make that choice.
Second, homosexuality is no more a "if it feels good" activity that hetero sex. Please enlighten me as to the day you CHOSE to be straight or REJECTED being gay.
Third, for someone who believes in smaller government... why are you so interested in government pushing itself into people private lives?
Wow! You guys got me all wrong! I'm one of the converted now and I'm into tolerance in a BIG WAY!
I think we need to tolerate everything. The bible? Give me a break, who do they think they're kidding?
The Ten Commandments? Sounds like somebody's mother ragging. Chekkit out:
1. I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Says who?
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image…
or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.
We ain't bowin' down to nothin' right gang?
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain…
What, and cut our vocabulary by 1/25? Are you nuts?
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy…
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work.
Someone call the AFL-CIO. And what about people who don't want to work at all?
5. Honour thy father and thy mother.
Honor'em? We don't even know who they are!
6. Thou shalt not kill.
Yea, but what about the people that need killin'? Don't judge!
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Hey, these guys never saw my neighbors wife! What's the harm so long as we keep it on the down low!
8. Thou shalt not steal.
At least not anything that somebody would notice right away, right? Hey, don't judge!
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Hey, the guy's a loser. We say what we want.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
Heeeey wait a minute. If we can't have a stinkin' ox, than neither can anyone else. And what about those damn greedy CEO's?
Yup, I'm cured. Let's party!
Look's like Swiftee needs to take his own advice. This is found in the comments of his own blog Pair 'O Dice at http://restraininorder.blogspot.com/2004/09/terror-has-new-face.html#comments :
"Straw man arguement; defined:
The straw man fallacy occurs when a statement misrepresents or invents an opponent’s view (sometimes even the opponent is invented) in order to easily discredit it.
The straw man fallacy does not consist of stating an opponent's position, but only in stating it inaccurately.
The straw man argument is intended to give the appearance of successfully refuting the original argument, thus creating the impression that it has refuted a position that someone actually holds.
A straw man is constructed expressly for the purpose of knocking it down."
Ooooowee! Swiftee, you must have a purty full belly right about now, what with all the stuff you been served son.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
<< Home