Thanks for the comments. I agree with your thoughts about democracy. The idea of democracy certainly should allow for “each individual determines for herself or himself what is best/correct/truth.”
But this summation begs the question of why we’re enmeshed In such an uncivil war? Both sides seem full of self determining individuals deci…
Thanks for the comments. I agree with your thoughts about democracy. The idea of democracy certainly should allow for “each individual determines for herself or himself what is best/correct/truth.”
But this summation begs the question of why we’re enmeshed In such an uncivil war? Both sides seem full of self determining individuals deciding what is best, correct and true. Neither side seems unable to abide by this thesis. And the debate will get even hotter when we start defining what it means to be well-informed, rational, and educated. Clearly many on both sides (especially right now) believe their opposition is as not well informed nor rational. It would be interesting to watch Thom H debate a Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin or Victor Davis Hanson on what constitutes a well informed and rational person. Each is well educated and rational but I doubt Thom would have much tolerance or sympathy for the other three. And visa versa.
When it comes to the sides disagreeing with one another, It just seems like there’s a lot more going than reasonable disagreement.
You are correct in saying that there is a lot more going on than reasonable disagreement. However, there are honest disagreements with sincere debate founded on rationality and scientifically sound principles and knowledge, and then there are squabbles based on fear, ignorance, superstition, and appeals to the “baser instincts”, i.e., fear, anger, hatred, prejudice, closed-mindedness, etc.
Thom has done his homework. He not only knows the principles, theories, facts, and history from whence he comes, but he is well-versed on the ideas, beliefs, and histories represented by those people on the “other side” to which you have referred. The reality is that they are not on a “side”. They are on a crusade which at its roots derives from a fundamental distrust of human nature, a denial of common interests, a faith in things unseen and represented by mythology and bad religion, and a wish for a past bliss that exists only in the mind of the reactionaries and far right radicals. Mark Levin “rational”? That seems like a bit of a stretch.
Democracy and the civic processes on which it is based have been undermined. That extreme media which is the point on which the current discussion started has been strategically funded and built up by people who practice according to the “noble lie” which Thom has been talking about on the show. It’s a version of the “ends justify the means”. For decades the plan has been to dupe a gullible and anxious public into going along with all manner of low-level thinking and reaction against rationality, reason, decency, trust, and courage by feeding them false or badly sourced information, opinion, and slanted “news” for the purpose of promoting a vision which is undemocratic, un-American, and unchristian.
Listen to Thom. He will explain it again on a daily basis until more people get it. My point is that compulsory attendance laws have led to the desensitization and dumbing down of the population allowing the right-wing media to sell their incendiary garbage.
Thanks again for your response. No doubt there are ugly squabbles based on fear, ignorance, anger, hatred, prejudice, closed-mindedness, etc. They happen on both sides and certainly corrupt the civility of our public discourse.
My question concerns your defense of Thom. I’ve listen to Thom for 10 to 15 years. No doubt he does his homework and is a fierce advocate of his ideological principles, theories, facts, and view of history. But his perspective, ideas and beliefs are in fact informed by a defined ideological perspective, a perspective that rarely if ever strays from his democratic socialist doctrinaire roots. As many on the right, he too is on a crusade that aggressively promotes his orthodox belief about such things as human nature, social moral codes, his faith and hopeful plans for a future governed by a progressive social democratic agenda, etc. etc. But his value-laden agenda is only reasonable if one assents to his ideological perspective. His perspective consistently aligns with the doctrines of his beliefs. Of course, this is also true of those that disagrees with Thom.
Certainly the sides are nuanced but each of the sides use all kind of rhetorical means to pursue their ends. Many on both sides use their platforms to undermine rationality, reason, decency, trust, and courage by spewing false or badly sourced information, slanted “news” for the purpose of promoting their visions. Whether they are undemocratic, un-American, and unchristian that’s a whole other debate. I’m certain both sides would bring their biased descriptions to argue the “truth” of what democratic, American and Christian mean. A debate addressing those terms and ideas would reveal just how far we are from any so-called objective understanding of these philosophical ideas. In other words, Thom's definitions would be informed by his orthodoxy and the other side would be informed by there’s. This is why I say a Thom Hartmann and Ben Shapiro debate (or Victor Davis Hansen or Andy McCarthy) would showcase how ideologies work to promote the ends of their ideological beliefs. And no doubt, the latter group also have done their homework, and have well informed theories, facts and views of history.
I like your concluding point, however as long as we have demanding ideological perspectives, we will continue to see a dumbing down of the population. Most have and will continue to be readily persuaded by how they feel about issues and ideas. Depending on their sentiments, they will listen to whatever wing of the media they feel is telling them the truth and rarely, if ever, question that media outlet’s heavily biased (and often hateful) rhetoric and agenda.
All of us who get involved in these kinds of discussions presumably do indeed have “ideological perspectives” which are based on some beliefs, which when firmed-up and validated take on the character of doctrines. However, the test is to what extent beliefs are examined and re-examined through the most rigorous and objective lens possible and the degree to which we are informed by verified facts and science and we are honest with ourselves.
In my own case, I was brought up in an evangelical family with uncles who were Baptist preachers, evangelists, and ministers, an aunt and uncle who were missionaries in Peru, and others who were heavily involved in the church. My Dad was a great person and he kept trying to maintain faith and live that life, but because of alcoholism, probably exacerbated by clinical paranoia, repeatedly slipped, and ultimately died from that physical and psychic abuse. In watching all that play out and in gaining new perspectives through fortuitous circumstances, I became skeptical of the bad religion and discovered more liberal and progressive philosophies and disciplines.
Scientists estimate that 90% of cognition is unconscious. I believe that if people, for whatever reasons fail to tap into and get a strong sense of their own unconscious fundamental motivations, fears, beliefs, and perspectives, they may lack objectivity and self-disclosure. Know thyself is more than just a platitude. Those who are less aware of how they are affected by experiences and influences tend to rely on blind faith or convention and tradition. They are less willing to venture out and explore. They may become emotionally attached to certain ideas and ideologies and susceptible to conspiracy theories of religious dogma.
Thom is a textbook case of someone who is in touch with his inner self and motivations in my estimation. More than just doing the homework, he has done the deep dives and followed the leads and analyses thoroughly, including extensive historical analyses and he has lived large, travelling and actively pursuing his interests and convictions. You wouldn’t have followed him if you didn’t recognize his authenticity. Dare to question your own core beliefs in the light of honest information and the real world impacts around you.
Thanks for note and especially sharing your faith journey. The issue of “bad religion” is something a lot of people have experienced and have written about. Perhaps you read Ross Douthat from the NYT? His book is actually entitled Bad Religion.
I can relate to many of your comments and sentiments. I have many friends who are committed evangelicals. Good people but unable to question much of the related dogmas. My thought is, to question their dogmas, is just way too threatening to their well-being or present spiritual commitments. The painful reality from all that comes from Jung wo wrote: “The greatest burden a child must bear is the unlived life of its parents.” The deeper reality is that those parents are also friends, brothers and sisters and often when they don’t “live” into their true spiritual selves they (as you suggest) become detached and indeed refrain from exploring their intention and fears. However, I’m unsure it’s blind faith. I actually believe, to sustain all their many conscious and unconscious tensions people embrace (at whatever level) their church or faith tradition. So I get why they chose to stop at certain levels of belief.
I also understand your defense of Thom Hartmann. His radio shows, essays and books have given me a glimpse into how ideologies work to influence one’s communication and actions. I appreciate his work and his commitment to his views and perspectives. His ideological consistency is pronounced and is unashamedly honest about his beliefs, hopes and desire for a different kind of government for the future. He makes no excuses for his desire to see the Republican Party fall and fade away from influence. He seems completely unconcerned about lumping all conservatives into the same basket. And his incessant vilification of the right comes almost unabated. I’ve attempted to understand several of his motivations for his crusade against the right. I doubt he’s read my posts but my constant reminder is that he must know that his rhetoric simply will never persuade his opponents/enemies. But I have a hunch that he simply doesn’t care or that they are beyond any hope of reaching.
Of course that’s his prerogative but there are a multitude of thoughtful people on the right and I fear his invectives quickly turn them away and undermine any possible reconciliation of our differences. His rhetoric indeed points to a belief there is absolutely no common ground between he and his enemies. And such a conclusion makes me wonder if he’s succumbed to an ideological possession of sorts, something Jung also believed brings serious personal consequences. Of course he’d probably accuse me of some kind of weird psychoanalysis, but these observations will always make me question his approach.
You may or may not agree, which is fine. I certainly appreciate the dialogue and wish you great and kind insight on your own spiritual path. That sort of insight is something we all need in our lives.
This has been an interesting exchange. I can see that you are operating on an intellectual plane some distance above my own. I believe I saw an interview of Douthat on C-SPAN or somewhere but am not familiar with his book. I wasn’t overly impressed if it was the same person. I love the quote from Jung. I feel deprived by my miseducation and limited experience and exposure to certain literature and philosophy. I am even more limited by time and by my singular mission regarding counterproductive compulsory attendance laws.
You have spoken about “the right”, “conservatives”, and Republicans as Thom’s enemies. There may be some confusion with all that, and I may not be able to clear it up. Suffice it to say that it is a fact that conservatism has been hijacked, perverted, and profoundly damaged by fanatics, extremists, and reactionaries.
Legitimate conservatives such as Buckley and Andrew Sullivan have been plowed under and overshadowed. The people being misidentified as conservative on the right now are fringe nuts and authoritarian wanna-be fascists. Christianity has been taken over in many quarters by Christo-fascists and Christian Dominionists, such as five or six US Supreme Court justices, DeVos, her brother Erik Prince, General Flynn, and a host of others. While I do not believe that Thom typically refers to any of these people as enemies, they most definitely have great enmity toward democratic ideals, our Constitution as written, science, and truth as represented in the real world as opposed to their fabricated fantasy world that has never existed.
Thom has entertained many right-wing spokespersons on his show many times. You apparently missed them or have not interpreted what occurred in the same way I interpreted it. I saw him obliterate their pretentious and specious arguments every time with solid facts, history, and logic. Our lens may be filtering reality in a different way. It may be more of a prism than a lens. There may be nothing that can be done to alter that situation for some of us.
The harsh reality is that the Republican brand since Ronnie Raygun has almost exclusively represented no clear policies that are aimed at making the world a better place, and by many that harm working people, the middle class, poor people, and that tear at the social fabric. They are directly for things which tend to kill people, such as the proliferation of guns, forcing women into back-alley abortions or living in poverty with children they cannot care for, deadly pollution, aggressive foreign incursions, and wars, etc., etc.
The leadership on the right are now mostly people such as Gingrich, McConnell, DeSantis, Abbott, etc., who clearly lack a moral compass or a conscience and whose every act and word is about gaining or keeping power and suppressing anyone who hesitates to do their bidding or who is in any way unconventional or different. The people who vote for these phony and mendacious authoritarians have demonstrated a sheep-like inability to think independently. Far too many people calling themselves conservative are merely accepting the ludicrous excuses and talking points that the party bosses and right-wing media hammer into their brains 24/7. Earlier today, I came across the expression, “…the hermetically sealed bubble of conservative media outlets” in Obama’s latest book, “Promised Land”. No need to think. Just keep tuning in and clicking on those links.
To repeat, what is being represented by those outlets and those self-serving, craven, and extremist leaders is something other than conservative and is certainly not honest or in alignment with the Constitution and democratic principles. If you can listen with an open mind, you cannot help but recognize the danger in following people who exploit and manipulate with no concern or compassion and who have appointed themselves as the superior ones who should lord over others on their way to glory in heaven. One does not compromise with evil.
Again, many thanks for your thoughts. Conversations like these provide clearly spotlight how personal opinions cloud the public discourse. You’ve made categorical value judgments about a fascism, fanaticism, and an extremist reactionary rightwing. But you don’t define any of your terms so there’s no way to know if your conclusions make any sense. You simply presume what you say is true. A good reading of William Buckley might show you what I mean. He was committed to clarity of thought and word, so perhaps he'd challenge you with three thoughts. One, your accusations of fascism and Christo-fascism come without any definition of the terms. Because of this they are empty generalizations. For example, a traditional understanding of the concept of fascism clearly has little to do with the right. (I’ve previously written to Thom about how the term simply does not apply.) Second, you completely depend on simple binaries. These social issues are extremely complex, but your thoughts don't allow for any complexity. You feel the other side wrong and you resort to name calling. You've reduced the matter to simple presumptions and declare your side to be morally superior. And third, which is related to the second, your accusations are clear echoes of the preferential value judgments of other people. Ironically, you’ve accused the right of this, but clearly your rhetoric sounds as though you’ve allowed someone else do your thinking for you.
Perhaps the right “tunes in and click the links” they like to hear. But there’s nothing in your latest post that that is original. Your thoughts simply repeat fashionable progressive talking points. Maybe a few questions would help understand my challenge. How does a traditional understanding of fascism reflect the agenda of the right? In other words what’s the philosophical understanding of the term? How are Constitutional or democratic principles being undermined by the right? How do you define conservatism of Bill Buckley? What does it mean to listen and inquire with an open mind? How is the right exploiting and manipulating our society? I agree we shouldn’t compromise with evil, but what make your values “good” and theirs evil? Compassion doesn’t explain what is good, nor do simple accusations of mendacity or a sheep-like inability to think independently explain anything. These are feelings not facts.
You may not see it, but in the end your arguments sound like slogans and they come with simple conclusions about good and evil. I realize this kind of forum/platform doesn’t allow for depth. It does however remind me of a good Buckley quote: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
At the age of 81 (in less than a week), I am not prepared to begin a new career of philosopher king. I would love to try to answer some of those questions, but something tells me that it would lead to another long list of questions, none of which would bring satisfaction or closure. You are still talking about my "side" and the other "side". Made-up talking points, false propaganda, irrationality, name-calling, and pretentious or pious blather do not qualify as a side. There are well established definitions for words, such as fascism, and evil and mendacity are not shaded and complex. Morality which respects life, autonomy, dignity, humility, love, etc., is indeed superior to immorality which comes from hatred, fear, and greed. I strongly suspect that the people will make some of those distinctions for us in November and in 2024. In the meantime, I am on a mission and cannot afford any more distractions.
Thanks for the note! Appreciate your thoughts. My goal with all my correspondence on this site has been to learn from people that have different perspectives. I suppose I learn best by asking questions so that maybe I can find clarity. You may not agree that both “sides” are fighting an uncivil war but given the way they demean and disparage each other, its clear both sides are on a missions to undermine their opposition. Thom Hartmann is certainly on that mission. But the great thing is, we still live in a great country which allows people on all the sides of the political spectrum to be on whatever mission they feel they need to be on. I hope your mission is blessed with and guided by your stated values of dignity, humility and love.
Thanks for the comments. I agree with your thoughts about democracy. The idea of democracy certainly should allow for “each individual determines for herself or himself what is best/correct/truth.”
But this summation begs the question of why we’re enmeshed In such an uncivil war? Both sides seem full of self determining individuals deciding what is best, correct and true. Neither side seems unable to abide by this thesis. And the debate will get even hotter when we start defining what it means to be well-informed, rational, and educated. Clearly many on both sides (especially right now) believe their opposition is as not well informed nor rational. It would be interesting to watch Thom H debate a Ben Shapiro, Mark Levin or Victor Davis Hanson on what constitutes a well informed and rational person. Each is well educated and rational but I doubt Thom would have much tolerance or sympathy for the other three. And visa versa.
When it comes to the sides disagreeing with one another, It just seems like there’s a lot more going than reasonable disagreement.
Mr. Nelson,
You are correct in saying that there is a lot more going on than reasonable disagreement. However, there are honest disagreements with sincere debate founded on rationality and scientifically sound principles and knowledge, and then there are squabbles based on fear, ignorance, superstition, and appeals to the “baser instincts”, i.e., fear, anger, hatred, prejudice, closed-mindedness, etc.
Thom has done his homework. He not only knows the principles, theories, facts, and history from whence he comes, but he is well-versed on the ideas, beliefs, and histories represented by those people on the “other side” to which you have referred. The reality is that they are not on a “side”. They are on a crusade which at its roots derives from a fundamental distrust of human nature, a denial of common interests, a faith in things unseen and represented by mythology and bad religion, and a wish for a past bliss that exists only in the mind of the reactionaries and far right radicals. Mark Levin “rational”? That seems like a bit of a stretch.
Democracy and the civic processes on which it is based have been undermined. That extreme media which is the point on which the current discussion started has been strategically funded and built up by people who practice according to the “noble lie” which Thom has been talking about on the show. It’s a version of the “ends justify the means”. For decades the plan has been to dupe a gullible and anxious public into going along with all manner of low-level thinking and reaction against rationality, reason, decency, trust, and courage by feeding them false or badly sourced information, opinion, and slanted “news” for the purpose of promoting a vision which is undemocratic, un-American, and unchristian.
Listen to Thom. He will explain it again on a daily basis until more people get it. My point is that compulsory attendance laws have led to the desensitization and dumbing down of the population allowing the right-wing media to sell their incendiary garbage.
Thanks again for your response. No doubt there are ugly squabbles based on fear, ignorance, anger, hatred, prejudice, closed-mindedness, etc. They happen on both sides and certainly corrupt the civility of our public discourse.
My question concerns your defense of Thom. I’ve listen to Thom for 10 to 15 years. No doubt he does his homework and is a fierce advocate of his ideological principles, theories, facts, and view of history. But his perspective, ideas and beliefs are in fact informed by a defined ideological perspective, a perspective that rarely if ever strays from his democratic socialist doctrinaire roots. As many on the right, he too is on a crusade that aggressively promotes his orthodox belief about such things as human nature, social moral codes, his faith and hopeful plans for a future governed by a progressive social democratic agenda, etc. etc. But his value-laden agenda is only reasonable if one assents to his ideological perspective. His perspective consistently aligns with the doctrines of his beliefs. Of course, this is also true of those that disagrees with Thom.
Certainly the sides are nuanced but each of the sides use all kind of rhetorical means to pursue their ends. Many on both sides use their platforms to undermine rationality, reason, decency, trust, and courage by spewing false or badly sourced information, slanted “news” for the purpose of promoting their visions. Whether they are undemocratic, un-American, and unchristian that’s a whole other debate. I’m certain both sides would bring their biased descriptions to argue the “truth” of what democratic, American and Christian mean. A debate addressing those terms and ideas would reveal just how far we are from any so-called objective understanding of these philosophical ideas. In other words, Thom's definitions would be informed by his orthodoxy and the other side would be informed by there’s. This is why I say a Thom Hartmann and Ben Shapiro debate (or Victor Davis Hansen or Andy McCarthy) would showcase how ideologies work to promote the ends of their ideological beliefs. And no doubt, the latter group also have done their homework, and have well informed theories, facts and views of history.
I like your concluding point, however as long as we have demanding ideological perspectives, we will continue to see a dumbing down of the population. Most have and will continue to be readily persuaded by how they feel about issues and ideas. Depending on their sentiments, they will listen to whatever wing of the media they feel is telling them the truth and rarely, if ever, question that media outlet’s heavily biased (and often hateful) rhetoric and agenda.
All of us who get involved in these kinds of discussions presumably do indeed have “ideological perspectives” which are based on some beliefs, which when firmed-up and validated take on the character of doctrines. However, the test is to what extent beliefs are examined and re-examined through the most rigorous and objective lens possible and the degree to which we are informed by verified facts and science and we are honest with ourselves.
In my own case, I was brought up in an evangelical family with uncles who were Baptist preachers, evangelists, and ministers, an aunt and uncle who were missionaries in Peru, and others who were heavily involved in the church. My Dad was a great person and he kept trying to maintain faith and live that life, but because of alcoholism, probably exacerbated by clinical paranoia, repeatedly slipped, and ultimately died from that physical and psychic abuse. In watching all that play out and in gaining new perspectives through fortuitous circumstances, I became skeptical of the bad religion and discovered more liberal and progressive philosophies and disciplines.
Scientists estimate that 90% of cognition is unconscious. I believe that if people, for whatever reasons fail to tap into and get a strong sense of their own unconscious fundamental motivations, fears, beliefs, and perspectives, they may lack objectivity and self-disclosure. Know thyself is more than just a platitude. Those who are less aware of how they are affected by experiences and influences tend to rely on blind faith or convention and tradition. They are less willing to venture out and explore. They may become emotionally attached to certain ideas and ideologies and susceptible to conspiracy theories of religious dogma.
Thom is a textbook case of someone who is in touch with his inner self and motivations in my estimation. More than just doing the homework, he has done the deep dives and followed the leads and analyses thoroughly, including extensive historical analyses and he has lived large, travelling and actively pursuing his interests and convictions. You wouldn’t have followed him if you didn’t recognize his authenticity. Dare to question your own core beliefs in the light of honest information and the real world impacts around you.
Thanks for note and especially sharing your faith journey. The issue of “bad religion” is something a lot of people have experienced and have written about. Perhaps you read Ross Douthat from the NYT? His book is actually entitled Bad Religion.
I can relate to many of your comments and sentiments. I have many friends who are committed evangelicals. Good people but unable to question much of the related dogmas. My thought is, to question their dogmas, is just way too threatening to their well-being or present spiritual commitments. The painful reality from all that comes from Jung wo wrote: “The greatest burden a child must bear is the unlived life of its parents.” The deeper reality is that those parents are also friends, brothers and sisters and often when they don’t “live” into their true spiritual selves they (as you suggest) become detached and indeed refrain from exploring their intention and fears. However, I’m unsure it’s blind faith. I actually believe, to sustain all their many conscious and unconscious tensions people embrace (at whatever level) their church or faith tradition. So I get why they chose to stop at certain levels of belief.
I also understand your defense of Thom Hartmann. His radio shows, essays and books have given me a glimpse into how ideologies work to influence one’s communication and actions. I appreciate his work and his commitment to his views and perspectives. His ideological consistency is pronounced and is unashamedly honest about his beliefs, hopes and desire for a different kind of government for the future. He makes no excuses for his desire to see the Republican Party fall and fade away from influence. He seems completely unconcerned about lumping all conservatives into the same basket. And his incessant vilification of the right comes almost unabated. I’ve attempted to understand several of his motivations for his crusade against the right. I doubt he’s read my posts but my constant reminder is that he must know that his rhetoric simply will never persuade his opponents/enemies. But I have a hunch that he simply doesn’t care or that they are beyond any hope of reaching.
Of course that’s his prerogative but there are a multitude of thoughtful people on the right and I fear his invectives quickly turn them away and undermine any possible reconciliation of our differences. His rhetoric indeed points to a belief there is absolutely no common ground between he and his enemies. And such a conclusion makes me wonder if he’s succumbed to an ideological possession of sorts, something Jung also believed brings serious personal consequences. Of course he’d probably accuse me of some kind of weird psychoanalysis, but these observations will always make me question his approach.
You may or may not agree, which is fine. I certainly appreciate the dialogue and wish you great and kind insight on your own spiritual path. That sort of insight is something we all need in our lives.
Mr. Nelson,
This has been an interesting exchange. I can see that you are operating on an intellectual plane some distance above my own. I believe I saw an interview of Douthat on C-SPAN or somewhere but am not familiar with his book. I wasn’t overly impressed if it was the same person. I love the quote from Jung. I feel deprived by my miseducation and limited experience and exposure to certain literature and philosophy. I am even more limited by time and by my singular mission regarding counterproductive compulsory attendance laws.
You have spoken about “the right”, “conservatives”, and Republicans as Thom’s enemies. There may be some confusion with all that, and I may not be able to clear it up. Suffice it to say that it is a fact that conservatism has been hijacked, perverted, and profoundly damaged by fanatics, extremists, and reactionaries.
Legitimate conservatives such as Buckley and Andrew Sullivan have been plowed under and overshadowed. The people being misidentified as conservative on the right now are fringe nuts and authoritarian wanna-be fascists. Christianity has been taken over in many quarters by Christo-fascists and Christian Dominionists, such as five or six US Supreme Court justices, DeVos, her brother Erik Prince, General Flynn, and a host of others. While I do not believe that Thom typically refers to any of these people as enemies, they most definitely have great enmity toward democratic ideals, our Constitution as written, science, and truth as represented in the real world as opposed to their fabricated fantasy world that has never existed.
Thom has entertained many right-wing spokespersons on his show many times. You apparently missed them or have not interpreted what occurred in the same way I interpreted it. I saw him obliterate their pretentious and specious arguments every time with solid facts, history, and logic. Our lens may be filtering reality in a different way. It may be more of a prism than a lens. There may be nothing that can be done to alter that situation for some of us.
The harsh reality is that the Republican brand since Ronnie Raygun has almost exclusively represented no clear policies that are aimed at making the world a better place, and by many that harm working people, the middle class, poor people, and that tear at the social fabric. They are directly for things which tend to kill people, such as the proliferation of guns, forcing women into back-alley abortions or living in poverty with children they cannot care for, deadly pollution, aggressive foreign incursions, and wars, etc., etc.
The leadership on the right are now mostly people such as Gingrich, McConnell, DeSantis, Abbott, etc., who clearly lack a moral compass or a conscience and whose every act and word is about gaining or keeping power and suppressing anyone who hesitates to do their bidding or who is in any way unconventional or different. The people who vote for these phony and mendacious authoritarians have demonstrated a sheep-like inability to think independently. Far too many people calling themselves conservative are merely accepting the ludicrous excuses and talking points that the party bosses and right-wing media hammer into their brains 24/7. Earlier today, I came across the expression, “…the hermetically sealed bubble of conservative media outlets” in Obama’s latest book, “Promised Land”. No need to think. Just keep tuning in and clicking on those links.
To repeat, what is being represented by those outlets and those self-serving, craven, and extremist leaders is something other than conservative and is certainly not honest or in alignment with the Constitution and democratic principles. If you can listen with an open mind, you cannot help but recognize the danger in following people who exploit and manipulate with no concern or compassion and who have appointed themselves as the superior ones who should lord over others on their way to glory in heaven. One does not compromise with evil.
Again, many thanks for your thoughts. Conversations like these provide clearly spotlight how personal opinions cloud the public discourse. You’ve made categorical value judgments about a fascism, fanaticism, and an extremist reactionary rightwing. But you don’t define any of your terms so there’s no way to know if your conclusions make any sense. You simply presume what you say is true. A good reading of William Buckley might show you what I mean. He was committed to clarity of thought and word, so perhaps he'd challenge you with three thoughts. One, your accusations of fascism and Christo-fascism come without any definition of the terms. Because of this they are empty generalizations. For example, a traditional understanding of the concept of fascism clearly has little to do with the right. (I’ve previously written to Thom about how the term simply does not apply.) Second, you completely depend on simple binaries. These social issues are extremely complex, but your thoughts don't allow for any complexity. You feel the other side wrong and you resort to name calling. You've reduced the matter to simple presumptions and declare your side to be morally superior. And third, which is related to the second, your accusations are clear echoes of the preferential value judgments of other people. Ironically, you’ve accused the right of this, but clearly your rhetoric sounds as though you’ve allowed someone else do your thinking for you.
Perhaps the right “tunes in and click the links” they like to hear. But there’s nothing in your latest post that that is original. Your thoughts simply repeat fashionable progressive talking points. Maybe a few questions would help understand my challenge. How does a traditional understanding of fascism reflect the agenda of the right? In other words what’s the philosophical understanding of the term? How are Constitutional or democratic principles being undermined by the right? How do you define conservatism of Bill Buckley? What does it mean to listen and inquire with an open mind? How is the right exploiting and manipulating our society? I agree we shouldn’t compromise with evil, but what make your values “good” and theirs evil? Compassion doesn’t explain what is good, nor do simple accusations of mendacity or a sheep-like inability to think independently explain anything. These are feelings not facts.
You may not see it, but in the end your arguments sound like slogans and they come with simple conclusions about good and evil. I realize this kind of forum/platform doesn’t allow for depth. It does however remind me of a good Buckley quote: “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
At the age of 81 (in less than a week), I am not prepared to begin a new career of philosopher king. I would love to try to answer some of those questions, but something tells me that it would lead to another long list of questions, none of which would bring satisfaction or closure. You are still talking about my "side" and the other "side". Made-up talking points, false propaganda, irrationality, name-calling, and pretentious or pious blather do not qualify as a side. There are well established definitions for words, such as fascism, and evil and mendacity are not shaded and complex. Morality which respects life, autonomy, dignity, humility, love, etc., is indeed superior to immorality which comes from hatred, fear, and greed. I strongly suspect that the people will make some of those distinctions for us in November and in 2024. In the meantime, I am on a mission and cannot afford any more distractions.
Thanks for the note! Appreciate your thoughts. My goal with all my correspondence on this site has been to learn from people that have different perspectives. I suppose I learn best by asking questions so that maybe I can find clarity. You may not agree that both “sides” are fighting an uncivil war but given the way they demean and disparage each other, its clear both sides are on a missions to undermine their opposition. Thom Hartmann is certainly on that mission. But the great thing is, we still live in a great country which allows people on all the sides of the political spectrum to be on whatever mission they feel they need to be on. I hope your mission is blessed with and guided by your stated values of dignity, humility and love.