![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Review of 'The Authoritarians'
Link to The Authoritarians (a free eBook) or Amazon.com The Authoritarians
I stumbled on to this book on the recommendation of a friend, I read it and was impressed with the conclusions it draws, In my lifetime I have seen a dramatic shift toward the right in the Republican party, the GOP is no longer a big tent, at best its several smaller tents with connected awnings, with no room left for people like me, whom are social liberals, but at times fiscally conservative.
In reading this book, I was able to recognize traits of RWA's in people around me. For example, I know several people who suffer from the extreme compartmentalization a Mormon scientist, who can both hold the semi creationist doctrine of the LDS Church and work on study of the solar system, this contradiction alone make my head want to explode.
I also have several friends, who while being actively gay, are also Neoconservatives and see no issue with their personal needs for equal rights, and the party's call for in some cases recriminalization of homosexuality.
I believe that in the end RWA's are not bad or evil, but their recent prevalence does explain the extreme lack of elasticity in politics in the Unites States over the last decade and some of the seemingly contrary positions held by the Republican party on whole.
(if you think anyone mentioned in this entry is you, your wrong, both people mentioned are composites of several people)
no subject
no subject
At some point, should they actually get their way, the US will be controlled 100% by White Christian Republicans. Blacks and other minorities would become 2nd class citizens, and we would be either put in prisons or killed.
Any Neoconservative who hasn't seen this looming ahead, has blinders on.
no subject
no subject
Though I suggest that you read "Rules for Radicals" sometime soon to see things in another light since it seems like you have been reading a lot from one particular extreme.
no subject
If you have not read this book, please do, its not partisan at all, its written from a neutral perspective.
I also have "Conservatives without Conscience" on order.
no subject
In a nutshell, RfR spells out that community organizers, otherwise known as aggitators, role is to build up a group or collection of groups, work them up into a lather and then direct them towards a particular target to "change" something that is said to be the goal. It really starts to take a darker tone when it describes how the people are to be kept angry and never improving their position in life, and the phrase "revolution for the sake of revoltution" is the real goal of any community organizer.
no subject
There is a fundamental difference though, the ideas for change the Republicans are spouting is very new and different (with some of the same ol') from their past rhetoric.
The stuff Obama is spouting, every Democratic president since Roosevelt has proposed.
I still contend, that while the Democrats have moved slightly further left (Obama is closer to Truman politically then anyone) the Republican base is much much much further right then any other Republican President in history, and when the base moves, so does the party.
I guess what I'm trying to grok is why the base has moved so much on the Republican side. Its really unclear to me.
no subject
To borrow a paragragh from wikipedia, and I quote:
Outlining his strategy in organizing, Alinsky writes:
There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families – more than seventy million people – whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default.
no subject
no subject
I have seen no such calls from the mainstream Republican party to recriminalize homosexuality. I know that there are fringe, ultra-conservative Christians that would like sodomy laws enacted again, but I do not believe they make up a significant force in the conservative movement. Sodomy laws certainly are not a priority issue among the Republican party. I don't know of any of the Republican candidates running for president who have called for reviving sodomy laws.
As for 'equal rights', that could mean anything. I assume that you are referring to the issue of marriage. I don't understand why we need state sanctioned gay marriage. If I found another man that I wanted to commit myself to for the rest of my life, I would be perfectly fine with a civil union which affords nearly all the same legal protections as marriage. I don't need the state defined title of 'marriage' to validate my relationship. So if by 'equal rights' you are referring to legal rights, I agree. But I do not agree that government or society needs to adopt the idea that gay marriage and traditional marriage are entirely equal and the same in every way when they clearly are not.
no subject
This some of the most blatantly obvious propaganda and slander I have ever seen. Shame on you.
no subject
http://www.texasgop.org/about-the-party (which links to..)
http://s3.amazonaws.com/texasgop_pre/assets/original/2010RPTFinalPlatform.pdf
How is Gay Marriage and Traditional Marriage unequal?
(Though I agree, I dont need or even want state blessings, I do however want financial advantages offered to married folk)
no subject
I can assure you that I'm a seasoned newsman. Actually, I'm a news junkie. I get most of my news from mainstream sources, but I also get it from other sources.
I have a tendency to double check any sources that are extremely liberal or conservative, as those sources stretch the truth.
I do not believe in aliens, faked moon landings, etc. But I do believe when I read in mainstream press that 56% of Fundys in the South believe that Obama is Muslim, and wasn't born in the US. I also believe when I hear Harold Camping of Family Radio, attest in his deepest tone: "All Homosexuals are going to die on May 21st, during the Rapture. The earth will be destroyed!" that the world unfortunately ain't filled with Unicorns.
Your accusations deserve airing. I will invite you to a discussion on my blog in a few days.
no subject
1) So, when I'm watching Wheel Of Fortune, and Pat Sajack asks the winning contestant who's out in the audience to cheer him on, instead of replying "my long term friend," he can say "the love of my life" or "my husband."
2) So when the gay guy wins, and his audience members run onstage to celebrate, he can kiss the winner, like the Heterosexual couples do.
no subject
Duuh!
no subject
Case in point, actually, is the Tea Party. Or, as we'll call them for this example, the ultra-loyal GOP base. These, historically, are the people that show up at the polls every year. They'd come dressed in Red face paint and carrying memorabilia if the polling places allowed it. They're True Believers.
Yes, the sports-fan parallel is intentional.
The GOP is trying as hard as they can to keep the Tea Party in The Tent. Why? Because the GOP knows that if they lose these voters that they will lose elections. These voters vote for different reasons that your middle-of-the-road voter that the Textbooks tell you win elections (The Reagan Democrats, or the Obama Republicans).
A generation ago, the Democratic party was straining to keep their Progressives in a similar tent, and for the same reasons.
What I think America really needs is a more honest four party system. No party really wants that because then no one wins. They have to do these messy compromises and form coalitions.
Never mind that it'd be what's really best for the country, because instead of Coke vs Pepsi, you'd get Dr Pepper vs RC vs Mt Dew vs Sprite. And quite possibly many areas in-between.
Or put another way, American elections should be like school board elections where I live. At least nominally non-party (as in no candidate declares a party affiliation) with the parties endorsing candidates as an interested third party.
no subject
1: Fuck being PC. Call your Husband your Husband. Don't be defiant. Just say, cutely, "Oh... I brought my spouse. Stand up, Phil!"
2: You should do this, too. Don't make a show of it and let the censors handle the fallout.
Just my thoughts. The only way to get acceptance is to make what you're after so totally boring that no one looks twice. What "the straights" are really afraid of is that you're going to have partner-swapping parties and big old-fashioned orgies. It's jealousy writ another way.
To be a really "radical" gay couple, adopt a bunch of kids and dote on them. Raise them in a solid home and make them do well in school. That'll really piss off the neighbors.