Brave New World

POSTED BY: dreamtrove
UPDATED: Sunday, August 20, 2006 02:27
VIEWED: 5573
PAGE 1 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

DREAMTROVE

Friday, August 18, 2006 3:58 PM

It think it's time for a brave new debate. Where we really break on this forum is not liberal vs. conservative, but Bush vs. anti-bush, which I admit is a line somewhere in the middle of conservative territory.

A lot of people play moderate, but I don't see a lot of actual concession and compromise going on, which made me start to wonder if what we really have is skilled debaters who aren't really moderate at all, but are really blind soldiers for jesus with a clever disguise.

So, I've decided to launch a new debate for anyone brave enough to try. The rule is, with each post, if you are anti-bush, you have to post something that bush and co have done *right*, and if you're pro-bush, you have to include in your post something that Bush and co have done *wrong*.

I'll start by saying I think the way they set up the parliment in Iraq, and talked some radical factions like Al Sadr into competing in the political arena rather than on the battlefield is something that Bush and co have done right. Kudos. I think it was well thought out and fairly well executed.

I wonder if there will be any takers.

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, August 18, 2006 5:10 PM

Okay. I'll play. Although I have some addendums at the bottom.

I thought the following statement by the President, in regards to the various Minutemen groups, was spot on:

"I'm against vigilantes in the United States of America," Mr. Bush said at a joint press conference [with Fox]. "I'm for enforcing the law in a rational way." *

I agree 100% with that statement.

As to the demographics. I'm not a moderate. I'm proud of my liberal views. The only formal debate experience I've had was an undergraduate course in logic (which means I basically know enough to recognize that my arguments are quite often fallacious and what those fallacies are). And I disagree with the vast majority of what President Bush says and does.

I do have a question about the motivation for the thread. Is there an actual debate going on, where in addition to making a point a poster tacks on their pro or con Bush statement, or is it just a collection of pro or con Bush statements? And I'm guessing sarcasm is not a good thing for this thread (we had an earlier thread of things Bush had said or done that we agreed with and that quickly took a turn for the sarcastic which, although funny to me, probably did little to bridge the divide).

* http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20050324-122200-6209r.htm

DAYVE

Friday, August 18, 2006 5:15 PM

This may or may not be germane to this particular Jackson, but it’s worth a couple o’cents anyways.

I’ll have to line up on the anti-Bush side. I’ve watched him climb the political ladder since his oil field days. He used the governorship of Texas merely as a stepping-stone for his rise to power. The fat cats of the state might say otherwise, but George certainly never did much good for this state that I’m aware of.

I grew up in a very conservative family. My father was a Goldwater conservative – my uncle a Precinct Chairman for the GOP in Harris County (Houston) in 1964. I was very young, but still learned the bitterness of political affiliation during that election.

I bring this up because I recently read the book by John Dean (also a self proclaimed Goldwater conservative), Conservatives Without Conscience in which he says that these days, self-described conservatives are right-wing radicals, and Republicans are theocratic. He calls them arrogant, aggressive and self-righteous and wonders what good is served by dividing the nation into polarized camps.

Dean cites the work of Bob Altemeyer, a psychologist at the University of Manitoba and author of Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Enemies of Freedom: Understanding Right-Wing Authoritarianism and The Authoritarian Specter. Altemeyer says that Right-Wing Authoritarians follow established authorities too easily and too long. They don’t question authorities with whom they agree and are aggressive in support of those authorities.

Altemeyer lists the personality traits of right-wing authoritarians as “typically conventional in their ways and highly religious with moderate to little education; their prejudices (particularly against homosexuals, women and religions other than their own) are often conspicuous; they are mean spirited, narrow-minded and intolerant; they are uncritical in their thinking regarding their chosen authority and therefore often hold inconsistent and contradictory positions; they are prone to panic, highly self-righteous, moralistic and punitive; they throw the book at others when punishing and they have little self-awareness These people have no qualms when the president says we must torture our enemies, conduct warrant less surveillance of Americans and engage in preemptive war. “

Yet, he says that the followers are not as troubling as authoritarian leaders who are typically dominating men who constantly seek personal power for themselves; “they have an amoral view of the world; they intimidate and bully as a matter of course; they are faintly hedonistic and generally vengeful, pitiless, exploitive, manipulative and dishonest; they are highly prejudiced (racist, sexist and homophobic), mean spirited, militant and nationalistic; they tell others what they want to hear, they will take advantage of suckers, and they often create false images of themselves to achieve their goals.”

Dean says that authoritarians are conservatives without conscience and they want to take America to a place the great majority of thinking Americans (including Goldwater conservatives) do not want to go. Let’s not follow.

As far as Bush doing something good… this is hard for me, but I think back to when he was managing general partner of the Texas Rangers baseball club. He was there when Sammy Sosa was traded for Harold Baines and Fred Manrique. Probably one of the worst trades in baseball, but I suppose it did keep ticket prices down.

GEEZER

Friday, August 18, 2006 5:17 PM

What will be interesting will be to see how long the list gets before someone can't resist turning it into a "You can't really believe that's good (or bad)!" fest.

Since I come down on both sides (reports of my Bush-worship are exaggerated...wait that didn't come out right...I'm not sly or anything...anyway...)

Good - I personally thing obtaining call records for domestic calls was worthwhile. It's a lot less intrusive than actual wiretapping, and allows identification of people who talked to already identified bad guys.

Bad - The Federal Marriage Amendment. None of the government's business.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CAUSAL

Friday, August 18, 2006 5:22 PM

Good idea, DT, keep it up and you'll make my short list of Good Guys on this board.

My contributions*:

I think Bush and Co. are playing fast and loose with civil liberties. I may not be in the crowd that believes they're trying to turn the US into a fascist state, but regardless of their motives, they're on a slippery slope.

I think the response in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 was great. Instead of looking for heads within the US government, he looked for the person that was actually responsible and went after him. With how much success is still up in the air, of course.

*I'm neither pro- nor anti-Bush. I can see good and bad, hence I feel free to post on both sides. Hope that doesn't break th rules too much.

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

NVGHOSTRIDER

Friday, August 18, 2006 6:17 PM

Had some good points, but Casual took 'em.

Only a quick add. I don't think it really matters who is in the White House. Sure it may seem someone may have acted differently as president, but the real powers at hand had already determined what will and won't happen.
In the end it is all about money.

Oh, and Dreamtrove, thanks for asking for opposing viewpoints from each person posting. Not many ask for that and get it.

CITIZEN

Friday, August 18, 2006 6:18 PM

It's a bit of an unfair question for non-Americans, technically I can only go with Bush's foreign policy and really, I got nothing. That man can do nothing right on the world stage.

I think I can probably fall back on the Minuteman thing, even an idiot can tell it's not a good idea to let morons run around with guns dispensing 'justice'.

I'll go with something good Blair has done though, banning Fox hunting, only a truly barbaric coward could think watching a pack of dogs rip apart a creature that doesn't stand a chance is a sport. I'd say it is as bad as badger baiting, cock fighting or dog fighting, except its worse.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

SOUPCATCHER

Friday, August 18, 2006 6:28 PM

Okay. Before my off-topic response to part of Dayve's post I better get my comment on.

I thought creating an award named after Bob Hope was a cool thing to do. Which, IIRC, the President did a couple of years ago.

Dayve,

If you found Dean's book interesting you might like a series of posts on authoritarianism and fundamentalism and ways to encourage authoritarian followers away from leaders.
Part I: Defining the Authoritarian Personality ( http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/08/cracks-in-wall-part-i-defining.ht
ml )
Part II: Listening to the Leavers ( http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/08/cracks-in-wall-part-ii-listening-
to.html )
Part III: Escape Ladders ( http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2006/08/cracks-in-wall-part-iii-escape-la
dders.html )

DAYVE

Friday, August 18, 2006 6:40 PM

Thanks Soup, I will read those. I've just started American Theocracy, by Kevin Phillips....

USBROWNCOAT

Friday, August 18, 2006 7:07 PM

Pro Bush

Good - Taking the war over seas, It's about time.

Even better - His legendary oratory skills.

Bad - That whole creepy religious thingy. Talking to god may not be a bad thing when kneeling at the foot of your bed. In political speeches?... maniacal!

1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE