|
04 Jun 05 - 12:52 PM (#1500162) Subject: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: Amos Excerpted from the Los Angeles Times, some thoughtful comments on literature by the far right meatheads comes under review: "JONATHAN CHAIT The Right's Wrong Books I try very, very hard not to think of the conservative movement as a gaggle of thick-skulled fanatics. To help me along in this process, I seek out well-reasoned commentary from conservative intellectuals such as Tod Lindberg of the Washington Times and Ramesh Ponnuru of the National Review. But my efforts at ideological toleration inevitably get spoiled when something comes along like Human Events magazine's list of the "Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries." Human Events is a conservative weekly that Ronald Reagan was known to favor, and which the Wall Street Journal called a "bible of the right." It compiled its list by polling a panel of conservative academics (such as Robert George of Princeton University) and Washington think-tank types (such as Fred Smith of the Competitive Enterprise Institute). As such, it offers a fair window into the dementia of contemporary conservative thinking. One amusing thing about the list is its seeming inability to distinguish between seminal works of social science and totalitarian manifestos. Marx, Hitler and Chairman Mao sit alongside pragmatist philosopher John Dewey and sex researcher Alfred Kinsey. You'll be comforted to know that Mao, with 38 points and a No. 3 ranking, edged out Kinsey, with 37 points. "The Feminine Mystique," meanwhile, checks in at No. 7, with 30 points, just behind "Das Kapital," which totaled 31 points. Harmful books that got honorable mentions but couldn't crack the top 10 include John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty," Sigmund Freud's "Introduction to Psychoanalysis" and Charles Darwin's "The Descent of Man." Oh yes, and Lenin's "What Is to Be Done." (If you don't see the link between arguing for individual rights, exploring scientific mysteries and constructing a brutally repressive Bolshevik terror state, then clearly you're not thinking like a conservative.) Interestingly, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," a czarist forgery that incited countless massacres and inspires anti-Semites around the world to this day, failed to rate a mention. On the other hand, "Unsafe at Any Speed" and "Silent Spring," which led to such horrors as seat belts and the Clean Water Act, did. (Given that "Unsafe at Any Speed" launched the career of Ralph Nader, who went on to put George W. Bush in the White House, I wonder if conservatives might one day deem it one of the most helpful books of the last two centuries.) Possibly even more amusing are the explanations for each book's inclusion. They read like 10th-grade book reports from some right-wing, bizarro world high school. John Maynard Keynes' seminal "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" argued that during recessions governments should cut interest rates, reduce taxes and increase spending, and during expansions do the opposite. It makes the list because, Human Events explains, "FDR adopted the idea as U.S. policy, and the U.S. government now has a $2.6-trillion annual budget and an $8-trillion debt." (But didn't Keynesian policies help win World War II and then produce 25 years of phenomenal prosperity? And wasn't that debt less than a trillion dollars before Reagan took office?) The squib on "The Feminine Mystique" begins with a fairly anodyne summary of Betty Freidan's pioneering feminist tract. Rather than explain what's so dangerous about allowing women the choice of having a career, though, Human Events proceeds to quote a review that "Friedan was from her college days, and until her mid-30s, a Stalinist Marxist." Not just a Stalinist, but a Marxist to boot! Personally, I fail to see how Friedan's communist past — she was 42 when she published "The Feminine Mystique" — would discredit her insights about the repressive nature of a world in which women were discriminated against or barred outright from most professions and much of public life. Especially because the conservative movement was itself heavily salted with ex-communists. But then, my mind has already been poisoned by Dewey, Mill and other liberal relativists." |
|
04 Jun 05 - 03:01 PM (#1500224) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: GUEST Boy oh boy, they certainly slipped up, or perhaps the conservatives polled were not particularly well read, if they missed Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex. Shhhh......maybe we can slip that one by them and their nightime, clandestine, under the blanket with a flashlight reading list. Then again, it was first published in the most foreign of all languages....French. At least the fact that these guys are right out of their minds is in the public domain. |
|
04 Jun 05 - 03:02 PM (#1500225) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: GUEST,Metchosin oops, 3:01 PM was me. |
|
04 Jun 05 - 04:52 PM (#1500252) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: GUEST,~S~ Tolerating any group is hard if you lack the ability or sense to begin by knowing and tolerating the individuals comprising the group. If you see people as one-dimensional, by whatever commonality theyt might happen to share, you've dehumanised them. This is handy-- one is thus no longer responsible for treating them like human beings-- and can simply discard them in whole groups. ~S~ |
|
04 Jun 05 - 05:01 PM (#1500255) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: jpk all "unsafe at any speed" did,was to help ruin a good little cars name. |
|
04 Jun 05 - 05:45 PM (#1500263) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: Uncle_DaveO Amos, the article says: Not just a Stalinist, but a Marxist to boot! Actually, the logic of the real world and the syntax of the statement are at odds. That is, one might (if one wanted to) describe her as, "Not just a Marxist, but a Stalinist to boot!" But as quoted above it makes no sense. To be a Stalinist one MUST be a Marxist, but to be a Marxist is not necessarily to be a Stalinist. Dave Oesterreich |
|
04 Jun 05 - 06:12 PM (#1500273) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: Greg F. Tolerating any group is hard if they're made up of utter morons and assholes, individually or collectively, Suzie. To be regarded as human, they might try to act accordingly. I seem to recall something about doing unto others in your christian dogma... |
|
04 Jun 05 - 07:08 PM (#1500299) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: GUEST,sorefingers If you want to know what the leather and whip conslob likes, think paedophile and/or bully and/or torture_first ask questions later types. They are people who just 'know facts' and thats all there is to it. A great example is this nut we have today in Iraq, Zarcowardie.. or whatever his name is. They are the people holding the gun to your head and they are always right! They are the people who would rather comit suicide than take orders from anybody who isn't one of them. They are the Jocks and you, sucker, are the prey. |
|
04 Jun 05 - 08:10 PM (#1500313) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: GUEST,BWL Anyone care to translate what Sorefingers just said? |
|
05 Jun 05 - 04:16 AM (#1500386) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: GUEST,freda, from the back door That booklist is right back there with the Inquisition. |
|
05 Jun 05 - 04:56 AM (#1500399) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: GUEST,Liz the Squeak (Vain attempt at humour) - At least that bloody 'Da Vinci' code isn't in the list!! I love that book... it's just the right size for propping open the back bedroom window. LTS |
|
05 Jun 05 - 10:31 AM (#1500484) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: Bunnahabhain Any powerful idea, or book containing powerful ideas can be twisted and corrupted to be harmful. On that basis they missed a few classics, in no partcular order: The Bible, The Torah, The Koran. Is it just me, or does it seem as if virtually all of the books on that list challenge som important aspect of life regulated by the above books, and more importantly, their interpreters, the preists? BTW ,Metchosinm, 'The second sex' was in the honourable mentions. |
|
05 Jun 05 - 10:53 AM (#1500494) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: GUEST,guest, robomatic LTS: you find more use out Da Vinci Code than I'll ever get. I listened to it on audio. There's a few hours of my life I won't get back... |
|
05 Jun 05 - 09:29 PM (#1500841) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Left Gets Difficult From: frogprince And how many classics have been subjected to modern "bookburning" for not being "PC"? Don't panic; I haven't turned into M.G. or Susu's Hubby. I fully agree with the point of this thread; just realize that abuses do occur at both extremes. |
|
05 Jun 05 - 10:15 PM (#1500860) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: bbc Good post, ~S~. Unfortunately, some folks prefer sniping. I often wonder if they treat people like that in person or whether this is just a misuse of the anonymity of the Internet. bbc |
|
06 Jun 05 - 12:01 AM (#1500889) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: Metchosin Honourable mention? Oh, I'm so relieved. LOL |
|
06 Jun 05 - 08:14 AM (#1501048) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: A Wandering Minstrel So how did The Declaration of Independence score? |
|
06 Jun 05 - 08:19 AM (#1501052) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: Donuel Try equality. One could meet them with equal tolerence. However that might often require ammunition and weapons. |
|
06 Jun 05 - 08:34 AM (#1501062) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: Donuel If you think book burning is frowned upon, Clear Channel has had a number of trial runs sponsoring mass CD burnings of various artists like the Dixie Chicks. It is still a jump from a list of dangerous books to a list of banned books to a list of books that are illegal to posess. Burning books in your mind may however work almost as well as actual bonfires. For myself, I accepted the current regieme as a full blooded fascist movement 5 years ago. |
|
06 Jun 05 - 09:53 AM (#1501132) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: jimmyt I find most people are ultimately just people, and when I meet them I am interested in their culture, their religion, their value systems, and most of the time I find lots of common ground. I have met quite a few Mudcatters who have very very different views than I do on political as well as religious views. I still find them to be nice people , and I hope they feel likewise. I really can't quite see how writing mean-spirited things here will bring about change. The people who agree will probably already know what you are writing about, and the ones who have different philosophies are not too likely to be converted by the kind of rhetoric I read above. Wouldn't it be more useful to find common ground and try to make change in a positive way? just asking jimmyt |
|
06 Jun 05 - 10:12 AM (#1501138) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: Jim Dixon Here's a link to the original article: Ten Most Harmful Books of the 19th and 20th Centuries, from Human Events. This is apparently a companion piece: Ten Books Every Student Should Read in College. |
|
06 Jun 05 - 10:16 AM (#1501141) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: GUEST Forget it jimmyt. Amos and his coterie like to bask in the cosy glow provided their firm belief that all Conservatives are dim, and all left wingers are intellectuals. Trouble for them is, the real, non-mudcat world is passing them by. |
|
06 Jun 05 - 10:35 AM (#1501155) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: John P I, too, have found that most people are perfectly normal when I meet them. They have normal lives and are worried about the same sort of things the rest of us are worried about. I have to admit, however, that when I find out that someone voted for the George Bush, and by extension his war and his other theocratic and sexually perverted policies, I have a hard time not feeling pretty intolerant toward them. I mean, really, how could anyone be so bloodthirsty as to vote for an international bully/terrorist like George Bush? How is it that so many people are willing to vote to impose their religious values on other folks in a country that prides itself of religous freedom? I used to hear lots of conservatives saying that the left was offensive because we kept calling them stupid. But when I see things like "Creationism" being put forward as real science, and the tens of thousands of dead Iraqi and Afghan civilians passed off with a shrug as the natural result of the 3400 killed on 9/11, and gay bashing successfully used as a tool to win an election, and hundreds of thousands of Americans still believing that Iraq bombed the World Trade Center and that we found WMDs there when we invaded, it's hard to not think that most of the people in the US really are pretty stupid. They may be perfectly nice folks with perfectly normal real-world concerns, but they are also incredibly and dangerously ignorant and stupid. John Peekstok |
|
06 Jun 05 - 12:57 PM (#1501186) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: Amos The rights of the matter are not as our cowardly Guest would assert; they are more along the lines of John's observations about particular and specific examples of encroachment against free communication, freedom of personal choices, and freedom of thought. These are freedoms which are less now, in the commons, than they were ten years ago. Not a trend that anyone who "loves America" should support. But it seems clear to me that clear thinking is not our highest national characteristic. As for my pseudo-intellectualism, I don't believe that is a fair accusation. I am widely curious and interested in different views and arenas of life, and I prefer rational thought to reactionary; if that makes me "intellectual" in the implicitly derogatory sense that our furless leader uses the word, so be it. I believe in human intelligence. I wish I could find more of it in the national centers of power. 'Nuff said. A |
|
06 Jun 05 - 01:02 PM (#1501190) Subject: RE: BS: Why Tolerating the Right Gets Difficult From: Don Firth One wonders sometimes if Ray Bradbury's Farenheit 451 might be a prophetic book. Don Firth |