We are at war with "Red America"

[Taverner]

Face it - we are. Red America is not the states below the Mason Dixon, or the states that voted for Bush. Red America is alive and well in Fresno, Bakersfield and Fullerton, CA.

Red America is a state of mind - it is the tepid, brainless portion of our society that

- Thinks the Earth is less than 7K years old, and was hand crafted by God
- Thinks Bush is a Christian, and is looking out for them
- Thinks abortion is murder, yet the Death Penalty is justice
- Thinks Blacks, Hispanics and Gays are inferior peoples and deserve punishment
- Thinks that domestic abuse is cute, even funny (case in point: Hank Williams Jr.'s "Attitude Adjustment")
- Think "San Francisco Values" are an abomination, yet "Texas Values" are good.

We are at war with these folks.

Keep in mind they are ALWAYS the enemy.

[BushOut06]

1. Agreed, K&R

Not only that, but these Christian fascists believe it's their mission from God to turn America into a theocracy on THEIR terms, and to institute a Christian version of Sharia law.

[Taverner]

9. Yes - this should be repeated any time we are told to tolerate their ignorance

Their ignorance is part of a greater purpose...declining education, declining manufacturing jobs, all of this to push towards a theocracy.

They read Handmaids Tale and thought it was a "how to"

[demnan]

2. Isn't that the truth

and if you don't believe it, get out there in suburban Virginia with a peace sign walking around like I do a lot of Saturdays. You'll find out real quick who the enemy is, that's the guy screaming at you at the top of his lungs while he calls the cops trying to get you arrested.

[blueinindiana]

3. I live in Indiana...ugh very very very Red.

[Greyhound]

121. KKK was founded there, in case you didn't, or wanted to know.

When MLK came to Chicago, he observed that the hatred and violence directed against him and his followers was much worse than the in the south.

The longest and most violent riots over school busing took place in Boston.

Yes, it is everywhere.

[Orsino]

4. But let's not buy into their "war" framing, please.

It's part of how they are able to keep seeing themselves as heroes.

[Taverner]

5. They declared war on us

Not vice versa...

And considering that they have never fought fair, I don't see why we have to either.

[Orsino]

56. They *talk* a lot about war with us...

...but this isn't war, and it comes up short when compared to the utter misery endured by the victims of real war. Oh, the fascist's desire to rule others, and to be ruled, is related, but the "war" on working Americans is just the same old political struggle, and our would-be Taliban are just like every other fledgling theocracy before them.

I don't want to minimize their threat, but let's not aid them in their violent fantasies.

[hfojvt]

82. maybe because you can no more win a war

than you can win an earthquake.

Also, in football it is often the person who retaliates who gets caught and penalized. The more violent things are, the more the extremists benefit. There is a huge swath in the middle who are not taking sides. At their core there is a large strain of decency and they will take the side of the decent over the snarling, mean-spirited extremist. Michael J. Fox did not have to fight dirty to obliterate Rush Limbaugh. It was his dignified decency which really discredited Limbaugh just like it was the naive outrage "At long last have you no decency" which discredited McCarthy.

War, hatred and violence are not an answer to war, hatred and violence. They are just more fuel for the fire.

[NativeNewyorker]

91. You Said It!

I agree with you completely. This war was started by them and we can't afford to back down. I think we often think that it's necessary to take the high road or play nice with these people. You have to talk tough and hit hard. They will never consider us their fellow citizens. To them, we are the enemy. I know it's kind of hackneyed, but I always think of the quote" - We have seen the enemy and the enemy is us". That may not be precisely accurate, but that's the essence of it.

[More Than A Feeling]

6. They are not the enemy. They are our fellow citizens.

We live with them, work with them, and relax with them on a daily basis. We might hate their ideas, and wish they would change their minds, but that doesn't make them an enemy. At the end of the day, we all have to find some way to live together. How can we ever hope to have peace among nations, if we must view our very neighbors as enemies?

[Taverner]

7. They are my enemy

And will always be

[More Than A Feeling]

10. What about non-voting citizens?

Don't they bear some of the responsibility for not standing up against what has happened? Are they your enemy too? Just how many enemies do you have?

[manic expression]

14. Unless you live in Florida or Ohio (and maybe PA)

voting does not matter.

[More Than A Feeling]

19. It's part of my identity.

I'm a citizen. Good citizens participate in directing the body politic. I recognize the problems in our system, and I advocate for reform, but nonetheless...good citizens vote.

[manic expression]

25. If you want to change things

don't count on the ballot box, it's only filled with empty promises. Count on yourself and the people who are active with you, not the bourgeois government that doesn't give a sh*t about us. "Good citizens" put their time and hope into a corrupt system, it's time to go beyond that and start working for a better world.

[Taverner]

15. They do, but to spread pernicious lies and support them

Is pretty much my definition.

What - do you think we should offer them flowers and sing Kum Ba Ya? We've done that too long my friend.

[More Than A Feeling]

20. There is a middle ground, you know.

Somewhere between war and naivete lies compassion, and understanding, and a desire that all Americans, regardless of their politics, benefit equally from living in society together.

[Taverner]

23. Been there, done that

We tried compassion. What did we get for it?

Personally, I think we're in need of a New Reconstruction.

[More Than A Feeling]

28. When did we try compassion?

I'm not sure what you are referring to.

[Taverner]

31. Great Society for starters

All the New Deal projects...most of them were deep in what is now Red America.

Don't get me wrong, I think we need a new new deal. Just instead of rural America, we should be building works in Urban America.

And as far as elections go, we never ran the Swift Boat style attacks the RW has done...

[manic expression]

37. You're blaming the wrong things

why did the New Deal and Great Society give way to this? Because our economic system is still based on exploitation and greed. The bourgeoisie and their cronies are STILL the card holders, no matter how many "safety nets" you want to establish.

Look at solutions which would end this tyranny of the rich, and you end that which made the New Deal and Great Society ineffective at doing what you wanted it to do.

[Taverner]

44. I'm not blaming the GS and the ND

I was just pointing out that compassion has tried to win over these monsters and it didn't work.

We need a new Reconstruction, pure and simple.

Take over all of their schools and run them from DC under supervision from our Universities.

[manic expression]

52. I wasn't saying you were

but the people who made the GS and ND ineffective and basically null and void was the haves.

We don't need a new reconstruction, we need a total overthrow of the people who have ruled us and exploited us for centuries.

[Taverner]

55. I still think Capitalism can be beneficial to us all

It needs more regulation - and government should ALWAYS be separate from business. This shit about CEO's joining presidential administrations has to stop. It's the most clear form of conflict of interest that exists.

We need a new Trustbuster

[manic expression]

59. That's impossible by definition

capitalism NEEDS unemployed workers as a matter of pragmatism. You can't employ everyone in capitalism, you can't make a government which helps the poor when the government is made up of the rich who don't care about them.

Competition means that the person who exploits the best wins. In any form of capitalism, you need exploitation.

Get rid of the problem at its source, don't try to reform what can't be reformed.

[Taverner]

62. But even communism has had unemployment

Cuba had it during the 90's, and even does today.

The unemployed is not a problem if society also has a constant job training program that is free of cost, and offers a temporary stipend to survive on while retraining. Europe has this, it's called the 'dole' and it works.

[manic expression]

64. Cuba had it in the 90's

because they were under complete siege. It's getting better now.

Socialism (communism has never been implemented) employs as many people as possible, and EVEN IF people are unemployed (which is highly unlikely), they lose nothing in terms of material wealth (although sitting around all day is boring and depressing, as many unemployed people can tell you).

Europe has that system, and yet people are rioting in the streets on a routine basis. Do you really want a system which imports minorities just to use them and toss them aside? And that's one of the better scenarios.

[Taverner]

70. Europe has a lot of problems

Failing to adapt being the largest one.

Communism has been implemented, and in each case it was a disaster (Great Leap Forward, Stalin's Collectivization, Pol Pot's Kampuchea). The only time Marxism has worked has been when it was done via Socialism, like Cuba and Vietnam. Cuba and Vietnam never eliminated the free market - just put it under government control.

The Dole would stave off the problems of material loss in case of unemployment - and Europe's Dole system allows recipients to attend school. In fact, that's how many Europeans pay for college. What's the result? A smarter, more educated workforce.

There have been riots in France recently, but so have there been in the US. Failure to adapt to changing conditions is what caused these.

[manic expression]

84. I'd say

and most of Western Europe uses social democratic measures.

Communism has never been implemented. That is an indisputable fact. Communism is a stateless, classless, borderless society. Never in human history has this ever been achieved (not in the USSR, not in China and CERTAINLY not in Cambodia).

Marxism has worked in Paris (1871), USSR (until 1928), Cuba, Chiapas, Kerala and other places. That is all socialism, for socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat, the stage after capitalism and before communism.

The problems that are all too obvious in France, Britain, Spain and elsewhere are too numerous to address specifically. However, I trust you can see the fact that Europe's Dole system has put a bandaid on a mortal wound, and that such half-measures do not truly work. Furthermore, one MUST recognize the fact that Europe has exploited workforces abroad, which is what has given Europe a slightly (and temporary) higher standard of living.

The reason for those riots is the same: exploitation and alienation, both direct effects of capitalism.

[Raskolnik]

86. Did I fall asleep and wake up in 1935?

You're seriously arguing that Marxism(!) and Communism(!) are the cures for society's ills?

[manic expression]

87. No

we're still around and active. Just because the government silenced us for awhile doesn't mean we disappeared.

And yes, socialism (and eventually communism) is the cure for society's innumerable ills. Just look at all the threads about problems caused by exploitation and private property. We need to overthrow this unfair and corrupt system and solve our problems at their source.

[Raskolnik]

89. When was the last time you were silenced by the government?

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you weren't an active Communist during the McCarthy era (my apologies if I am mistaken). Correct me if I'm wrong, but it has been some time since there were any governmental actions to silence you folks. The large political rallies I've attended over the last ten years or so have all featured rather loud Communists handing out literature, but perhaps my experience is atypical.

[manic expression]

90. I was talking more about the past

our movement has been crippled more than once by the US government (IWW, CPUSA, SDS, BPP, etc...), and that is my main point.

And I'd rather not go too in depth, but undercovers have detained a group I was working with and tried to confiscate our materials. Nothing serious, really. I also know people who've had their flags taken from them by cops at protests, and then when they try to get them back, they're arrested and charged with all kinds of crap. Those are nicer examples. Don't worry though, it happens quite a bit more than you would think.

(edited to add SDS)

[Raskolnik]

93. Its like a time capsule.

The property-is-theft, utopian, do away with the whole thing, blame the Bourgeois for all society's problems thing is kind of kitschy, no?

If you had to guess, what would you say the chances were of the U.S. adopting a Communist/Marxist system of government in, let's say, the next 100 years?

[manic expression]

97. Only if you see it through your broken lens

However, the mistaken and delusional views you present are like a blast from the unfortunate present.

I can't tell the future, no one can, people can only make it. There is a chance for socialism to come to the US; it may be small, but a chance is all I need.

[Raskolnik]

106. I wasn't trying to argue the merits of Marxism with a Marxist.

I'm not a complete sadist, after all.

I was merely pointing out that the rhetoric you're using is rather quaint.

Have a Communist day.

[manic expression]

110. Good for you

Your objections and your mindset are both "rather quaint".

[Raskolnik]

122. But I didn't make any objections...

Where in my posts to you did you find any objections to your views?

Personally, I think it takes a lot of courage to embrace a utopian ideology so thoroughly discredited by the overwhelmingly vast majority of political scientists. That can't be easy.

Down with the bourgeois!

[manic expression]

131. Short memory span?

"You're seriously arguing that Marxism(!) and Communism(!) are the cures for society's ills?"

Yeah, that doesn't sound skeptical at all. :eyes:

And FYI, it's "bourgeoisie" (when it's a noun, "bourgeois" is an adjective).

[Raskolnik]

136. No, no, no...you've got me all wrong -- that wasn't skepticism, that was admiration

Like I said, I really respect you for having the fortitude to espouse such an utterly discredited ideology. I don't know if I could advocate such a thoroughly debunked system with a straight face, but that's just me.

Rock on with the Marxism, my man!

[manic expression]

137. Is it hard contradicting yourself so much? n/t

[Raskolnik]

138. What contradiction? n/t

[manic expression]

139. There are many to choose from n/t

[Raskolnik]

141. It should be easy to pick one, then.

I simply think you're brave for sticking with such an outdated, discredited ideology. Where is the contradiction in that?

[manic expression]

142. Read your posts

then come back and have a blast knowing that you'll be talking to yourself from here on in.

[Raskolnik]

145. Oh, so there isn't actually any contradiction? I thought it was so easy to point out?

You are pretty good at sticking with ideas long after they have shown to be ridiculous.

Smash the something or other! Property is such and such! C'mon, man, let's Communism some shit up!

[Leopolds Ghost]

117. I disagree with manic about a lot of things but the current system is evil

And must be overthrown.

Populists believe in peaceful overthrowing of the corporate capitalist oligarchy, but are opposed to state socialism of the sort manic expression argues for. Most Americans are opposed to statism in general, so it would be a pretty repressive government to try and implement it.

The problem is that Americans don't realize that big government exists only to put a check on big businesses, allowing it to keep its earnings while redirecting the blame for the injustice of its established order.

As a DUer recently mentioned, Thomas Jefferson proposed the Constitution be a living document, to include articles such as:

* No corporation can own another corporation.

* There shall be no standing army.

What we need is a system that can accomodate peaceful revolution.

Violence is a tool of control by a would-be elite.

[manic expression]

135. We do agree on many points

and I think your views are more than reasonable.

We do differ in the way we see the world (which isn't surprising), which means, for example, that I think of the Constitution as a document that only serves the interests of the bourgeoisie, while you don't.

However, I think that peaceful revolution is basically a vain effort. The bourgeoisie will NEVER let go of power without a fight, and so suppression is naturally needed to minimize this threat of counterrevolution. Allende in Chile proved this, as did countless other efforts which tried to change the capitalist system through reformist (aka democratic) means.

Just a few comments, I replied to this because you replied to me, so I hope you don't think I'm trolling or anything.

[Taverner]

99. Marx has contributed A LOT to policitcal and economic theory

One of the US's big problems is our silencing and denying the benefits that Marxist theory brings to the table.

However, he was very wrong on many many issues. Labor Value Theory to name one.

But viewing all change through struggle? He was dead on with that one.

[Leopolds Ghost]

118. OK, so you believe in class struggle (misguided) but discount the value of labor?

That's odd, since Lincoln and the anti-slavery Radical Republican party
was originally founded on the sanctity and value of labor -- ideas that
would be considered heretical today.

Of course, that was when the secular urban elite NEEDED labor. Now they (Republicans and centrist Democrats) can tell the poor to go --- themselves.

[Taverner]

125. No it wasn't that he valued labor, but how he assigned values

And the determiner - time - to be the measure of labor's worth.

It is a lot more complex than that.

[otherlander]

151. I really think that would require a shift in human nature.

Dictatorships don't give up power voluntarily.

[manic expression]

152. It never has

humans are shaped by the societies they live in. Spartans thought about things in radically different ways than Athenians did, even though they lived mere miles from one another. Humans do not think one way about property or ownership or any of those things, and so we can redefine the way we see them.

Some say it is incompatible with human nature to have equality. Well, I would ask how they think of democracy, where everyone has an equal say. The FACT is that humans work better when they cooperate, the FACT is that the system people live in is what shapes their views.

Socialism is a dictatorship, but it is a dictatorship of the proletariat. Accordingly, it is the people, the workers who drive society, while the bourgeoisie are suppressed. The people have a full say over their communities, over what belongs to them. When class conflicts come to an end, it is more than likely that the state will lose its importance and become unnecessary.

[otherlander]

98. It wasn't a disaster every time.

It worked in Chile until the government was overthrown.

[Taverner]

101. That was Socialism

An idea that has been around long before Marxism.

Nationalize the mineral industry and use the profit for the people. Great idea, and it did work.

But Marxism would have involved forced collectivization.

[manic expression]

102. A few corrections

The USSR was socialist, Cuba is socialist, the Paris Commune was socialist. Socialism has a state and class distinctions, but it is ruled by the proletariat (Lenin even said that socialism is characterized by continued class conflict).

Marx developed socialism into a scientific theory; before him, there were "Utopian Socialists", who had no real analysis of history or class. Marx is basically the father of modern socialism, so almost any socialism you hear about is influenced, directly or indirectly, by Marx (and/or Engels).

Lenin talked about "forced" measures more than Marx (he was right). Anyway, you think the businesses in Chile were fans of nationalization? It was "forced" as much as any other collectivization. Forced collectivizations have worked in other cases.

[Taverner]

103. That wasn't forced collectivization

That was forced nationalization, and no I don't think the American companies were fans; hence the money for Pinochet's Coup.

When I speak of Collectivization, I speak of the emptying of the cities that Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot did shortly after taking power. Where they moved people onto farms, and forced them to "be communist."

The copper mines kept management in tact, but just sent the checks elsewhere.

[manic expression]

104. It was forced nonetheless

(and on edit, Allende's nationalization was basically a form of collectivization; nationalization isn't always collectivization, but Allende's was)

and the principle behind that is that the bourgeoisie will never let go of their wealth easy.

Collectivization is the process of making property collectively owned. The famine that Mao caused was because of his legendary shortcomings as an economic planner; Pol Pot was about as Marxist as Genghis Khan (apologies to Genghis Khan); the famine in the USSR was caused by a famine and counterrevolutionary sabotage (wealthy farmers burned grain).

Chile was in the process of collectivizing society, but Pinochet and the bourgeoisie complicated things. Chile is merely proof that reform is an unsure road, while revolution has a proven track record.

(On the situation in the USSR)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x175974

[Taverner]

108. Call it what you want, but Pol Pot was acting straight out of Marx

And Lenin...

[manic expression]

111. No he wasn't

if you are trying to seriously compare Marx and Lenin with Pol Pot, that is downright laughable. Find me a single ounce of justification for Pol Pot's policies in any of Marx's writings or Lenin's writings, and then make that claim.

[Taverner]

113. He attended the Lycee in Paris, as did Hun Sen and many others

Don't get me wrong - I understand bloodbaths occur under any system.

The key is to find a way without any bloodbath.

One funny thing is no one seems to ever talk about Laos, which is a socialist Marxist-Leninist state that has not had the killings, and the economy has been good for everyone.

[manic expression]

132. Yes

I understand that you're not trying to equate all of Marxism with Pol Pot, and I respect that, but I really don't see a single shred of sane Marxist thinking in Pol Pot's actions. It's like trying to say Kim Jong-Il is a follower of "democracy" because he calls his country "democratic".

You know I really don't know too much about Laos, which just goes to show that I have much to learn. Thank you, I'll research it.

[More Than A Feeling]

53. And then, based on that precedent, they will do the same to us

if they get back in power? Where does it end?

[Taverner]

54. That's why I think we need a Second Reconstruction

They have shown themselves to be irresponsible in many towns and even states to lead and govern.

[Raksha]

153. manic, could you please clarify something for me?

Does the word "bourgeoisie" in Marxist terminology refer to what we in America call "the middle class" or does it refer to a higher class than that?

For a long time I read these terms, "bourgeoisie" and "middle class" as being interchangeable, but now I'm not so sure. For example, you just said: "The bourgeoisie and their cronies are STILL the card holders, no matter how many "safety nets" you want to establish."

This would seem to indicate that what you are calling "the bourgeoisie" would be the highest political class from which we choose our presidents (the Senate and state governors) and also the CEOs of large corporations. If so, I have to see them as comparable to the European nobility, i.e. they are the ruling class who alone have ultimate control over world events and who create the conditions to which the rest of us (including the middle class, of course) have to respond.

The American middle class (the educated professional class) is to SOME degree insulated from the grosser inequities that afflict the working class, although this is rapidly changing for the worse. But they don't have ultimate control over world events (they don't have the power to start wars, for example) and are to a great degree also a reactive class. So when you say "the bourgeoisie and their cronies are STILL the card holders..." it sounds like you are talking about the American ruling class.

[More Than A Feeling]

38. Why can't we do both?

Poverty is vicious in urban AND rural America.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

109. faith based or feith based initiatives? compassion?

ugh.

[Homer12]

40. You need 2 willing parties for a middle ground

The right-wing version of biparitson middel ground has been that they'll hear the left's ideas, but no matter what, they are going to what they want to do. Bush's Iraq escelation is a great example of this.

The American Taliban is not willing to compromise.

[originalpckelly]

73. I think that's the point here. They don't believe in real compromise...

and on top of that, there really can't be a compromise with some of these things.

[originalpckelly]

72. I've been writing about this for a while. I used to believe in reconciliation...

but that is no longer possible. A person simply cannot negotiate when the other side believes they may choose to take fundamental rights away from people. That's just not tolerable any longer.

It doesn't mean there will be a violent conflict, but we are in a sense in a cold civil war.

[More Than A Feeling]

81. It's all about perspective.

The OP sees enemies, I see people with a noxious ideology, but with the capacity to change their minds. I'm not talking about compromising our ideals, but convincing them to share our ideals, in their pure, uncompromised form. I'm sure you'll call that crazy, but there are many former fundamentalists, even on DU. Nobody is beyond redemption, so why speak of them as if they are?

[Homer12]

13. They consider you their enemy.

They consider anyone who does not follow their strict religious doctrine as their enemy. True we may work with them and they may be our neighbors, but that is no excuse for letting thier ignorance and hatred they espouse be unchallenged in a aggressive, take no prisoners approach.

When the smoke clears, they will take no quater nor show mercy to the liberal or secular people they conisder evil.

They are justified by god, they are the American Taliban.

[Taverner]

16. Exactly - just look at their video games: "Left Behind"

Your job is to kill Muslims, Secular Humanists and Catholics. Then you win.

This is to the religious right what flight simulators were to the 9/11 hijackers.

[More Than A Feeling]

24. and has this made their lives better? Has it made them happier, or more moral?

No. It has made them paranoid and resentful. As the results of the last election show, their bunker mentality isn't even a longterm political winner.

[Raskolnik]

60. Who is this nebulous "they"?

Is it all Republicans? Evangelical Christians? Social conservatives?

[Homer12]

92. The "American Taliban"

The Christisn Fascists, Fundimentalists, fascists = "THEY"

[Leopolds Ghost]

120. If you refuse to make allies with liberal or populist Evangelicals, if you see no room for dialogue

Then you are isolating Dems as the "secular party" and encouraging an eventual Rwanda-like bloodbath of secular Dems as the other side, the fascist oligarchs (for whom religion is merely a tool) gains more and more power by ACTIVE PERSUASION of the children of the liberal Evangelicals whom "our side" (and our parents, of the New Left) spurn.

In other words: The best way to make friends is to stop insisting that if someone disagrees with you, he must be your enemy.

It is not difficult to persuade an uncommitted Evangelical that you are his enemy if you actively hate him for who he is, even if you agree on some things (which he won't admit for fear of offending his neighbors, some of whom also agree with you on some things and say so otherwise in public.)

It is the same situation in Iran.

[BushOut06]

17. They would imprison you without hesitation if they had their way

Just because they seem friendly on the surface, doesn't mean they wouldn't turn on you in an instant. If they had their way - if Christian sharia law were in effect - these "fellow citizens" would form a vast network of undercover spies. Many of the things that you enjoy doing, and take for granted, would be criminal if they had their way.

[spoony]

32. Lol

Little paranoid this afternoon?

[More Than A Feeling]

35. If you believe that, its one more reason to offer them a helping hand,

that they might be lifted out of their despair.

[Taverner]

39. Let me reccomend a book for you - Handmaid's Tale by Atwood

She did extensive research on this. Also google Christian Reconstructionists. Tim LaHaye (Left Behind) is a member.

Also check out the Left Behind video game. Your job is to kill or convert muslims, secular humanists and catholics.

Then tell me you don't think they want to kill us all.

[More Than A Feeling]

49. I'll bet they say the same things about us.

[spoony]

58. There's always a "they"

And "they" are never very many (a la terrorist cells in every city nonsense), so to conflate that into teeth gnashing about roundups and spies et al. is ridiculous.

[manic expression]

63. That's because it's politics

politics is based on conflict (class conflict, to be precise). Therefore, there is always a "they".

[Leopolds Ghost]

124. No, religious conflict (including secular anti-religious sentiment) is a tool to divide the people.

The oligarchs are not religious. They realize that they would be going to hell for their conspicuous consumption and their treatment of employees and helpers, if they once believed in hell, so they choose to believe in moral relativism instead.

The reason wealthy and upper-middle class people tend to be so secular is the same reason they tend to be so non-committal about truth and morality.

"The US tried to assassinate so-and-so? I'm sure the truth is more complicated. Don't fault our system, son, it's what pays your bills. And don't insult your mother by refusing our money, either"

[manic expression]

133. It divides the people who have common aims

Religion itself is not bad IMO, but when it is used to set the poor against one another instead of the people who are keeping them poor, it is a tool of oppression.

That doesn't mean politics itself is based on class conflict, it just means that there is another facet to it.

Other than that, I don't disagree.

[BushOut06]

71. I'm sure Germans in the 1920s felt the same way

After all, ordinary German citizens would never spy on their neighbors, would they? :sarcasm:

[spoony]

77. Lol

That's about all I need to hear to cease communication with you on this matter. It's pointless trying to wade through avalanches of that sort of thing.

[BushOut06]

112. Bury your head if you want...

We're not talking about ordinary, civil Christians here. We're talking about the most fundamentalist of the lot, the ones who not only believe the Earth is 6000 years old and man coexisted with dinosaurs, but they want to force your children to learn this also. We're talking about people who not only believe that homosexuality is a sin, they would make such behavior illegal - indeed, it is technically illegal in many areas. We're talking about people who believe that Wicca, paganism, and other "New Age" religions are dangerous, and would love to ban them. Many of these people believe that criticizing Bush during a time of war should be a crime!

Thankfully we live in a system of checks and balances, with separation of church & state. But *if* they had their way?

[Leopolds Ghost]

126. The people spreading paranoia about "them" in 1920s Germany

Were doing it for a reason.

*ahem* Say no more.

[truedelphi]

95. But they are not in despair - they are deeply caught up inside a paranoia

And many of the most paranoid already have plenty of material things - but their right wing Christian faith keeps them focusing on "devils" surrounding them - with those "devils" being gays, or pacifists, and/or members of the local teachers' union, and those who want universal health insurance etc.

And now that they get to homeschool their children, the traditional mind instructing tool and way out, i.e. education, is not going to be able to brighten the youngsters' lives

[spoony]

29. Great post!

I am rather tired, bored even, with people who want to smear camo makeup on themselves and hate everyone who doesn't totally agree with them. It's so...republican.

[ourbluenation]

41. and some of them are beloved family members. I think the enemy tone is harsh. n/t

[Journeyman]

8. The most rabid Conservative I know, listens to Rush daily and. . .

lives right next to Fullerton, disagrees completely with 5 of your 6 points. Even on the one to which he attests, his belief is less dogmatic than you've presented.

I'm not arguing that people you describe don't exist. Just that the world's greyer than you portray.

[Taverner]

12. I agree with you - and there may be hope for him

Perhaps not...but I would still classify him as my enemy

[sharp_stick]

36. So which one does he agree with?

The wife beating. ;-)

Seriously though, I have a hard time envisioning a rabid conservative that only agrees with one of the points from the OP. Then again, anybody that listens to Rush daily probably has a serious mental disorder to begin with.

[nebenaube]

96. insignificant sample size.... n/t

[Journeyman]

115. The OP was absolute in his condemnation of all "these folks". . .

"Keep in mind," he blithered, "they are ALWAYS the enemy."

Yet you'd now find wiggle room within his Bushian, absolutist rhetoric, and negate my example -- even though, by itself, the example of my friend makes a mockery of the OP's original contention.

[nebenaube]

146. black and white rationalization... where have I seen that...

oh yeah, it's one of those troll traits.

[Journeyman]

147. Ha ha ha . . .

You really shouldn't accuse the OP of being a troll, simply because he shows little discernment in this instance. And I certainly hope you're not accusing someone with a six year history and thousands more posts than you of being a troll . . . for if so, you may wish to read the forum Rules a little closer, especially as they pertain to civility and the methods of enforcement.

[bryant69]

11. War without end.

That's comforting.

Oh wait, no, it's that other thing. Depressing.


Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Odin2005]

18. The "Red vs Blue" BS is divisive crap concocted by the MSM in 2000.

American politics is far more complex then "Red vs. Blue." People can be both economic populists and yet be socially conservative.. People can be economic right-wingers yet be for gay marriage and choice.

[Taverner]

22. Yes, but this has always been the problem

The only time it lifted was when the wobblies came about, and set up the vast networks of unions and activists.

[Journeyman]

34. Ha ha ha ha ha . . .

your historical naivete is refreshing, if nothing else.

[Taverner]

42. So the Labor Movement of the late 1800's and early 1900's never happened?

They were VERY successful in the South.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wobblies

[manic expression]

48. That's right

the wobblies did a TON with farmers, lumberjacks and other laborers.

However, the bourgeoisie destroyed them, since they were too successful at uniting the workers. THEY are the enemy: the rich and powerful. Everyone, from a worker to a homeless man to a store manager, has a common enemy in the bourgeoisie. Let's unite against them.

[Journeyman]

116. Not in the rosey-eyed, utopian idealism you attribute to the IWW. . .

that movement never happened.

[moez]

27. Hey!

Don't confuse him with facts - he was on a roll dammit!

[bridgit]

21. reasonable, especially in that they do not show up to play they show up to WIN!

believe it!!

[Clark2008]

26. Thank you for "getting it."

I opened this thread expecting to have to chide you for assuming that everyone in the South and mid-West was a bunch of uniformed hicks.

Imagine my pleasant surprise that someone on this board gets that the problem is with segments of our society - in every state - and with the wasteland that is allegedly the news media now.

Bravo.

[Taverner]

33. Yes its not "Southerners"

Atlanta is one of the more Dem cities in America. Cynthia Kinney came from there, and Atlanta has one of the largest Gay populations. Bigger than SF even.

Yet it's smack dab in the middle of GA.

And California has Fresno - nuff said!

[Leopolds Ghost]

129. DC and San Francisco have some of the largest Gay populations, and repress the poor.

See? Things are more complicated than idealistic secular urbanites vs. backward evangelical savages (like all those, ugh, socially conservative working class black people we got rid of when we tore down the public housing projects and told people they couldn't double-park on Sundays.)

[LSK]

30. these people think Iran is the enemy now

Can they be any more brainwashed?!?!?

[Sapere aude]

43. You'll never get anywhere using the words "at war" . If we were to get to a place where we can

live in peace with each other we have to stop viewing each other as enemies and that we are at war. You are playing into the hands of the conservative talk ilk.

Some how we have to learn to live together with differing opinions.

[Taverner]

46. I don't want to live peacably with those monsters

I want them to change or leave.

[Tin Man]

69. You've not left yourself many options...

...you'll probably be disappointed with your results.

[Raskolnik]

74. Oh please -- that's a bit dramatic

People who do not agree with your political views are not monsters, they are people that disagree with your political views.

Notwithstanding people like Cheney, Dobson, Falwell, et al, the vast majority of those monstrous Red-staters are decent people that may disagree with vehemently on some issues, less vehemently on other issues, and not at all on many issues.

[ourbluenation]

45. read this....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=191363&mesg_id=191363

[cally]

47. Absolutely Not

I doon't agree. I could only accept that if I had a mindset that accepted that some peoples on this earth are evil. It's the same crazy thinking that tells us that all of the Islamic world is evil. I don't agree with most of the red state values but I know I could walk a precinct and connect with folks. We're all in this together and that should be our message.

[Taverner]

50. Not evil - dangerous

Christian Reconstructionism and the Right Wing are dangerous to us all. They would love nothing more than to legislate Deuteronomy into law, and use a Stasi-like police force to enforce the laws.

[spoony]

75. "legislate Deuteronomy into law"

Most of that book is about inter-tribal relationships. Ammonites and Moabites and whatnot. Also what to do when they enter Egypt. I'm not sure how any of that would help "your enemies."

[Taverner]

100. Read up on Christian Reconstructionism

That is their very stated goal. Nevermind how impossible it would be.

[Tin Man]

51. "Am I not destroying my enemies when I make friends of them?" A. Lincoln

[More Than A Feeling]

61. Nice!

My thoughts, exactly.

[Tin Man]

79. Abe was a pretty smart guy...

...there's a multitude of really great Lincoln quotes. The man was a genius of insight and understanding.

I still get goosebumps reading Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. While riding the train from Washington to Gettysburg, scribbling on the back of an envelope, Lincoln wrote probably the most succint and transformational speech in history.

Sacraligious that Dubya envisions himself cut from the same mold. But I guess that just goes to show what a total idiot * is.

[Raskolnik]

57. People do not fit in boxes labeled "Red" and "Blue"

Are you at "war" with someone who opposes the war in Iraq, but wants taxes cut for highest bracket? What about someone who does not think abortion should be legal, but takes in foster children and raises them in a loving home? What if a person votes for progressive Democrats in every election and donates money to the ACLU, but slaps her kids around at home? How about someone who wants to deport 100% of illegal aliens, but works tirelessly for local environmental causes?

[Tin Man]

66. But, but, but.... Every issue is, at it's heart, a dichotomy - black or white, widdus or aginnus

...at least, that's what we constantly hear from BushCo.

Ironically, we get alot of it here on DU, too...

[Raskolnik]

76. Binary thinking is bad enough on single issues

but when someone thinks the world can be divided into "us" and "them" categories with all goodness and light on one side, it just gets silly.

[k_jerome]

65. with all due respect, i think this is BS...

and with this mindset, minorities in this country will continue to suffer oppression and second class status.

[Tin Man]

68. I second the BS

It's the same shit we hear from BushCo, just reversed.

[EC]

67. I know many Republicans around here

that are feed up with that branch of the party and are ready to switch parties....

[slackmaster]

80. That's what my mom did at age 68 after being in the GOP all her life

:hi:

[slackmaster]

78. That's a whole lot of crap you've stuffed into one broad-brush generalization

Aw heck, let's call it what it is: A stereotype.

I'd wager not one person in 20 is described by ALL of your bullet points.

[not_a_robot]

83. No need

To pick up their rhetoric and defamation techniques. These people are lost and sick and need help not war.

[incapsulated]

85. Yay for more enemies and more war!

:eyes:

[GoneOffShore]

88. K&R

Loved the "Tepid, brainless portion of our society,"

“You’re doing just fine. Aspire to nothing…Just sit there. Have another Triscuit…Sleep….sleep….” tony bourdain apropos something else. But it totally fits them

[onenote]

94. and what is your suggestion as to how we fight this "war"

If "Red America" is the "enemy", what is your proposal for dealing with them? "War" and "enemy" are intentionally inflammatory words. If you believe them to be true, it will be interesting to hear how you think these "enemies" should be dealt with as part of this "war"...

[Czolgosz]

105. NEW RULE: No one can declare a new war without simultaneously disclosing the exit strategy.

I will reject your call to war with Red America unless and until you can provide us with a viable exit strategy.

[Tatiana]

119. What do we consider "victory?" How much will this war cost?

:toast:

[ChairmanAgnostic]

107. allow me to be #2 to K&R er ah, #11, then.

they ARE the enemy to rational thought and democracy.

[tabasco]

114. Both of my Senators here south of the Mason-Dixon line voted against the IWR.

This is perhaps the stupidest post I've ever seen on DU.

[Initech]

123. Oh god. I live in Fullerton. There's some major freepers on my block.

Crap, if you lived where I do, you'd think this was Atlanta or Greensboro, but it ain't.

[Marie26]

127. They're not the enemy

This isn't the Sunnis & Shiites, here. Bushco is the enemy - and it'll take all Americans binding together to stop them.

[Leopolds Ghost]

128. We have Always been At War with "Red America"

Let the 2 Minutes Hate on DU Commence.

After that, we watch Blue Man Group.

And boo the Redskins.

[Leopolds Ghost]

130. I forgot to mention that a class-conscious analysis of fundamentalism would recognize that

It is a modern, post-modern psychological response to a society that has repressed these people economically and abused them emotionally with false ideas about politics, religion, morality, gender relations, all designed to distract them from their problems and make them feel like they belong to something when they are really being exploited by their "friends".

Genuine social, religious, moral, political movements all are in historical opposition to these forces of repression and control.

Fundamentalists often don't realize that they have internalized the values of greed, conspicuous consumption, class envy (people living in trailers who have cable TV and no food) and moral relativism ("there is nothing outside the text" is the central tenet of both postmodern moral relativism and fundamentalism; all Fundamentalist morality stipulates that reality and morality are relative only to a text, or an interpretation thereof.

In short, the most virulent racism is often a symptom of backlash by poor, uneducated people, against an unseen oppressor.

It is the same in the Middle East --

-- Although you wouldn't know it to read these self-same Blue Americans go on about how they are at war with fundamentalism at home and abroad,

and fail to see how they fan the flames of dehumanization of poor, starving rural people who happen to treat their wives and children poorly (whereupon their children learn to do the same).

[Contrite]

134. Did you happen to see Alexandra Pelosi's HBO documentary "Friends of God"?

It aired tonight. It became VERY VERY clear to me that these southern Xtians are all about declaring war on "liberals."

(P.S. See RFK Jr's daughter's piece on Abu Ghraib on Thursday!)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

140. They Have The Right To Think As They Want, As Do You. I May Be Perplexed Sometimes As To How Some

of them arrived at their beliefs or amazed at how they cling to them, but I do not consider myself at war with them nor do I consider them my enemy.

I consider most of them to be fellow human beings who have good hearts and good intentions, but that are ignorant or misguided in certain ways and in need of enlightenment and awareness in some areas. I may passionately disagree with them and shake my head in amazement sometimes at them, but I wouldn't be able to help feeling like the world's biggest hypocrite if I waged a personal war on them or considered them my enemy.

The spreading of hate towards anyone is always something to be condemned in my opinion. The source of hate matters not... It is the intended outcome of it that's relevant.

[yurbud]

143. I think "red America" is down to some polygamist compound in Utah with no electricity or internet

[JackRiddler]

144. The creators of red/blue ideology are the ones running the real war - on everyone else

I would think that out of the group of "Red" (Bush) voters, those who fit all of your criteria are a small minority. Your editorial sounds kind of like David Brooks to me, except from a pro-Blue perspective.

Red and Blue, especially under that name, is a propaganda creation of the corporate ruling class who own the major broadcast media. The idea is that the working classes should be divided along cultural lines and set to hating each other, so that they do not recognize their common interests.

Anyone remember the 1980 election? I do. I remember jokes about how the map looked like a swimming pool, because the color assigned to Reagan was BLUE. The networks kept switching colors between parties, until 2004, when they decided to repeat the color pattern from 2000.

Why? Why the sudden solidification of the supposed ideological/cultural divide into colors on a map, and some kind of irreversible split into territories?

The people who are really waging war - class war, from above - had by then told us for many years that the country was too "polarized," that regions were conservative or democratic by nature, that differences in politics were primarily due to differences in culture. Red and Blue obscures the realities of centralized, secretive power in the hands of a vanishingly small class of owner-rulers. It evicts economics from politics.

Not that these are not real differences, but red/blue ideology acts to emphasize these differences as something cultural or "essentialist," a question of individual identity that cannot be overcome or bridged, reducing all other politics to "values" and morality.

[aaronbees]

148. I'm tired of the whole misguided war mindset

It's everything from a war on drugs to a war on Islam. It's all war after war that gets nothing done except declare a winner while all of us, the people who are fighting to save this country, lose. So pardon me while I refuse to sign up more enemies. I'm not enlisting for more war imagery. Struggle? Hell yes. Fight and debate? Sure thing. Work to change this country for the better? Indeed. War? Hell no. Sure, there are folks whose basic political frame for thinking riles me up to no end though we can see the ranks of Kool Aid drinkers are dwindling, but let's work on solving real problems, not beating each other to a pulp in an ideological, playground sandpit. The idea that we should wage a war against Red America is about as silly as the BushCo-conceived power-grab fantasy of a War on Terror.

[GeorgeGist]

149. As the primal red states...

have always maintained: The Civil War is not over.

Perhaps blue America should finally let go.

[mmonk]

150. Absolutely. If we fail, America falls.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

154. "Redistricting"

http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/11/con04485.html


Unfortunate they got the colors reversed, but you get the gist.