I had the pleasure of meeting columnist and author Mona Charen In December of 2007. I attended a policy forum in a Synagogue in San Francisco hosted by the Jewish Policy Forum. After the forum had ended, she agreed to do an interview with the Tygrrrr Express.
She is the author of the best selling books “Do Gooders,” and “Useful Idiots.”
Her columns can be read in political publications such as National Review and Townhall to religious papers such as the Jewish World Review.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen.html
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/monacharen/archive.shtml
She is also a Jewish conservative republican Neocon that puts her principles first, which is good for those who know her given that those principles are decent and well grounded.
I also want to say one other thing about Ms. Charen. She is one of the nicest people I have ever encountered. I drove her and a mutual friend back to their respective hotels after the policy forum had concluded. She is a patient person, finding humor in the fact that only yours truly could get lost using a GPS tracker. After 16 consecutive right turns, I realized that we were only 196 laps away from completing the Indy 500. While “Right Turns” is Michael Medved’s book, Ms. Charen would have been trapped in San Francisco had we not at some point allowed ourselves just this once to turn left.
Only after we saw a street known as “Bush Street,” did I realize things would be fine. First of all, David Frum wrote “The Right Man,” about the President, and even in San Francisco, to get anywhere successfully, one had to pass through Bush Street.
Ms. Charen found some of the above remarks funny, which only proves how overwhelmingly gracious she is. As for the conversation in the car, it shall remain confidential out of respect for her privacy. Nevertheless, to say she was delightful to get to know was also an understatement. I also feared that if she was not dropped off at her hotel safely, her next column would be about a planted blogger from the Daily Kos or Moveon.org trying to derail conservatives by any means necessary. I am a genuine conservative, and she was dropped off safely. I wanted her to have a safe and easy flight back because her flight to San Francisco had her near a passenger downing five vodkas. Contrary to rumors, as a friend of mine at the event pointed out, it was not Senator Ted Kennedy causing the problem.
To know Ms. Charen is to like her. With that, below is my interview with Mona Charen.
1) How does a nice Jewish person from a good family end up, horror of horrors, politically conservative?
I became a conservative in part because I listened to talk radio before it was cool. In the 1970s, Barry Farber held forth on WOR in New York City. He was a North Carolinian, silver-tongued Jew, who was a staunch anti-communist and conservative. I learned a great deal. Also, my parents were becoming more and more disenchanted with the Left and the Democratic party during the 60s and 70s.
2) A large segment of our society seems to have an irrational fear of anyone deemed “religious.” Do you feel this is true, and how do you balance your deep commitment to your faith with the noble goal of educating some Americans who may unfairly consider all religion to be equated with zealotry and intolerance?
That sounds like a question from someone who lives in San Francisco! I think most of the country is not at all uncomfortable with religion. This is the case only in liberal-land.
3) What can ordinary citizens do, besides donating money and buying your books, to help win the War on Terror? What obligations do we have, and how can we help?
Vote. Write letters to the editor. Send cards and gifts to the troops.
4) It is one thing to ask people to have faith in God. It is much tougher to ask people to have faith in Government. What does our government do right, and what does it need to do better so people can start believing in their government again?
As a conservative, I don’t necessarily want to encourage trust in government. A good skepticism about government is healthy. But I would encourage faith in American ideals and American civic culture – and those are under unceasing assault by the Left.
5) Without giving an endorsement unless you choose to do so, what are the strengths and weaknesses of the five main republican candidates?
See my column on Romney.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NWExZDFjMzYyNDU4MzUzMTA3OWEwYjZmM2FhMWIxZDc=
6) With regards to foreign policy, what have we done right, and what have we gotten wrong, in the last 8 years, and what steps need to be taken to improve the situations that require improvement?
This question would require a book – and perhaps I’ll write it but not today.
7) What were the main challenges you faced in your life? What were your greatest successes, and what do you need more time to accomplish?
I’ve had challenges aplenty. But I’m a believer in dogged hard work. It has gotten me through many difficult situations.
8.) Our country is incredibly polarized. Outside of another 9/11, is it even possible to unite Americans? What can be done to help reduce the acrimony among Americans today?
I grieve at the level of vulgarity and viciousness that is commonplace on the internet. I’ve always tried to be polite and civil when I debate Democrats and liberals. We need a return of the concept of shame in many areas of American life but perhaps we can start by shaming those who engage in vitriolic political attacks and personal invective.
9) Who are your three favorite American political leaders of all time?
Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, and George Washington. Very unimaginative you may say but there it is. Hamilton for his vision and brilliance; Lincoln for his genius with the English language; and Washington for being the purest incarnation of the democratic idea in the whole history of the world.
10) Who are your three favorite world political leaders of all time?
Churchill, Moses, and Anastasius I (he cut taxes and provided a strong defense).
11) What would be the main qualities and criteria you would look for with regards to potential Supreme Court justices? Could they disagree with you on major issues, and still be qualified? How do you feel they should rule on the two second amendment cases in front of them?
My model for a Supreme Court justice is John Roberts – impeccably well qualified, informed, humorous, temperate, and wise.
12) Many Jews see Judaism as being in lockstep with liberalism, even though the highest for of Tzedakah involves helping someone achieve self-reliance, a very conservative philosophy. How do you explain the synthesis between Judaism and political conservatism to others?
Judaism also requires self-discipline, marital fidelity, respect for the sanctity of life, and a reverence for tradition. It requires us to teach our children the laws of God and to be strong in the face of our enemies!
13) Former Attorney General John Ashcroft once said that if the law conflicted with his religious beliefs, he would resign. Alabama Justice Roy Moore refused to obey a law requiring that he remove the Ten Commandments from his courtroom, based on his beliefs. Has American law ever conflicted with your religious beliefs, and how did you or would you handle this conflict?
Well, there are laws with which I disagree but they have not caused a crisis of conscience. I disagree with the abortion regime in America but I do my best to change people’s minds.
14) Without delving into your personal life, what would you want Americans to know about Mona Charen the person? 100 years from now, what would you want people to remember about you, and what would you hope the history books say about you?
I have tried to live as well-balanced a life as possible. I hope people who know me would say that I do practice what I preach. I’ve put my family before my career. I try to treat everyone as I would like to be treated. And I think I’m a great appreciator of the talents of others.
I would like to again thank Ms. Charen for her time, her pleasantness, and her thoughtfulness. Those qualities emanate through her columns.
I wish Mona Charen much happiness and success always.
eric
and civil when I debate Democrats and liberals. We need a return of the concept of shame in many areas of American life but perhaps we can start by shaming those who engage in vitriolic political attacks and personal invective.”
==================================================================
I feel the same way.
Now lets get one thing clear. I am not the champion of polite speech. My conduct on Eric’s blog is out of respect for his wishes. And decent behavior does make for better debates and conversations.
The point that Ms.Charen makes in this paragraph is one I had to drive home to an incredibly deviant and misguided person earlier this week.
This creep and I had a very heated exchange when he thought that anything and everything today was fair game for humor, including the rape, tattooing and incarceration of my grandmother by Nazis. My mother was treated much the same way also. They are not Jewish, they were interred by Nazis for helping the allies.
I wont post any of what was said between the two of us here. This persons statements were vulgar, and my responses to him were off the wall full of profanity.
But the conclusion I came to after everything was said and done was that today’s kids are not being taught just how identical and similar the doctrines of the Nazis are to what radical Islam preaches and hopes to achieve today.
If today’s kids and even a large percent of our adults were aware of how close we are to seeing history repeat itself again they would not be saying the cruel , nasty things they say derived strictly from ignorance and a lack of knowledge.
If they only knew how Gerhard Von Mende and others were responsible for the birth of the Muslim Brotherhood they would understand why our fight against terrorism is not just directed at radical Muslims as much as it is the ideals of Nazism that could once again threaten the world. Radical Islam is using the same recipe, its just a different kitchen.
Ms. Charen;
“we can start by shaming those who engage in vitriolic political attacks and personal invective.”
I have been doing just that for the last 3 days. The bastard that said these things about my family new I was upset. And thinking it was funny decided to ice the cake and tell me that the holocaust “didnt happen” and that he wished the concentration camp had succeeded in killing my mother and grandmother. And that because he personally knows a few Jews he has the right to say the holocaust was a myth wether it was true or not.
What I was dealing with here is exactly what Ms, Charen is talking about.
Plain old simple evil spirited spitefully generated vitriolic and personal attack.
Based on a radical leftist point of view coming the fear of anything associated with religion of any kind.
I have done my best to shame this individual first by apologizing for calling him a fag and showing him the tolerance and acceptance that should be used everywhere in light of what was the worst example of mans intolerance ever in our history.
I have also choose to shame him by writing a post ( http://micky2.wordpress.com/ )on the whole episode and calling attention to him and his blog which has misrepresented and misquoted the whole episode.
All we and myself can do is call attention to these shmucks and let them know that some things are just not acceptable. Period. And to educate them on the reasons why.
The acrimony and divisiveness we see in todays body politic is directly the responsibility of rightwing radio, press and television. If conservative bemoan this situation, they should look at themselves. We didn’t have this sort of acrimony and divisiveness prior to the rise of the Rush Limbaughs and Fox Newes of the world.
JMJ
Yeah right.
When most of the media is dominated with out a doubt by so many left wing stations and rags all you got is Fox and Rush ?
That was so innacurate it sounds like you’re just trying to kick things off with a little controversy here.
I could say the moon is made of government cheese and have just as good an arguement.
And even if like you say it all started with Rush and Fox, the left has taken it all to a whole nuther level of its own today thast far surpasses anything on conservative media.
Try again.
You can not deny that the rise of the rightwing media directly coincides with the acrimony and polarization of the American body politic. It is too much to be a coincidence.
And besides, if you look at history, you will note that the politics of division is a standard of the rightwing. From Mussolini ot Metternich, Hilter to Hussein, this is a trademark of rightwing, authoritarian, statist strategy. Us vs them. Good vs evil. With us or against us. Unpatriotic. UnAmerican. These are the terms of the right. And this is what creates acrimony, division and polarization.
JMJ
right. And this is what creates acrimony, division and polarization’
On the contrary Jersey, libs say the same thing also.
JMJ;
“Us vs Them ”
“Dennis Goldford, a political science professor at Iowa’s Drake University, says John Edwards’ themes remind him of the us-vs.-them populism of the 1960s.The message hasn’t worked since then on a national level except for Jimmy Carter in 1976, ”
“President Gore’s “people vs. the powerful” theme in the 2000 election”
During the depression the left had people identify themselves as the “little guys”
That polarization brought them to the left.
JMJ;
Good vs Evil”
That of course is famous for discerning the difference between us and radical Islam.
Many on the left use the term a million times a day also Jersey , what’s your point ?
‘unpatriotic” “unamerican’
So what’s your point Jersey ?
Everyone says this to the other side when they disagree or want cast a shadow on an opponent.
After I goggled Carters, Edwards and Gore all saying the same divisive things I told myself “this is ridiculous “!
I’m actually going to engage in this stupid ass argument with Jersey?”
I’m not going there, sorry Jersey. There are far more important things to discuss in Eric’s interview than who says what the most or who started it all. How childish of you !
Its all about what’s happening today. Not who you think started what 50 years ago.
And the bottom line is that the left controls the majority of the media. So as matter of simple math, more crap will come from the left media , because most of the media is left.
You brought up Rush and Fox ? How weak is that ?
You’ve got Hollywood, the music industry, the papers, and almost every TV channel out there spewing slanted and bias crap all the time.
And also , we had this debate a couple months ago also when CNN planted Keith Kerr at a youtube debate.
Find another argument. This one is weak and I’m not going over the same crap again, move on.
Micky, I’m not fooling around and I am most certainly not alone in see this the way I do. This is a popular cultural theory.
Right through the first Bush administration there was a bipartisan comity accross the board, from the pols to the voters to the media, far greater than what we have today. Then came the Republican Revolution of 1994, largely a product of a move to the right among the polity largely engineered by the rise of the Rightwing media. Many a pundit and pol has sited Rush Limbaugh as a vital force in that revolution.
Then came the endless, petty, vicious Clinton “scandals,” that were so blantantly vindictive and nasty Clinton’s popularity only rose for each new trivial assault from the Right. Then came the rise of Fox News, a self-promoting, competitor-bashing (a very new phenomena in the news world), newsman-over-news, glaringly obvious branch of the Republican Party. With 24/7 Republican rhetoric masked as news, the most popular news network in Amerca has lured in it’s viewership with the basest, most low-brow tabloid sensationalism, reducing even the most stories to simplistic rightwing talking points and catch-words, like “Homocide Bomber” and “Cost of Freedom.”
Then came the dubious election of GWB and the intrusion of the supposed “states rights” SCOTUS, inserting Bush in the White House – a man so strinkingly unqualified for the job as to be a national embarrassment around the world even among relative conservatives. And along with Bush came this insipid War on Terror, and the irrational wars on science and the secular state. Now America is more divided than ever, even after the horror of 9/11, Katrina, and the wars.
And you say my argument is “weak,” huh?
I’m absolutely right. I have no doubt about it. I will proclaim this loudy until the day I die.
JMJ
Do you mind if I get back to the topic of your post, Eric? No? I didn’t thinks so! :)
You said that Ms. Charen was very gracious because she thought some of your comments were amusing. I laughed too. I hope that makes me gracious! LOL!
Thank you for your article on this wonderful woman. I read her book “Useful Idiots” and it’s right on! It’s also nice to read an article written by someone who has met her in person.
Useful Idiots was nonsensical, rightwing revisionist history.
JMJ
“Clinton’s popularity only rose ”
Manson and Osama are popular too.
“This is a popular cultural theory.”
Based on what ? Popular amongst who?
“Then came the rise of Fox News”
Thank God. Still, TV media is largely left. Period
“Homicide Bomber”
Suicide bombers; Why do these guys get a title that describes self ? I dont care if they took there own life. I dont care if they strapped that bomb to their ass or put in their trunk. They are” homicide” bombers. The homicide of the innocents should have a title deserving of what happened to them. Suicide should not be the issue at the front.
Homicide is the prevalant crime being commited
Then you’ll die saying it. thats your right.
But once again, its just your opinion on everything you wrote above.
And I am sick to death of debating a guy who cant differentiate between making a point with reliable info and expecting me and everyone else to take his word for it.
Myself and others on this blog have mentioned this incredible flaw of yours so many times its not even funny. And yet every day you do the same thing over and over.
You just dont get it do you ?
Get of your ass and start showing me something that is more compelling than your opinion.
I back up my claims and positions with examples.
Your opinion is NOTHING !
DO – YOU – UNDERSTAND – THAT ?
You need to state how the facts form your opinion.
Not how your opinion determines the facts.
And you have to be honest when displaying facts and not pulling them selectivly or randomly.
Its not convincing when you get your info from the Huffington post or the NYT or the Boston Globe, or these cheesy “yellow” websites and papers you say you cant be botherd with. Yet thats where you do your fact finding.
My first coment on this thread was about the tragedy of whats going thru our kids minds today due to poular misconceptions that I blamed on no one.
And your respone was the typical pre school mentality attack on the other side.
You came out and accused the right of exactly what you were doing in your first comment.
You’re a hypocrite
How Can any conservative vote for Romney?
He was listed as one of the top ten Republicans in Name Only by Human Events Magazine.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=11129
What will he be after the primary?
And would he be another George Bush if he gets elected?
Micky, something tells me that Bill Clinton is a far more popular American figure than Charles Manson and OSama Bin Laden. You have to learn the difference between fame and infamy.
Many people think that the rise of conservative talk and television led to both the rise of the republican party and political polarity in America. If you haven’t heard that before, you need a hearing aid.
“Suicide bombers; Why do these guys get a title that describes self ?”
Ah, the ol’ “Homocide Bomber” debate. Man, I haven’t had this in a while.
A Homocide Bomber, by linguistic inference, would be someone like the Unabomber or Eric Rudolf. These people are usually sociopaths who kill people at a distance in order to make a personal or political point without suffering the consequences of the action. A Suicide Bomber, on the other hand, is a sociopath who is so determined and vehement, so delluded by ideological or religious furor, that they will lay down their lives willingly and intentionally to make the their point so clear as to be unmistakable.
That’s why the War on Terror is such a futile and pyrrhic endeavor.
And that’s why “Homocide Bomber” is both counterproductive and a misnomer.
JMJ
“Many people think that the rise of conservative talk and television led to both the rise of the republican party and political polarity in America.”
I’ve heard it before Jersey. But what I’ve also heard more of is spiteful hate filled rhetoric from the left.
What I heard is better than what you heard ?
I am not going to give a chicken sh** suicide bomber any reckognition by any sense of title.
Like I said the death of the innocent should take precedence by addressing their murders.
It is homicide of innocence and not suicide of morons that should be addressed.
The emphasis must always be on the homicide.
The shmuck has already got 73 babes lined up waiting for him. I dont think he cares what you call it.
Just like “freedom fighter”
whos freedom, his ?, his buddies.? who cares ?
“Ten people were killed today by a homicide bomber who took his own life in the process’
There, now was that so hard ?
I’m really bored with this.
I tried to lead in a different direction twice now.
If you want to argue all the same points you have been arguing for months I might suggest you take it where it hasnt been heard before.
Of course this is Erics blog. But what I’m saying is that you need some new talking points and material Jersey.
But as long as I’m on this blog you’re going to have a hard time throwing all the same stuff at different people. Cause I already have counters to all your arguements and I’ll shoot you down in front of any new comers faster than they could . Just to save them the headache of having to come to the point of telling you that your opinion just does not float in a debate.
If you stopped being such a self centerd authoritarian on everything , you would probably have better debates and more productive conversations.
You can not deny that the rise of the rightwing media directly coincides with the acrimony and polarization of the American body politic. It is too much to be a coincidence.
Rush was on the air during Vietnam?
I thought that was Robin Williams !
Yeah Hallowed. If I remember correctly it was the left in the 60s that was telling America that the south vietnamese wanted to re-unite with the north. And we had Hanoi Jane over there doing her best to divide things up herself.
“Another negative effect of the Vietnam War and the way it was prosecuted, especially under Johnson, was the enormous transfer of power from the moderate left to the far left in US politics. The left went from being anti-Communist to pro-Communist (although they won’t admit it today), and many became truly anti-American on all issues of foreign policy, and remain so to this day. On issues of national security, there are few moderate left in America today. The kinds of attacks on the administration that are required of Democrat presidential candidates to be nominated today would never have occurred prior to this shift.”
Yup. What Jersey say only started a recently as 1994 has actually been going on for a long time.
But a bad case of BDS will stop anyone from digging any further if it shows it might prove them wrong
Micky, I know you don’t care what they call suicide bombers, but it is vital that we differentiate the vehemency and motivations of murderers. That is why we have different mitigating and aggravating circumstance in the law, for example, but more to the point we need to understand the enemy if we are going to deal with effectively. There is a huge difference between someone who would gladly die for a cause and someone who would not. Obviously all this is over your head.
Hallowed, Vietnam was a cruel, evil war. The acrimony and division was caused by the war itself. It was not even a partisan matter and almost as many Republicans disliked the war as Democrats and vice versa. And among the masses, the political division was far less pronounced than it is today, and bipartisanship and compromise were far more prevalent.
When you look at the sixties realistically, you’ll note that the era has been hyped and mythologized into something more than what it was. In reality, hippies and flowerchildren, protesters and communalists, draft-dodgers and card-burners, were a very small percentage of the population, as Nixon well realized. Now, of course there was division and polarity between the usual demographics and classes, but when you look at the products of that period – the civil rights act, the end of the war, integration, detente – you’ll note that all these things were bipartisan accomplishments. Nowadays, when you look at the votes on the floors of the House and Senate, when you look at the debates between pundits and between pols and between citizens, you see an insourmountable divide. The days of Bill Buckley’s civil and high-minded Firing Line have given way to the shouting matches of Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity. The civility, comity and compromise is gone, extinct, lost to a new world of staunch, unwavering partisan positions, with almost no regard for independent, rational thought. Compromise has become a dirty word, while intractable consistency has been given almost pure virtuousity. We are now more religious, more rightwing, more reactionary (and more retarded) then we have been perhaps ever in our history.
But I guess this goes over both your heads as, ironically, you two are perfect examples of what I’m talking about.
JMJ
” Obviously all this is over your head.”
JMJ;
“That is why we have different mitigating and aggravating circumstance in the law,”
What’s not over my head is the PC doctrine the left has imposed upon us that gives ulterior descriptions to everything for the sole purpose of changing our language to take away more of what the left perceives as faulty implications. To quell any aggravating appearances and as an attempt to bolster or create mitigating circumstances. He’s a murderer first. A martyr second.
The reason I want it said the way I say it is because I want these guys to get no form of satisfaction whatsoever when its reported on the news.
I understand the linguistic issue Jersey. So don’t assume anything is over my head because otherwise you will force me to go into my archives and pull out quite a few things that never even got close to your head.
Tom Brokaw;
Lending voice to legacy of ’60s
Tom Brokaw’s writing gives intimate, honest perspective on period
By Janet Maslin
New York Times
Published on Sunday, Dec 09, 2007
What changed? He asks that question in many different ways. What is the legacy of the ’60s’ bitterly polarizing political tactics? Of the civil rights movement? Of the draft and the Vietnam War? Of the showy protest ethos that defined the era’s popular culture? Of widespread drug use? How did college kids who were willing to ingest anything turn so fastidious about organic products? When the personal freedoms of the ’60s waned, what happened to the idea of personal responsibility?
Commentary
The answers found in Boom! are mostly anecdotal, punctuated occasionally by Brokaw’s editorializing on certain issues. He steps forward to decry the partisan nature of present-day politics (”the failure of goodwill, and of a willingness to find common ground in a country that in election after election is so evenly divided, is a disgrace”) and said that color-blind, merit-based help for students is a more workable idea than affirmative action.
But he also elicits commentary from figures like Bill Clinton (who believes his ’60s ideals are untarnished) and Newt Gingrich (who sharply assails Republican ineptitude at governing, which he links to too much facility with ’60s power-for-the-sake-of-power techniques). And Karl Rove, whose appearance is evidence that an interview request from Brokaw was an offer that couldn’t be refused, has the strategic insight that while the ’60s were perceived as a heyday for anti-war sentiment, nearly 60 percent of the vote in 1968 went to Richard Nixon and George Wallace.
From either side of the political divide, this book’s speakers agree about 1968’s devastating effect on the Democratic Party.
I was there Jersey, I lived the 60s. What I saw was monumental rising using anti war sentiment as its platform and base for which everything else we did was attributed.
It was the beginning of the “us vs them” I was a “US”. And I was well aware that there was not just a handful of us. As a matter of fact the anti war, anti establishment, anti corporate movement was massive across the country. Had we been so small in numbers we would of not been able to make the 60’s noticed for the grand and blatant era that it was. You had massive civil rights movements everywhere, women’s libbers, black equality was another issue tied heavly to the war due the rumor that more blacks were being sent to Nam because it was there only way out.
This is the era that took the left from being a decent party to being the one you see today. This is where all the name calling and evil spirited rhetoric began. And it was coming from the “anti -establishment movement” And this as noted by Tom Brook is where the left took a turn.
For you to blame the division we have today only on the right media is not only short sighted, it is incredibly ignorant of the facts today and in history.
Also Jersey , Nixon took it for granted that the 60’s movements were small he did not REALIZE” anything as you say.
http://greglewis.org/2003/index.htm
The Politicization of Anger
The justifiably angry left has gradually become the cynically angry left as the positions, values, and tactics employed to legitimate ends in the19’60s became ossified over the next several decades.
“But I guess this goes over both your heads as, ironically, you two are perfect examples of what I’m talking about.”
As a matter of fact , you are a perfect example of what “you” are talking about.
On this blog you are constantly, religiously, daily without failure mocking the right and calling us stupid, retarded, inept and list of names connected to a slew of accusations and claims that you can never ever prove.
You are the poster child for vitriol and ad homin sentiment the left is spewing today.
Your own blog proves this without a doubt. It displays nothing but anger and hatred and offers no conciliatory messages anywhere. Its amazingly hypocritical for you to sit there and blame the divide on two examples who have not around half as long as when this divide truly started in the streets of America and bled into our government.
To blame the actions of the radical left on the war is an example of how you all choose to dodge personal responsabilty for your actions.
It boils down to today. Even if for example if what you say is true. That the right wing media (all two of them) is responsible for the polarity you see today.
Its true without a doubt that the left has taken it to a whole nutther level.
You are an example of that
Micky, I never suggested that all polarization, division, and acrimony among the polity began in 1994. These things have been with us throughout our history, indeed all of human history. I certainly wouldn’t compare what we have today with say 1862! But there can be no doubt that the level of partisanship and intractable ideological polarization has grown by leaps and bounds since the early 1990’s, and it is too much of a coincidence that the rise of the conservative media, the Religious Right, and the Republican Revolution, came along with that.
You can deny it all you like, but all you are doing is proving my point.
JMJ
JMJ, now you say this;
“Micky, I never suggested that all polarization, division, and acrimony among the polity began in 1994.
But at first you saidthis;
“Right through the first Bush administration there was a bipartisan comity accross the board, from the pols to the voters to the media, far greater than what we have today. Then came the Republican Revolution of 1994, largely a product of a move to the right among the polity largely engineered by the rise of the Rightwing media. Many a pundit and pol has sited Rush Limbaugh as a vital force in that revolution.”
You attribute this rise and ‘republican revolution” to the engineering of and by the right wing media in your first paragraph. Rush and Fox both gained their popularity around 1994. And now you have the nerve to insult our intelligence by saying you never “suggested” it when you plainly said it,
And now you throw in a chicken doo doo disclaimer saying “I never suggested that all”
But you began your statement saying this;
“The acrimony and divisiveness we see in todays body politic is”” directly the responsibility “”of rightwing radio, press and television. If conservative bemoan this situation, they should look at themselves. We didn’t have this sort of acrimony and divisiveness prior to the rise of the Rush Limbaughs and Fox Newes of the world.”
You did not make exceptions like the kind you are making at the bottom of this thread now.
Not only did you “suggest” it. You said that the right was “directly responsable”
I dont need you to tell me that these things have been with us throughout history. If you actually read what I said that is what I am already aware of, the point I was making , and what I am saying.
But you put the focus only on the right.
I said its always been there, but the left has taken it to another level.
JMJ;
“and it is too much of a coincidence that the rise of the conservative media, the Religious Right, and the Republican Revolution, came along with that.
You can deny it all you like, but all you are doing is proving my point.
Its also no coincidence that most of our media is dictated to by the left.
The republican revolution came about because the right was finally pushed by the elements of the rebelious 60s to stand up and say you cant just yell us down anymore. As the articles from people who lived that era will tell you.
I have examples of what I am saying, examples put out by reputable sources. Once again you are just blabbing on and on with not the slightest shred of anything to co-oberate your position.
And by doing this you only prove that I am making my point everytime you open your mouth.
My point is that you are a poster child for exactly what I am talking about.
The left , like you, expects us to just shut up and take your word for it. To believe innacurate and decieving reporting and propoganda.
I have not only denied what you claim to be the truth. I have proved that you cant prove what you say is true.
If anything I have givin ten times more examples and co-0beration than you to support my position.
So far you have only your opinion.
You just dont learn, do you ?
“JMJ, now you say this;
“Micky, I never suggested that all polarization, division, and acrimony among the polity began in 1994.
But at first you saidthis;
“Right through the first Bush administration there was a bipartisan comity accross the board, from the pols to the voters to the media, far greater than what we have today. Then came the Republican Revolution of 1994, largely a product of a move to the right among the polity largely engineered by the rise of the Rightwing media. Many a pundit and pol has sited Rush Limbaugh as a vital force in that revolution.”
You attribute this rise and ‘republican revolution” to the engineering of and by the right wing media in your first paragraph. Rush and Fox both gained their popularity around 1994. And now you have the nerve to insult our intelligence by saying you never “suggested” it when you plainly said it,”
Micky, you’re kidding, right? Is there something you missed there?
“Its also no coincidence that most of our media is dictated to by the left.”
I said what???
Ya’ know, this is the problem. You guys are all black and white, right and left, good and evil, etc. Anything the least bit nuanced, measured, gray, or scaled flies right over your heads and neatly into one of two catagories. It’s an American problem really – Americans and Islamic fundamentalists. No wonder we’re so polarized. I blame anti-intellectualism in the popular culture.
“The republican revolution came about because the right was finally pushed by the elements of the rebelious 60s to stand up and say you cant just yell us down anymore.”
No, Micky, that was Nixon and later Reagan. The sixties were long over and forgotten by 19-bleepin-’94.
I doubt there is any hard science to prove one way or another for sure exactly why the country moved to the right ion the 90’s. In the 80’s it sort of made sense, as it was most likely a reaction to the sixties and seventies counter culture. Surely the realignment of the parties, especially in the South, had to do with the Civil Rights Movement to say the very least. But in the 90’s it really didn’t make much sense. Social ills were in decline. The Cold War was over. The sixties and seventies were long past, though it is true that some people didn’t see it that way. So what was it?
I present a copmmonly held theory that the shift to the right had to do with the corporate-rightist media (especially Fox and talk radio), and I should also mention the economic stratification and the rise of a large corporate class that has pumped countless millions into the electoral system and grew the ranks of lobbyists into huge virtual special interest armies. So I would say that is what happened.
Here’s a good book: http://www.gangsofamerica.com/
Here’s another: http://www.hackerpierson.com/reviews.htm
And another: http://www.henryholt.com/holt/whatsthematter.htm (this one sort of makes your “sixties” argument, but extends it right on through today)
This one summed it all up about Limbaugh et al: http://www.amazon.com/Rush-Limbaugh-Big-Fat-Idiot/dp/product-description/0385314744
There’s plenty out there, Micky. Open your eyes. It certainly isn’t just my opinion. I don;t know when you actually started paying attention to these sorts of things, but I have most of life.
JMJ
Sorry dude, none of that backs up your point.
I was there in the 60s.
I dont need to you to tell me squat.
And yes Henry Holt does make y arguement that what was a product of the sixties came and extended through to today. I used to be like you. I grew up.
I was a part of that transformation
I did not want be a part of the hypocritical moonbat movement anymore.
The whole point here is that I accept blame for the division on my part and my peers.
You are the one with the black and white thinking. Because you dont see that the left has only made everything that was a normal part of our culture grow to an extreme on the left. Code pink, environmental terrorism, daily kos, media matters, PETA, the list goes on and on. Extremism in print and protest is so prevalent on the left its not even funny.
Extremem rhetoric, extreme hatred, extremely innacurate reporting. The right has to spend half its time running around clearing the air of all the BS thats out there.
Just one look at your blog says everything Jersey. Its all right there.
So stop pretending that you are somehow approaching this fairly when you and your blog make it evidently and plainly clear that you “HATE” anything right.
With that bit of knowledge why on earth would anyone in their right mind take your word or believe you were being honest on this issue.
“Code pink, environmental terrorism, daily kos, media matters, PETA”
That’s serious stuff to you, huh?
Never mind war, the police state, American empire, trillions in national debt, a negative savings rate, the largest trade deficit in history, the greatest wealth disparity since 1929 – no, ol’ Micky is worried about tree-huggers and liberals.
Grow up and get your priorities straight.
JMJ
Oh boy, lets change the subject again. Back to the same old BS you say everyday.
When all else fails say a bunch of stuff that has nothiong to do with the facts I pointed out above.
“Code pink, environmental terrorism, daily kos, media matters, PETA” are just a few examples of the sections of the left that are creating the divide we were talking about.
What police state ?
The war cost money, we already debated that.
My priorities are my priorities, not yours. If you dont like them it has nothing to do with “growing up”
I find that ridiculous coming from a man who believes in gerbil warming and that terrorists should be treated like “unruly children” and that he knows what all of americas housewifes are thinking during a poll. And the we were attacked on 911 just because of Bush.
One of my priorities has been to dismantle your arguements.
I know I am succesfull when you have to resort to changing subjects and obfuscating.
My first comment above was in relation to what Ms. Charen said about there being no shame in our society and about those who engage in vitriolic political attacks and personal invective.
I responded in a mature way by stating how I think our kids are not being taught enough about why radical islam resembles much of what happened with Nazism.
Its not only mature and grown uo to have this as a priority. The priority is based on a legitimate concern seeing as how terrorism is a plague growing across the planet.
And the left is worried about whether we should call Mexicans and Latinos criminals “brown skinned ‘. People who break into our country should be called “undocumented laborors” or whats even more childish is “undocumented Americans”
Dont talk to me about growing up, or priorities.
They didn’t create the divide Micky – the divide created them! There’d be no PETA is there weren’t low-life sc#m abusing animals for fun and quick profit. There’s be no Code Pink if we adhered to our founding American principles and didn’t behave like a colonial empire! There’s be no Media Matters if Fox and the rest of the rightwing media could go more than five seconds without lying for once! There’d be no Daily Kos if we lived in a free state instead of a authoritarian, corporate police state! And “environmental terrorism” is a joke! As far as serious threats go, they make a molehill look like a mountain!
Again, get real. These things are reactions to events, not events themselves. And thank God for them! Who would want to live in a world full of conservative lemmings?
JMJ
“What police state?”
Amazing.
JMJ
Its the behavior ! The way they do things Jersey !
“Get real”
AKA see it my way.
Daily kos exist only because we are free.
By the way.
This is my last post directly to you until you apologize for that disgusting statement on the other thread.
JMJ said;
“We” don’t fight anybody.”
This is the kind of behavior I am talking about.
I dont care who said what or when.
If it all boils down to you saying something like that. You have made my point as well as any point has ever been made.
You have shown your true colors, black.
You have shown exactly what creates the divide.
“Daily kos exist only because we are free.”
We are probably the least free people in the first world.
I am the one with the open mind, Micky. I am not locked in a closed, authoritarian, theo-ideological, my-way-or-the-highway, blindly patriotic mindset. I am not the one who thinks homosexuality is inherently wrong and evil. I am not the one who judges people by their religion (I think all religion is stupid) and assigns myself to one clan or the other. I am not partisan. I am not paranoid. I am not xenophobic. I am not racist. I do not impose, or wish to impose, anything on anyone. I create no divide.
JMJ
JMJ;
“Yeah, right. Why don’t you tell that dead soldiers mother that you don’t want to pay for the war?
Why would I say something you think I would even want to say ?
Why don’t you speak for yourself ?
I pay for the war as much as any tax payer.
As a matter of fact its Pelosi and Reid that wanted to withhold funding.
First you bitch about how the war is running the country broke and then you say we are not paying for the war.
Put down the bottle Jersey. You’re making a fool of yourself.
You have said the worst thing I’ve ever heard come out of your mouth.
I will hold true to my word now. I will not respond to you anymore. I will not give you the time of day, I enjoy debating but not at the expense of having our soldiers who died being told that they were fighting nobody.
Or the expense of a dead soldiers family being told that their sons and daughters died fighting nobody.
A couple days ago I took a break because I was really quite tired of you. And figured the best way to decide if I would continue my daily spars with you would be to stand back and look at you with a clear mind instead of always being in the heat of the moment and making decisions during that time.
So I decided to approach this from a different angle and be the first to post on a fresh subject. That being Erics chat with Mona Charen. I opened the thread with only posting what I believed was our kids not aware of the implications of today’s terrorist threat. Not really pointing to the left or right with any contempt.
But you quickly showed me that you are incapable of debate without the same hateful talking points every time. None of which you have ever consummated into anything believable. To top it off you became monstrous in your last statement .
Until you make some kind of amends for the most disgusting thing you have ever said I will and can find plenty of other debates elsewhere where the people have some sense of decency.
I thought I responded to this…
JMJ