My own opinion is that the writer has many valid points. I have seen some of the attitudes he speaks of (some of these attutudes are displayed by the far right, as well, but they don't have nearly as many representatives in office). I also recall when each party viewed the other not as an evil force to be opposed at every turn, but as a group that shared the same objectives, but simply disagreed about how to best serve the nation's best interests.

Whether you agree or disagree, please take the time to comment. If you disagree, keep in mind that a reactionary reply will tend to support the author's position.

~~Baloo

------------------
Beer lovers take note:
Stroh's spelled backwards is "shorts."

http://www.geocities.com/cyrano_jones.geo/

[Link fixed]

------------------
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw

quote:

---

I also recall when each party viewed the other not as an evil force to be opposed at every turn, but as a group that shared the same objectives, but simply disagreed about how to best serve the nation's best interests.

---

I remeber this time too, as it wasn't so long ago, but things do seem to have changed. I don't think I had understood just how much untill the writer pointed it out. I have noticed how much our personal freedoms have been curtailed over the last few years, and It's invadeing the business world as well. I first believed that we are forced to take classes on diversity, so we poor slobs don't anger anyone to the point where they sued the company, but maybe it goes deeper then that. Maybe we are slowly but surely being trained, so that when this new group takes full power, it will be so ingrained in us, that we will happily except the total loss of freedom.

THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T CARE!!!!!

That's right. They don't care. Only because these people aren't black, senior citizens, pregnant, poor enough(key word), rich, native american, (in some cases)female, or any other target group....

Okay, I think I'm carrying on a little much....

What was the question again?

------------------
Women are demons who make men enter hell through the gates of paradise.

Power Word

However most of his arguments are very weak. Especially the general theme of singling out the Democratic Party. I'll try to address his points in some semblance of order:

1. The honor guard spitting incident. Not nice. But part of a cultural war leading to fascism? I would argue that respect for cops has eroded largely because of the War on Drugs, a fiasco and adistinctly bi-partisan project of the last 20 years.

2. The Alabama Lt. Governor prostitute incident. Political dirty tricks, to say the least. But if Mr. Just is going to use the line of argument that the democratic party is becoming authoritarian and dirty, he needs to look at some history. In the decades before the 1970s, the Democratic Party ruled most of the South (the Southeastern U.S.) virtually as a one-party state, staying in power often through extremely vile means. Using this reasoning, the Democratic party was a lot more authoritarian in the past than it is now. And yet in other parts of the essay he strongly suggests that the decades before the 70s were the good old days of the democratic party, before radical leftists took over. It's a contradiction if he's going to argue for "creeping authoritarianism".

3. Viewing the opposition as an evil force rather than people with basically the same values? Hardly anything new. I mean jeez, look at the partisan debates about slavery in the 1850s and the language they used about each other. And in our time, it is the Republicans who have all the anti-abortion rhetoric. If your opponent supports the murder of babies, does that make him anything less than evil? Indeed, anti-abortion rhetoric has spawned more recent terrorism than anything on the political left.

4. Cultural decay opening the door for authoritarianism? He's making a lot of generalizations. But "The media", advertising, etc, are part of the private business establishment, doing anything for a buck. Historically it is the Republican party that has more often promoted the laissez-faire approach to business. So if there's decay they have just as much blame, maybe more.

Also, the farther to the left you go, the less support there is for the Democratic party. The Democrats deserve to be punished, but it is because they've become like Republicans on most substantive issues.

"I would argue that respect for cops has eroded largely because of the War on Drugs."

Could it also be that whenever a white cops kills a black man, REGARDLESS of the circumstances, the cop is blamed and called a racist? I know it is possible that the cop could be a racist, but almost all who find themselves in this situation are labeled one. People have been enabled to play the race card because of PC.

"The Alabama Lt. Governor prostitute incident. Political dirty tricks, to say the least. But if Mr. Just is going to use the line of argument that the democratic party is becoming authoritarian and dirty, he needs to look at some history."

Not necessarily. It has only been recently that the Democratic party has been challenged with losing their party. The south has always been Democratic since the Civil War. Recently, the Republican party has gained ground in that area, and now, the Democrats are in jeopardy of losing both Congress AND the White House. If you've always been in power, and suddenly see yourself soon to NOT be in power, what would you do? Remember, Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

"If your opponent supports the murder of babies, does that make him anything less than evil?"

My views aside, I think the Republicans don't see the Democrats as evil, more like heathens that need to be educated

"Also, the farther to the left you go, the less support there is for the Democratic party."

Why do labor union leaders, known for their socialistic tendencies, support the Democrats if your statement is true? The Democrats support socialized health care, socialized prescription drugs, socialized everything. Where could these ideas be coming from?

"The Democrats deserve to be punished, but it is because they've become like Republicans on most substantive issues."

Ok, how have they become like Republicans? I see no evidence of this.

On a side note, during the Democratic National Convention, a group of boy scouts came onto the floor to sing the Pledge of Allegiance. A group of the delegates grabbed some picket signs and wrote on them "We support Gays in the Boy Scouts" and started booing at the kids onstage. Didn't hear about it did you? Where do you get your news from, then?

------------------
Intelligence, Integrity, Responsibility.
Vote Bush/Cheney 2000

"My views aside, I think the Republicans don't see the Democrats as evil, more like heathens that need to be educated."

Yeah, someone once said that conservatives see their opponents as fundamentally misguided, but well meaning, in general; whereas liberals see their opponents as demon-spawn from Hell.

------------------
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who have not got it."
- George Bernard Shaw

But it is also very likely that when a black man is pulled over by the cops, he has a much different experience than when a white guy across town is pulled over, regardless of whether each is equally law-abiding. These experiences accumulate over time.

"Not necessarily. It has only been recently that the Democratic party has been challenged with losing their party. The south has always been Democratic since the Civil War."

The Democrat "Solid South" has been gone for many years. Started with Nixon's Southern Strategy.

"Recently, the Republican party has gained ground in that area, and now, the Democrats are in jeopardy of losing both Congress AND the White House. If you've always been in power, and suddenly see yourself soon to NOT be in power, what would you do? Remember, Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The Democrats have not controlled the House or the Senate since 1994. They lost their southern powerbase a long time ago. The majority of states have Republican governors. The two largest U.S. cities, New York and LA, have Republican mayors. You think this is absolute power? If the Democrats are trying to make the US into a one-party state, they're doing a rather poor job of it. And now there's a good chance, as you say, that the Dems will lose the white house too. This makes them dangerous?

Also the argument that the your opponents are fascist because they demonize their opponents is self-contradictory. When you make the argument, you do the same thing you accuse your opponents of doing.

"Why do labor union leaders, known for their socialistic tendencies, support the Democrats if your statement is true? The Democrats support socialized health care, socialized prescription drugs, socialized everything."

AFL-CIO president John Sweeney has socialistic tendencies? Teamster president James Hoffa Jr. has socialistic tendencies? Are you really going to assert this? There are some leftist labor unions out there who are sympathetic to socialism (defined as worker control of the means of production), but the vast majority, and especially the large ones, are non-ideological. They consist of a rank-and-file of ordinary working Americans, many of whom are Republicans or "Reagan Democrats", and they have leadership who are pretty much like the executives of any large corporation.

Yes, unions often support government welfare-state legislation, because it is in the interest of working people. The liberal welfare state has nothing to do with socialism.

The term "Socialized Medicine" was invented in the 1950s by an advertising agency hired by the American Medical Association. It was part of an advertising campaign to scare the public into opposing national health care.

"Ok, how have they become like Republicans? I see no evidence of this."

I'll give you an example. Alan Greenspan is chairman of the Federal Reserve. Sometime's he's called the President of the US Economy, because of his influence with interest rates, the stock market, etc. He's a Republican, and he was a top advisor to president Ford back in the 70s. He's even a fan of the extreme pro-capitalist philosophy of Ayn Rand.

Now, he gets appointed by Reagan. He serves through the Reagan administration and then through the Bush admin, getting re-appointed. Now comes comrade Bill Clinton the socialist. Clinton re-appoints him twice, the most recent time being this June.

Now, if as a closet socialist he wanted to move the economy closer to full employment at the expense of inflation, to give more power to his union supporters, you'd think he would have found a way to put a different person in that position. Or at least try. If Clinton had wanted to simply bring about economic chaos to justify a "big government" agenda, he would have done something about Greenspan. Nope, he didn't do that.

The explanation is that with regard to core economic policy, there isn't a significant difference at all between Republicans and Democrats over the last 20 years.

But it is also very likely that when a black man is pulled over by the cops, he has a much different experience than when a white guy across town is pulled over, regardless of whether each is equally law-abiding. These experiences accumulate over time. "

The Chicken and the Egg.

------------------
"Ed Gruberman, you fail to grasp Ty Kwan Leap. Approach me, that you might see." -- The Master