Jump to content
Toldya

Why don't libruls embrace patriotism?

Recommended Posts

Seriously, don't you get sick of the right hoarding all of the American iconography while the left just lets them have it?

How are voters supposed to feel when we talk about being socialists when a lot of people who are still alive today grew up hating socialism?

 

Why don't we just shut up about socialism, keep all the stuff about the environment and closing the wealth gap and not being evil douchebags like Trump, but not actually tell everyone 'we are socialists'? Seriously, it's like we're embracing the bad names that the GOP used to call us because they want people to be scared. 

 

If we wrap all of this in American flags and images of America's past while assuring people it isn't going to affect anyone's freedom (and will in fact increase it, which it will), I just know people will love it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because there has never BEEN two competing ideologies that needed a dialectic MORE than Socialism and capitalism and neither has ANYTHING to do with patriotism. They are both ECONOMIES they are about how we divide the cookies the question is why do YOU buy into the ignorant rightwing talking point about there being any dichotomy between some measure of socialism and patriotism. Public education is socialistic SS is Medicare is , the railroads were the CDC, and so on.

 

As for the other it is silly propaganda when you are talking about emotionally powerful but really meaningless bumper sticker talking points its PROPAGANDA. Like when they say do you support the troops. Who DOESNT? It is like saying do you support the people of Nevada. Why wouldnt I? Why wouldnt anyone it is MEANINGLESS

Same with do you support the flag. the set of people who have anything against the flag is so miniscule as to be ridiculous to even talk about.  Buy into THEIR propaganda if you want but it wont help society or America in ANY WAY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Debs said:

Public education is socialistic SS is Medicare is , the railroads were the CDC, and so on.

 

No doubt about it;  We have some degree of socialism already but the forces of plutocracy, which own the republican party particularly, don't admit it.  One of the reasons is that they are getting  the public transportation and infrastructure they depend on, for free.  At least as free as any socialist program which runs on taxed money.  But since big business doesn't increase profits through medicare or social security, the Republicans try to chip away at those programs as much as they dare.  Too much at one time and they could be voted out.

 

2 hours ago, Toldya said:

Seriously, don't you get sick of the right hoarding all of the American iconography while the left just lets them have it?

How are voters supposed to feel when we talk about being socialists when a lot of people who are still alive today grew up hating socialism?

 

The right has been able to preempt the idea of patriotism, for themselves, because they own the media.  Conservative corps like Viacom, Comcast, AT&T, Fox, Hearst Communications, Disney, et al, have the resources which have allowed domination of the media which the left can't match.

 

Considering the financial power of the opposition, it is a testament to the power of the left's message that half the American people still vote Democrat. 

 

2 hours ago, Toldya said:

Why don't we just shut up about socialism, keep all the stuff about the environment and closing the wealth gap and not being evil douchebags like Trump, but not actually tell everyone 'we are socialists'? Seriously, it's like we're embracing the bad names that the GOP used to call us because they want people to be scared.

 

The old die off leaving it up to the young to win hearts and minds.  That can't be done by silence. The message of the left is real.  The propaganda of the right is mostly lies.  And therein lies the struggle we are faced with today.  It is of the utmost importance to keep spreading the message despite the lies of the right.  Including the lie that they are the only ones on the side of patriotism.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Debs said:

Because there has never BEEN two competing ideologies that needed a dialectic MORE than Socialism and capitalism and neither has ANYTHING to do with patriotism. They are both ECONOMIES they are about how we divide the cookies the question is why do YOU buy into the ignorant rightwing talking point about there being any dichotomy between some measure of socialism and patriotism. Public education is socialistic SS is Medicare is , the railroads were the CDC, and so on.

 

As for the other it is silly propaganda when you are talking about emotionally powerful but really meaningless bumper sticker talking points its PROPAGANDA. Like when they say do you support the troops. Who DOESNT? It is like saying do you support the people of Nevada. Why wouldnt I? Why wouldnt anyone it is MEANINGLESS

Same with do you support the flag. the set of people who have anything against the flag is so miniscule as to be ridiculous to even talk about.  Buy into THEIR propaganda if you want but it wont help society or America in ANY WAY

 

If I wasn't already fully brainwashed and indoctrinated with no independent thoughts of my own, reading this would make me not want to be a socialist.

You actually seem to support dividing people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think concerns about liberal patriotism grew out of opposition to the Vietnam war.  Some of the anti-war people became anti-military and, to some extent against all manifestations of American power abroad.  When some of the anti-war folks burned flags and spit on the returning vets while calling them 'baby-killers', that was seen as anti-American by many.  That's an image liberals have been working to escape ever since. 

 

Once a party gets a reputation, it's extremely hard to reverse, even if  it's no longer accurate.  A Republican can talk about helping minorities all day long, but in the end, he's still a Republican and the words aren't trusted.  It's much the same for Democrats and patriotism/support for the military.  No matter how many times Democrats speak up for military benefits, weapons programs, or whatever, they're still Democrats. 

 

The current President may help the Democrats on this issue more than anyone else has.  For example, he's raiding military construction budgets to build the border wall.  He's also doing damage to international relations with our allies.  He's shown no respect for the international institutions that generations of patriots spent their lives building.  Too much of this, and the D's may become the new 'patriotic party'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2019 at 9:53 AM, Renegade said:

I think concerns about liberal patriotism grew out of opposition to the Vietnam war.  Some of the anti-war people became anti-military and, to some extent against all manifestations of American power abroad.  When some of the anti-war folks burned flags and spit on the returning vets while calling them 'baby-killers', that was seen as anti-American by many.  That's an image liberals have been working to escape ever since. 

 

Once a party gets a reputation, it's extremely hard to reverse, even if  it's no longer accurate.  A Republican can talk about helping minorities all day long, but in the end, he's still a Republican and the words aren't trusted.  It's much the same for Democrats and patriotism/support for the military.  No matter how many times Democrats speak up for military benefits, weapons programs, or whatever, they're still Democrats. 

 

The current President may help the Democrats on this issue more than anyone else has.  For example, he's raiding military construction budgets to build the border wall.  He's also doing damage to international relations with our allies.  He's shown no respect for the international institutions that generations of patriots spent their lives building.  Too much of this, and the D's may become the new 'patriotic party'.

Ever wonder why people protested against the Vietnam War? I don't! The war was wrong and a big lie was perpetrated on the American people. The people who protested against it were to my mind Patriotic. Economically, demanding sufficient workers wages and workers rights is patriotic. Demanding decent healthcare for all is patriotic. 

Here's a short list of patriotic demands off the top of my head.

Fair voting rights

Protection of the environment

Publicly funded Education that is equal for all.

Freedom of religion, or no religion.

The creation and the expansion of social security 

Public protection against poverty - the war against poverty is a patriotic endeavor.

Only a two thirds majority in Congress can approve any US war.

 

None of these demands should have anything to do with the political party you are affiliated with since they should be considered patriotic endeavors first and foremost.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TheOldBarn said:

Ever wonder why people protested against the Vietnam War? I don't! The war was wrong and a big lie was perpetrated on the American people. The people who protested against it were to my mind Patriotic.

 

Absolutely!  My hat is off to those who protested against the Vietnam War.  If they'd stuck to protesting the war and blamed the politicians that caused it, I don't think liberals wouldn't have a patriotism issue today.   But some blamed the war on the soldiers who had no say in it.  Those soldiers and their families still hold a lot of resentment for the way they were treated.   Other incidents like Jane Fonda's trip to North Vietnam also hurt the liberal image on patriotism.

 

Liberals did a much better job handling the Iraq war...support the troops and oppose the war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As some warn victory, some downfall
Private reasons great or small
Can be seen in the eyes of those that call
To make all that should be killed to crawl
While others say don't hate nothing at all
Except hatred

 

For them that must obey authority
That they do not respect in any degree
Who despise their jobs, their destinies
Speak jealously of them that are free
Do what they do just to be nothing more than something they invest in

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, ExPDXer said:

 

For them that must obey authority

That they do not respect in any degree
Who despise their jobs, their destinies
Speak jealously of them that are free
Do what they do just to be nothing more than something they invest in

 

 

But I mean no harm nor put fault

On anyone that lives in a vault

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because whatever words we use the right will attack we can't call ourselves Liberals now we have to call ourselves Progressives. I'm sick of the right setting the ground rules I want a Socialist liberal Like Bernie to get up and say yes I'm a Socialist and here's why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Gregory said:

Because whatever words we use the right will attack we can't call ourselves Liberals now we have to call ourselves Progressives. I'm sick of the right setting the ground rules

 

As long as the right owns the media, it will be very hard to us to set the ground rules.  It is remarkable that almost half the country still votes democratic when one Considers the financial power and media control of right wing corporations.

 

30 minutes ago, Gregory said:

I want a Socialist liberal Like Bernie to get up and say yes I'm a Socialist and here's why.

 

If a social democrat were to take the white house, it should go far to start moving politics to the left again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/27/2019 at 4:35 PM, Debs said:

They are both ECONOMIES they are about how we divide the cookies 

 

Yes.

I have points that will follow, but first a scene from a movie ... ironically with Charlton Heston in the starring role:

 

It was The Ten Commandments.

 

Heston played Moses, asks Yul Brynner played the son of the pharaoh and later the pharaoh. Moses asks him to provider the slaves with more food. Brynner gives multiple reasons why not, and with each reason, places a tiny weight on a balance scale. With the final reason, the final weight, the scale tips, symbolizing the total weight of his arguments.

 

Then Moses raises a brick, and says, "This is a brick. The strong make many. The weak make few. The dead make none."

 

And he places the brick on the other side of the balance. The balance immediately drops on Moses' side.

 

Now my points:

 

Capitalism, the amassing of capital in order to pay for big endeavors, those normally too big for single investors, is the greatest engine of human accomplishment there has ever been.

 

BUT

 

It works best only if the workers, the people who actually create the accomplishments, are healthy and happy and taken care of properly.

 

There will never be a time in which BOTH life is good AND elites don't control society. (Mediocrities controlling society? That's the Trumpists, the Maduros, the Stalins, Hitlers, Pol Pots and Dutertes.) But if elites control society, they should control it in a way that makes society work for everybody, not just for themselves. The poorest and stupidest among us should be able to work, live, rest, eat well, play well, get enough sleep, have healthcare and even a few laughs.

 

We need capitalism with a human face.

Social democracies can provide that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/28/2019 at 6:45 AM, Toldya said:

 

If I wasn't already fully brainwashed and indoctrinated with no independent thoughts of my own, reading this would make me not want to be a socialist.

You actually seem to support dividing people.

 What part of dialectic has ANYTHING to do with dividing people? What part of having a dialogue to take two competing ideas and coming up with a third option keeping the best parts of both and leaving the weaknesses of both has ANYTHING to do with dividing?

 

What part of pointing out that meaningless phrases that push emotional buttons is a form of propaganda can you POSSIBLY disagree with. The claim is axiomatic.  It basically  fits the DEFINITION of propaganda. Perhaps you can point out EXACTLY and specifically where ANYTHING I said was wrong. ;Maybe you ARE fully brainwashed with no independent thought of your own since YOU bring it up

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Debs said:

Maybe you ARE fully brainwashed with no independent thought of your own since YOU bring it up

 

Gratuitous denigration.  The post would have been complete without it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bludog said:

 

Gratuitous denigration.  The post would have been complete without it. 

A fair criticism. I think you could say the same about him starting his post saying

 

If I wasn't already fully brainwashed and indoctrinated with no independent thoughts of my own, reading this would make me not want to be a socialist.

 

So while you are not wrong I felt like returning serve was reasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Debs said:

I think you could say the same about him starting his post saying

 

If I wasn't already fully brainwashed and indoctrinated with no independent thoughts of my own, reading this would make me not want to be a socialist

 

The difference is, he makes no reference to you.  It's a big difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bludog said:

 

The difference is, he makes no reference to you.  It's a big difference.

You consider it a large difference that he referenced reading what I wrote  instead of me personally?Rather semantic difference isnt it? Especially since he didn't even TRY to show where anything I said was wrong or propagandistic as opposed to based on logic

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Debs said:

You consider it a large difference that he referenced reading what I wrote  instead of me personally?Rather semantic difference isnt it? Especially since he didn't even TRY to show where anything I said was wrong or propagandistic as opposed to based on logic

 

I'm not here to argue with you.  I have to moderate this room and I'm the final authority.  This decision stands.  I have the power to back it up.

 

Rules for LO


×

Welcome to Liberals only forum

No conservatives allowed
Post respectfully, personal attacks will not be tolerated
No more than five new threads a day
No trash talking about members and their kids
No porn, or links to porn
No gore pictures
No cursing  in thread titles
No, 'outing' of members or their families; names, addresses, phone numbers, SSNs, etc.
No linking to other political forums
No solicitations

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah so you are a moderator warning me. I see. I didn't notice I thought we were just  having a conversation but OK I will be more careful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Debs said:

Ah so you are a moderator warning me. I see. I didn't notice I thought we were just  having a conversation but OK I will be more careful.

 

Thank you Debs.  Much appreciated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/29/2019 at 12:53 AM, Renegade said:

I think concerns about liberal patriotism grew out of opposition to the Vietnam war.  Some of the anti-war people became anti-military and, to some extent against all manifestations of American power abroad.  When some of the anti-war folks burned flags and spit on the returning vets while calling them 'baby-killers', that was seen as anti-American by many.  That's an image liberals have been working to escape ever since. 

 

Once a party gets a reputation, it's extremely hard to reverse, even if  it's no longer accurate.  A Republican can talk about helping minorities all day long, but in the end, he's still a Republican and the words aren't trusted.  It's much the same for Democrats and patriotism/support for the military.  No matter how many times Democrats speak up for military benefits, weapons programs, or whatever, they're still Democrats. 

 

The current President may help the Democrats on this issue more than anyone else has.  For example, he's raiding military construction budgets to build the border wall.  He's also doing damage to international relations with our allies.  He's shown no respect for the international institutions that generations of patriots spent their lives building.  Too much of this, and the D's may become the new 'patriotic party'.

 

It's kind of odd how people associate America with its military, burning the flag with opposing a specific politician, etc. I guess that patriotism has motivated people to fight for their country and such... but to me, 'the west' has, until Trump/Brexit, been all about liberal democracy, multiculturalism, etc. THAT'S the stuff that makes me proud of my country (well, the post WWII west anyways), and it's just as if not MORE American than dropping bombs on people and stealing their oil.

 

I mean, Canada's patriotism is strong and it isn't tied to killing people who may or may not be able to defend themselves. Nobody looks at the Canadian flag and the maple leaf and thinks about violence and death. Why aren't we following their example?? Is there seriously no way we can remake the country into something we don't have to feel ashamed of?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/30/2019 at 7:01 AM, Renegade said:

 

Absolutely!  My hat is off to those who protested against the Vietnam War.  If they'd stuck to protesting the war and blamed the politicians that caused it, I don't think liberals wouldn't have a patriotism issue today.   But some blamed the war on the soldiers who had no say in it.  Those soldiers and their families still hold a lot of resentment for the way they were treated.   Other incidents like Jane Fonda's trip to North Vietnam also hurt the liberal image on patriotism.

 

Liberals did a much better job handling the Iraq war...support the troops and oppose the war. 

I think you have a valid point here for sure!

 A lot of folks who went to Vietnam did not choose to do so. It just fell upon them with the way the draft system was concocted. I agree, don't ever blame the soldier who has to pick up the pieces in any war. This is true going back to WWI, although that one was a bit more poetic if you will. A lot of those US soldiers went to fight fascism. Now that was a war that changed the way war was done, and it wasn't pretty. Just about every able bodied young man suited up for the next one in WWII. The US took a long long time to decide about declaring War in either of the two. 

 

9/11 brought a lot of young folks into the arm forces thinking they were fighting for a good cause. There was no draft, but I'm sure some people who post on this board know a few of these men and women - without question they deserve all our respect and more.

 

The problem:

With no real declaration of war, how did the Congress Act, since 9/11 was not an act perpetrated by any country - The Authorization for use of Military Power Force Against Terrorism - or the AUMF for short. I would call the whole thing messed up truly. And this led to the US/ Iraq conflict. And when a lot of GI's were getting hit with improvised explosive devices and some generals spoke out for better armament the then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, you go to war with what you have - or something to that effect. 

No, the congress didn't Act to raise more money for the soldiers with any tax. No, the congress didn't act too quickly to fully address what this war did create in its aftermath. Also See Afghanistan, Syria, and few other places where we still have troops today.

 

And hey, if you're asking me or you, we both would agree that there should never be a homeless Veteran. To allow such a thing is a huge disgrace and the opposite of patriotism! I'd like to see some legislation to make sure that doesn't happen. And I don't care how much it would cost.

 

Peace!

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/31/2019 at 6:46 PM, laripu said:

 

Yes.

I have points that will follow, but first a scene from a movie ... ironically with Charlton Heston in the starring role:

 

It was The Ten Commandments.

 

Heston played Moses, asks Yul Brynner played the son of the pharaoh and later the pharaoh. Moses asks him to provider the slaves with more food. Brynner gives multiple reasons why not, and with each reason, places a tiny weight on a balance scale. With the final reason, the final weight, the scale tips, symbolizing the total weight of his arguments.

 

Then Moses raises a brick, and says, "This is a brick. The strong make many. The weak make few. The dead make none."

 

And he places the brick on the other side of the balance. The balance immediately drops on Moses' side.

 

Now my points:

 

Capitalism, the amassing of capital in order to pay for big endeavors, those normally too big for single investors, is the greatest engine of human accomplishment there has ever been.

 

BUT

 

It works best only if the workers, the people who actually create the accomplishments, are healthy and happy and taken care of properly.

 

There will never be a time in which BOTH life is good AND elites don't control society. (Mediocrities controlling society? That's the Trumpists, the Maduros, the Stalins, Hitlers, Pol Pots and Dutertes.) But if elites control society, they should control it in a way that makes society work for everybody, not just for themselves. The poorest and stupidest among us should be able to work, live, rest, eat well, play well, get enough sleep, have healthcare and even a few laughs.

 

We need capitalism with a human face.

Social democracies can provide that.

Interesting note: the problem with Capitalism today is not Capitalism, it is as they say, free loaders sifting off the top creating nothing. There is a pilfering going on and essentially those with big money control enough legislation to create an uneven play field. This much is inevitable in any market driven, Capitalism based economy, which is manifest worldwide today, as they say.

 

In loose terminology, there are comparatively few people making a whole lot more money, and holding a whole lot more power,  who as it turns out, contribute little to this world regarding efficiency and worth, however you measure it. Thus, we have more and more inequality, as measured by poverty levels and the small amount of folks who hold onto unbelievable wealth.

 

There was a thread about Meritocracy on this board, and I thought this piece I read this morning makes a good argument against it. I like the comment one contributor made to it as well.

 

https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/a-belief-in-meritocracy-is-not-only-false-its-bad-for-you

 

Peace!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TheOldBarn said:

There was a thread about Meritocracy on this board, and I thought this piece I read this morning makes a good argument against it. I like the comment one contributor made to it as well.

 

https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/a-belief-in-meritocracy-is-not-only-false-its-bad-for-you

 

Peace!

 

Some ideas from your link that I strongly disagree with:

 

Quote

 In competitive contexts, many have merit, but few succeed. What separates the two is luck.

 

It would help if the person making the statement offered some evidence.  Without support, this statement looks like nothing more than 'sour grapes'.   In the words of Vince Lombardi, "Champions make their own luck."   

 

Quote

Luck intervenes by granting people merit, and again by furnishing circumstances in which merit can translate into success. This is not to deny the industry and talent of successful people. However, it does demonstrate that the link between merit and outcome is tenuous and indirect at best.

 

Luck grants people merit?  Really?  'Luck' stays up late studying textbooks?  'Luck' drags people's ass out of bed and gets them to work on time?  'Luck' puts in the overtime and 'luck' does the research?  How exactly does this statement by the author in any way show a "tenuous and indirect" link?  

 

Articles like this make me angry, not because they call into question my own meager outcome in life.  They make me angry because they call into question the whole idea that people should strive to succeed.  If you buy into this BS, success is just 'luck'.  Don't worry about trying hard.  Don't worry about taking care of your team.  Don't worry about making good decisions.  It's all 'luck'!  All who buy into this is are doing themselves no good service.  

 

Here's a major point that the author is missing.  Even if you grant (which I don't) that there were 1,000 other people just as worthy as Bill Gates who didn't succeed because of 'bad luck', the beauty of the meritocracy is that there were 1,001 talented, industrious people working their asses off to succeed because they believed in the meritocracy.  They believed their talent and hard work would be rewarded (and most likely was rewarded, if not to the same extent as Bill Gates).   If you could go back in time and convince them that the meritocracy is false and their outcome in life will be due to 'luck', how many would be willing to make the sacrifices?   

 

'Luck' and 'merit' are both required to some extent in order to have success.  'Luck', by definition, is beyond our control.  So, focus on the things you can control.  Build your merit and, in our meritocracy, you will attain the best outcome possible.  On the other hand if you, like the author if this article, decide that 'luck' controls everything and there's very little if any link between merit and outcome, there's no point in working hard to build your merit and you will not get your best outcome.  This author fails to understand that belief in the rightness of, and striving for, meritocracy is a key motivator for countless actions we take every day.  Without it, a thousand threads come unraveled. 

 

When people give up on meritocracy and accept 'luck', we might as well go back to the middle ages and accept whatever "God's will" has in store for us.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2019 at 11:16 AM, Toldya said:

Is there seriously no way we can remake the country into something we don't have to feel ashamed of?

 

↑ liberal patriotism issue

 

Sure there is.  Vote, volunteer, do good things, talk about the outcomes you want to achieve, and motivate others in a positive way.   On the other hand, telling people how you're ashamed of your country isn't going to help with the liberal patriotism issue.   When you oppose a policy, a politician or an issue, people are more likely to engage with you.   But, when you attack 'the country', you're going to get instant resistance from most people.  I don't imagine that's any different whether you're talking to people in Russia, Switzerland, or the USA...citizens generally don't like it when you demean their whole country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...