I agree about Carter.  Otherwise, a majoirty of people in the United States hold "some" "conservative" beliefs. Obama's mistakes:  the healthcare bill - too complicated.  They should have just moved to lower medicare to age 50, simple and fast.  Period.  Anything else could come after.  This in itself would solve most probelms.  Terrorist Trials - He should have left it in the hands of the military.  Immigration-  All work visa should cease until the unemployment rate comes way down.  The first, he could have gotten through at the beginning, thought probably not now.  The second and third: the majority of Americans wish these actions and they are not that out of line.   
 
Europe has their own economic problems. As for Diana's remarks about the right wing fearing the emasculating of men fro the left, one matter that always amazes is how progressive America is re:  Women. European men are extremely chauvanistic compared to American men.  Yet, our politics are more conservative.    Logic is not simple.
 
Kate


-----Original Message-----
From: DIana Manister <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Thu, Jan 21, 2010 5:04 pm
Subject: Re: OT Massachusetts' Logic

Dear Carrol, 
 
I've just been reading a psycho article titled "The Frankfurt School: Conspiracy to Corrupt" that I ran across while researching Marcuse. So I welcome your observations. 
 
Apparently the christian right believes The New Left wants to demasculate American males and institute matriarchy -- by means of feminism and removal of the father's ultimate authority in the family. 
 
Sex education in schools is a leftist conspiracy too, a "vehicle for secular humanism" How many people I wonder subscribe to these beliefs? 
 
I am shocked. I thought the birthers were bad enough, but there is a lot more madness where that came from. 
 
In fact this is not irrelevant to TSE. He spoke against Russell's atheism as a threat to society. 
 
Diana 
 
Sent from my iPod 
 
On Jan 21, 2010, at 3:21 PM, Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote: 
 
> Oh well. I and others have discussed at great length over several > years 
> the following points, but I don't have the energy this week to try to 
> develop any of them in a post or posts for this list. Since this 
> discussion, despite its lack of relevance to Eliot, seems to be 
> continuing, perhaps the following naked propositons will at least > offer 
> some new or different bones to chew. As offered here they are 
> oversimplified and undeveloped, so it would be redundant to point that 
> out. 

> ---------- 

> In U.S. history, significant social cchange has occurred only as a 
> direct or indirect result of the actions of a minority acting outside 
> the electoral system. This is true even of the obvious exception, 
> Licoln's administration. The _very_ small abolitionist movement 
> (interlnked with the intrnational left, freaked the Slavedrivers out > of 
> their ever-loving minds, so that they split the Democratic Party _and_ 
> when as a result a candidate pledge NOT to interfere with slavery but 
> only to limit its exent was elected, they split the Union and the 
> consequent Civil War brought about the abolition of slavery. It is > very 
> doubtful that without John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry Lincoln > would 
> have been elected. 

> The politician most resonsible for the passign of the Civil Rights 
> legilation in the '60s was a racist pig, Republican Senator Everett 
> Dirksen, who proclaimed it an idea whose time had come. By this he > mant, 
> "those people" (inclujding rioters in Watts) are going to make the 
> nation near to ugovernable if we don't try to satisfy them to some 
> extent. 

> Last year, in a speech to a Bankers group, Obama told them "I'm the 
> only thing standing between you and tghe men in pitchforks." Whether 
> that is true or not at the present time, it accurately indicates the 
> role the DP has played for over a century in blunting and absorbing 
> social protest movements. It is the great barrier to significant > change 
> in the United States. (The Kennedy brothers, for example, worked > hard to 
> head off both the March on Washinggton and the growth of the > Mississippi 
> Fredom Democratic Party. Fortunately they failed. 

> The Populist Movement died when it was absorbed into the DP. 

> Roosevelt's creation of social security was mainly to head off the 
> gathering popularity of the Townsend Plan. The only really new > actionof 
> his Administration was the creation of the WPA, which was already > being 
> replaced by the PWA when the war made both unnecessary. Roosevelt 
> brought on renewed unemployment in 1938 by his moves towards balancing 
> the budget. 

> The Nixon Administration followed the geneal strtegy of Bismack a 
> century ealier. It was two-pronged, and intended to bring the '60s 
> movement to a halt. On the one hand, a considerable batch of > "prgressive 
> legilation (e.g. OSHA). On the other hand the lauching of a program > to 
> build the machinerery of repression, the political wrapping of which > was 
> the War on Drugs. (Clinton and Bush both 'improved' that repressive 
> machinery, especially Clinton with his "Effective Death Penalty and 
> Anti-Terrorism Act." He also "ended welfare as we have known it," with 
> much (unreported) misery since then. Probably Monica saved Social 
> Secuity. (Nixon had planned in 1969 to drop a nuclear bomb on the 
> Chinese installations in North Vietnam through which aid from China > and 
> the USSR reached North Vietnam. He was demoralized by the size and 
> miltancy of the November Moratorium that year and changed his plans. > The 
> anti-war movment, however, was already weakening, and was dealt its 
> deathblow by the presidential candidacy of George McGovern. 

> The conservative swing of u.s. politics began with several actions by 
> the Carte Administration: 

> 1. His refusal to anwer a letter from Bishop Romero, leading to the 
> murder of Romero and the beginning of the U.S. ravaging of the > people of 
> Central America 

> 2. His sponsoring of Indonesia's campaign of terror in East Timor > ( the 
> weapons for that coming frm the United States) 

> 3. Airline deregulation 

> 4. Appointment of Vokcker as Fed Chairman 

> 5. His launching of the Afghanistan War through CIA intervention. 

> 6. Allowing the ex-Shah to come to the U.S. and his insane intended 
> helicopter 'rescue' operation. 

> ------ 

> In human history as in human evolution* Contingency remains in many > ways 
> the decisive factor. (*Cf. the asteroid that destroyed the diosaurs, 
> making room for mamals and thus eventually for primates.) Mass social 
> movements cannot be willed into existence, though their appearance may 
> be deflected or delayed by the 10s of thousands of well-meaning people 
> who remained attached to thefutile hope of social change through the 
> election of "good people." 

> Carrol 

> P.S. A perhaps apocryphal but perhaps actual anecdote in Illinois 
> politics. A man goes to an Alderman's offie in Chcago to request > support 
> in running for some local or state election. The Alderman asks, "Who 
> sent you?" The man replies, "No one sent me, I came on my own." "We 
> don't talk to somebody nobody sent." Someone sent Obama when he ran > for 
> the State Senate? 

> In 1948 (and this is hard history) Stevenson wanted to run for the 
> Senate; dogulas wanted to run for Governor. Jake Arvey said, no, > Douglas 
> run for Senate, Tevenson for Governor. Jake Arvy was an attorney fot > he 
> Chicago Mob, and involved in their move to Las Vegas.