The Liberal Thought As We Know It

 

As I have now joined the elite ranks of anti-idiotarian bloggers who have been labeled "Nazis" for having the temerity to identify Islamofascists as the true heirs of the Third Reich, and a racist, a xenophobe, as well as of course an Islamophobe, for daring to be in favor of preserving our sovereignty free of Shari'a oppression, and a bellicose Christian for having the audacity to advocate it vociferously, whilst still confirming my Christian beliefs, I feel the Democrats have now been uplifted to new dizzying heights of verbal lunacy:

The highest-ranking Democrat in America, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, described the Senate bill making English the national language of the American people as "racist." And the New York Times editorial page labeled the bill "xenophobic."

Welcome to the thoughtless world of contemporary liberalism. Beginning in the 1960s, liberalism, once the home of many deep thinkers, began to substitute feeling for thought and descended into superficiality.

One-word put-downs of opponents' ideas and motives were substituted for thoughtful rebuttal. Though liberals regard themselves as intellectual -- their views, after all, are those of nearly all university professors -- liberal thought has almost died. Instead of feeling the need to thoughtfully consider an idea, most liberal minds today work on automatic. One-word reactions to most issues are the liberal norm.

This is easy to demonstrate.

Here is a list of terms liberals apply to virtually every idea or action with which they differ:

Racist
Sexist
Homophobic
Islamophobic
Imperialist
Bigoted
Intolerant

And here is the list of one-word descriptions of what liberals are for:

Peace
Fairness
Tolerance
The poor
The disenfranchised
The environment

These two lists serve contemporary liberals in at least three ways.

First, they attack the motives of non-liberals and thereby morally dismiss the non-liberal person.

Second, these words make it easy to be a liberal -- essentially all one needs to do is to memorize this brief list and apply the right term to any idea or policy. That is one reason young people are more likely to be liberal -- they have not had the time or inclination to think issues through, but they know they oppose racism, imperialism and bigotry, and that they are for peace, tolerance and the environment.

Third, they make the liberal feel good about himself -- by opposing conservative ideas and policies, he is automatically opposing racism, bigotry, imperialism, etc.

So now keeping English as a unified language is racist. It seems like this verbal disease is spreading through the Democratic party, down from the very highest ranks, who have proven constitutionally incapable of reining in their superciliousness, and spreading the hyperbolic invectives through the ranks to the Democratic foot-soldiers, like a deadly virus. Have these people gone completely mad? According to my friend the gracious Neo-neocon anger is still in style on the left side of the world.

Comments

[Darrell]

"Women to the kitchen?"
"Imperial Presidency?"
Someone's been reading their little book of Lefty talking points!
Go with the lies. It works every time! Just ignore your lyin' eyes when you see Conservative women in true positions of power. Or writing powerful and influential blogs. Or do you do that from the kitchen, Alexandra?;-) I thought not! I'll go away now....

[Gang of One]

Probligo writes:

The equivocation that Gof1 uses to illustrate the difference is really quite endearing; the kind of explanation, amplification, that would be used by a thirteen y-o in his first attempt at formal debate. To a conservative, the absence of war is surrender. :-D Love that, I will have to remember.

Well, I just turned ten last week. But thanks for the totally kewl compliment.

Oh, BTW, I was paraphrasing Ronald Reagan.

[Anne]

And as for the Neoconservatives? :

"Neoconservatives offer us a celebratory patriotism, full of flags and ribbons, where questions and dissent are silenced,
to support our president, support the troops.
They promise to deliver us from the decadence of artists and
intellectuals. They argue for the return of moral standards to the public square and women to the kitchen. They offer a lighter, faster military, able to project power in lightning strikes, and move rapidly to the next target. They commit us to a war where the enemies are unnamed and ever-changing, and the prospects of peace distant and still receding. They console us for war-time deaths and the absent prospect of victory or peace with the claim that war increases “moral seriousness.”

They offer a stronger executive, a more imperial president.

Traditional conservatives, especially libertarians, called on us to protect our liberties. Neoconservatives call on us to surrender them in the name of homeland security. Traditional conservatives distrusted democracy and praised stability. Neoconservatives make the expansion of democracy abroad the license to diminish democracy at home and argue that America should “make trouble in the world.” Traditional conservatives had a commitment to balanced budgets and small government.
Neoconservatives seek to expand government, into airports, libraries and homes. Nothing expands a government like a war." -ADBUSTERS.ORG

"If I'm against senseless violence and war, then I guess I'm all for peace and love." -Wayne Coyne

[probligo]

Michael,
That is exactly why, as a new reader, I asked Alexandra to expound a little on the original topic. Remember that?

While I might take issue (on a personal level) with the above, what would be even better would be for you to put forward an equivalent list for -

Conservatives
Neocons

Remember too, her response?

Thank you for issuing tasks for me to spend my time on, but I have absolutely no intention of doing so. As for the list of terms which the author has quoted, I have been personally described with the aid of all of the above, with the only exclusion of "sexist", and the addition of others rather more derogatory such as "Nazi".

For my views on Conservatives I suggest you plow through my blog which has enough information in my written word to deduce from. Unlike a lot of others, this is not a 'copy paste' blog, therefore you should find plenty there.

I find your request particularly cheeky considering you have not even bothered to comment in any great depth or length to the post itself.

Now, before anyone gets their knickers any more firmly knotted than they already are I am quite prepared to debate Alexandra's topic. What I had hoped for was a brief (maybe 50 words max) along the lines that Gof1 provided. It wasn't difficult. Gringoman provided the invite to produce my own list of epithets, which I did from a rapid read of Alexandra's preceeding 10 or so articles.

That said, Let's get to it...

Beginning in the 1960s, liberalism, once the home of many deep thinkers, began to substitute feeling for thought and descended into superficiality.

I think that is wrong.

The truth is that much if not all political communication in recent (the last 20 years or more) has been driven by the need to condense a point of view into the time that a tv news broadcast was prepared to devote to it.

That process - from the need to communicate to the communication itself - led to the development of the "soundbite".

Now I am sure that if you listen to President GW's speeches in full, you can pick them for yourself - the one-liners that are intended to "attract" the MSM editors and hopefully the attention of voters to accept the encoded "idea".

So, I do think it rather ingenuous for Prager to line up "liberals" in the way that he has, or more to the point to use the "English as official language" as a (very weak) reason for writing the column that he has.

If he had criticised both MSM for not providing sufficient time and space for the development of political debate, and politicians generally for seemingly believing (mind you, they could well be right) that the electorate has an average attention span of 3 seconds, then he might have gotten a lot further with his op-ed. From that, this article might have gotten a lot further than just perpetuating the mindless and inept.

But then that is not why he wrote the op-ed. What is apparent to me is that the primary reason was the knowledge that there are any number of people who would pick up his essay and "think", "Ooo! I agree with THAT!! I must put it in my blog." He is writing for a converted audience. He is writing with the intention of promoting himself through the use of the confirmation bias that so many people have.

I am wrong? So, tell me what has he added to the pool of human knowledge and thought other than what I have described?

I would have no problem with English being an "official language". It is already recognised as such in NZ, along with Maori and Signz.

That was achieved without the political name calling and denigration that your black pot has tried to entertain himself with. He (Prager) would probably achieve more through trying other means of self-entertainment.

[Michael Galien]

Probligo:

I do not understand why you come at someone's blog; someone who works terribly hard at writing her articles and keeping her blog updated and simply diss it.

If you were to disagree with her opinions; no problem. Instead of that, you come at this blog, insult Alexandra and her writing style and... that's it.

I will put it simple: you're welcome to come here and debate about topics. You're not welcome to come here and diss Alexandra and her hard work.
If any blogger works had, every day, on her blog, it's Alexandra. If you're unable to appreciate that I suggest you go and find your pleasing somewhere else.

[Alexandra]

Probligo,

Just for the record, unlike you, it is not my style to attack other bloggers' writing ability, and my reference to your own Blog is to do with the "one sentence and link" comparison you made, and not an opinion of your writing, which I am not familiar with.

[probligo]

Alexandra,

If you were to express yourself more, without the code, without the propaganda labels, without the preconceived conclusions and without the confirmation bias then I believe you would lose little in content and gain much in both readability and believability.

Thank you for the unsolicited promo, and the opinion of my writing.

Supercilious? Yeah probably, and I know where I got that from too. Is the way that I am. See? You got it in one - perhaps because I express myself, rather than following the herd.

[Alexandra]

Probligo,

You do not know me, nor have you made an astute assessment of my writing, as you have read none of my essays on this blog. I do not write them about liberals, because quite frankly they bore me. My liberal related posts will always be linked not only because believe it or not this is a Blog, but also as they more often than not relate to a trigger, or triggers such as yourself.

Are you that insecure in your projection that you need to use so many links to other writers?

To have made the personal comments you have about my writing is simply ignorant of you, and your age does not excuse ignorance in not knowing that linking is an integral part of blogging, and albeit being only one of many, it is one of the distinguishing factors when compared to an MSM article. Blogging is not only about writing long "essay monologues" without links in every post, it is about linking and giving your reader scope and breadth of view across the spectrum. To have lashed out at me personally, and my inability to express my own view by accusing me of linking within my own text, has simply confirmed my original comment about your facetious superciliousness, which you seem constitutionally unable to refrain from exhibiting. How you deem that possible in view of your own presentations on your Blog is beyond me.

As for your comment:

And y'see, Alexandra, I do take the time to read what other people write. The measure of their ability is whether or not I return.

I shall leave you to imagine what my response to that is.

[probligo]

This is the third draft of this, the other two were attempts to insert some fairly sophisticated (for me) html code into my reply to set up tables and such. No joy, so this is going to be narrative. I was also having extreme difficulty in getting a firm hook on which to approach your question.

I am a Liberal, IF I were to take any particular label on board. The OLD 19th and early 20th century Liberal.

As for labels that are used on a regular basis on right wing blogs, here are just a few that I dredged from the last ten or twelve articles that Alexandra has posted up...

Anti-semite
PC
hysterical drama queens
Dhimmi
Commie
Useful idiot

Not an exhaustive list by any means. Nor are any of these particularly original. Most if not all are common, well broadcast, in the Right-whinge blogiverse. Now I don't want to give the impression that I am picking on Alexandra. I am making an observation on the right-whinge blogiverse in general.

And y'see, Alexandra, I do take the time to read what other people write. The measure of their ability is whether or not I return.

Now, I want to make this comment directly to Alexandra -

My dear, (I think that age might give me the right to speak to you as I do to my own 30 y-o daughter), my dear, there is very little in what you say on these pages that can be disputed as untrue or as unsupported. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the reverse is the case. Your comment

...I suggest you plow through my blog which has enough information in my written word to deduce from. Unlike a lot of others, this is not a 'copy paste' blog, therefore you should find plenty there...

actually drew my attention to it as this had passed me by on first read. Are you that insecure in your projection that you need to use so many links to other writers? One not untypical para had 88 words and 11 links. here -

“In any event, if Iran is able to split hairs with their categorical and absolute denial, beware not to take aim at the messenger (I am so sickened by absolutely outrageous journalism like this, that I had better refrain from commenting any further) but instead at the source. Taheri's reporting is based on his deep understanding of the Iranian Mullahs and their long-term intentions. Indeed, we should all be experts, as Thug-In-Chief makes no qualms about his vision, lest we belong to the "reality-based community at Daily Kos".”

Yes, it is coded prose. You use dense emotion to amplify "fact". And if there is one sentence that confirms my impression of a librarian rather than someone secure in their opinion and outlook it is in the centre -

I am so sickened by absolutely outrageous journalism like this, that I had better refrain from commenting any further

Now to be true, I have seen very little of your own comment that does not take the form of "statement<>link...statement<>link". This gives me, as a fairly objective and independant reader, the distinct impression that your "opinion" comprises little more than "I agree with..."

Now what I am working toward is this - liberals are not alone in how they present their world view. The coded prose, the cliches, the well learned propaganda are as prevalent in left-wingery as they are in right-whingery. (See? I am doing it myself, it must be a virus).

Now to the second part. "Gangofone" has made a valiant attempt to "rescue the bacon". Goodonyermate! I was very strongly tempted to put up a corresponding list of opposites, just as you have suggested. It would have made total sense as the original presentation was in the context of "what liberals get wrong; why liberals are wrong" and as such the second list took on the attribute of also "being wrong".

But having had that piece of thunder stolen, I will take a quick look at the thief and the logic that he uses.

Your request for a 'list' of conservative issues is almost disingenous, as you seem to imply that we are not in favor of the above mentioned items.

I believe the reverse is true: conservatives are actually more concerned and more active about bringing their ideas and implementing their policies which are usually at odds with the liberal method or the so-called conventional wisdom.

Well now, I would never have known it!! Starting with a President whose idea of international relations is "Bring it on!!". We have our own right-whinge in NZ that is taking a similar attitude to "conventional wisdom". They will stay as "H.M.'s Loyal opposition" for as long as it takes for them to learn that the "conventional wisdom" - especially on fiscal conservatism - seems to be working quite well here, thank you very much.

The equivocation that Gof1 uses to illustrate the difference is really quite endearing; the kind of explanation, amplification, that would be used by a thirteen y-o in his first attempt at formal debate. To a conservative, the absence of war is surrender. :-D Love that, I will have to remember.

I came in this door at the invitation of neo-neocon, whom I have been reading for some months now. I agree with her opinion of your art selection and "modification". The portrayal of GWB in Naoleon mode is absolutely a propos.

[Alexandra]

An interesting link from WSJ added to my main text, coming from a reader: "Why are newspapers so liberal in labeling "conservatives"?"

[weekenderman]

Wonderful commentary, Alexandra, which hits on all the important matters. :)

[Gang of One]

Probligo,

From Prager's essay:

And here is the list of one-word descriptions of what liberals are for:

Peace
Fairness
Tolerance
The poor
The disenfranchised
The environment

I wanted to clarify something -- conservatives are not against the above mentioned things. In fact, just as are liberals, conservatives want very much for those things to be a daily and continous responsibility. What has happened, IMHO, is that the left and the liberals have co-opted these terms and issues and have claimed them as their sole property. Your request for a 'list' of conservative issues is almost disingenous, as you seem to imply that we are not in favor of the above mentioned items.
I believe the reverse is true: conservatives are actually more concerned and more active about bringing their ideas and implementing their policies which are usually at odds with the liberal method or the so-called conventional wisdom.

All of these items are not the exclusive domain of liberals.
It is also worthwhile to point out here that these terms are interpreted differently by conservatives. Ask a liberal what any of these terms mean [to them] and you will get a different response from what a conservative would tell you. For example, to a liberal, peace=the absence of war; no aggresion, no violence In other words, the opposite of peace is war. To a conservative, the absence of war is surrender.
War is not an acceptable alternative for liberals; they will not fight for anything, because they believe in nothing with any deep conviction. Surrender is unacceptable to conservatives, because conservatives are willing to fight -- and die -- for their convictions.

[gringoman]

Probligo to Gringo:

I am trying to find out just what "shortlist" of attributes Alexandra might include in her world view.

You can suspect whatever you like about my weltanschaung, I only need to be asked without the long obscure words and I would give it thought. Suffice to say at this juncture that out of the first list there are none that I would use as a global description of a group and only two that I might, with proof and sufficient provocation, apply to an individual. I repeat that there is far greater satisfaction in tailoring an epithet to the individual; makes it more personal like; requires thought and an element of inspiration for the deserving as it were. Out of the second list, I think that there are none that I would omit from "what I am for".

Gringo to Probligo:

No problemo, Mr. Probligo. I'll stop "suspecting" anything, and will even cut out the big German word. Instead, I'll just request, get to it, man! The list. Give us that list. You've been talking around it. You must be zeroing in, no? That way we could see, from your perspective, what you feel we didn't get from Alexandra's perspective. (I'll bet she'd like to see what you can deliver. I would too.)

[slowtrain]

The notion that English language should not be the official and national language of the United States of America is unbelievable silly, yet completely insane. It is not liberalism, it is lunacy. The leadership of the Democratic Party is either unbelievable gullible or is exhibiting clear symptoms of “excessive group allegiance” where sentiments have completely overtaken reason.

As one with first hand experience with the deleterious effects of many official languages on democracy and unity of purpose within a nation, I must recommend that they take a trip to Nigeria, Cameroon, Turkey, Afghanistan or even Canada or at least try to study a little about all the countries of this world where many official languages undermine democracy and unity.

In the book Tribalizing America, the author wrote, “Yet there is nothing to suggest that anything—not a nation of many years of democratic existence such as America, not even an idea or principle such as democracy—is beyond erosion and destruction. To that end, no one should be under any illusion as to take for granted the threats posed by the issues of many competing common national languages. After all, just a few years ago, Canada was faced with a crisis that threatened her existence (and almost split her in two). The primary cause of that crisis was perhaps her dual national languages (and the attendant problems thereof), which inevitably created similar barriers as we have seen in less developed and less democratic countries.

In fact, in the minds of many Canadians and people outside Canada, there is a tacit assumption that there are two distinct national entities within Canada: the “English Canada” and the “French Canada.” Perhaps some day America will have a similar situation, where there will be a tacit assumption that two national entities (for example, the “English America” and the “Spanish America”) exist within the United States of America.

Many other countries faced with similar situations have not been as successful as Canada in dealing with and resolving the situation, at least so far. Countries such as Afghanistan, Indonesia, Burma, Bosnia, Turkey, Macedonia, Kosovo, Iraq, and most countries in Africa are all dogged by the problems engendered by multiple and competing languages, among other problems. In fact, the absence of a common language is the most prevalent way to create and preserve division, thereby perpetuating cultural polarization, which in turn leads to fragmentation and disunity in a nation.”

The author cited an excerpt from a news series by the San Diego Union Tribune, published on August 22, 1999, which noted that California alone is now home to recent immigrants from nearly 200 nations. This number is most likely higher for the United States as a whole. Why aren’t the democrats calling for their ancestral languages to also become official languages of the United States? I tell you why; it is because in the emerging perverted paradigm of democracy in America – the political numbers game, where politicians would go where they perceive there is money or votes and would sacrifice the essence of their country in the process. The author of Tribalizing America identified the political numbers game and politics of ethnicity that is at play in America as “enemies within”.

Language is perhaps the primary element of a society and the primary method of communication among people in the society. It is a very powerful tool that can unite or divide to the same degree. The starting point or foundation for social integration is perhaps a common language. Without it, the process would be like making bread, bricks, or concrete with little or no water. In a sense, language is equivalent to the arteries and veins (perhaps, in another sense, like the blood) in the human body, through which the essential elements are distributed, the essence sustained, and the body maintained.

Building a society on multiple languages, indeed any form of social engineering that does not emphasize a single common language in a particular society, is imprudent. The former is a recipe for disaster; the latter is an exercise in futility. Language is the most basic and common way to exclude or alienate people (or to be excluded or alienated). It is also the most basic and common way to include and integrate people. A common language establishes the first element of trust between people; it is the first sign of acceptance amongst people. Language is indeed the true passport to any country or society.

The author who was not by any means suggesting that people should not speak their secondary languages where and when it is appropriate, notes that language can as easily arouse suspicion or misperception when it is not spoken or understood by all, just as it arouses comradeship when spoken or understood by all. Having or promoting multiple common or official languages in a society is counterproductive. Not only is it very limiting and wasteful, it is redundant and divisive. It is like running in different directions at the same time. It encourages or creates unnecessary differences among people and undermines social integration and unity in diversity. The United States spends $300 million every year in bilingual education, in spite of clear evidence that children learn better when thought in English.

Whether we like it or not, the English language is more or less a transactional language and has become the official language of global commerce, science, technology and art. All over the world, people are recognizing this fact and seeking education in the English language. Studies also show that the demand for American-style education and television programming is increasing rapidly around the world. This is in part due to the realization that the English language is fast becoming the world’s language of choice by necessity. Hence, it is puzzling that America, which is largely responsible for this emerging global consciousness, by virtue of her economic dominance, seems to fail to see what the rest of the world ironically sees in her.

It must be recognized that the preexisting condition of lack of a common language undermines democracy in many countries of the world. Perhaps the greatest challenge facing the effort to build a united Europe (in the likeness of the United States of America) is lack of a common language. It must also be recognized that the preexisting condition of a common language in America at her birth (at least among the founders) or the willingness to embrace it as the common language was critical in successfully establishing the nation and the principles upon which she was founded. It remained that way, as immigrants came from all over the world, where English was not spoken: Sweden, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Denmark, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Russia, Spain, etc., and likewise all became fully integrated into the American society by virtue of the common language - English, until recently when unprincipled politicians for the sake of political and personal gains, and capitalist raiders pushing rabid capitalism for personal gains pushed the adoption of Spanish as a second language in a deal of quid pro quo for votes and profits. Now, a problem exists where there ought not and adds to the distractions from legitimate issues that beg for the nation’s attention.

[RunningRoach]

Alexandra,

Thanks. I do recall reading this post by Pat. A "real" sense of what is happening here and now needs a bit of real life history to give it some perspective. Too many "younger" people have not had an opportunity to experience such history. That is not necessarily an indictment of ignorance, just a statement of objective fact.

Regards, JCC

[Alexandra]

Probligo,

While I might take issue (on a personal level) with the above, what would be even better would be for you to put forward an equivalent list for Conservatives and Neocons [...] For myself, I can think of far better epithets that I might use if the occasion warranted. I repeat that there is far greater satisfaction in tailoring an epithet to the individual; makes it more personal like; requires thought and an element of inspiration for the deserving as it were.

Thank you for issuing tasks for me to spend my time on, but I have absolutely no intention of doing so. As for the list of terms which the author has quoted, I have been personally described with the aid of all of the above, with the only exclusion of "sexist", and the addition of others rather more derogatory such as "Nazi".

For my views on Conservatives I suggest you plow through my blog which has enough information in my written word to deduce from. Unlike a lot of others, this is not a 'copy paste' blog, therefore you should find plenty there.

I find your request particularly cheeky considering you have not even bothered to comment in any great depth or length to the post itself.

I do not even understand what point you are trying to make, other than to facetiously introduce an air of superciliousness. I very much hope that I am wrong, and reciprocally, wish you a very happy day too.

Ghost Dansing,

You are worrying me lately and making a huge amount of sense, and what is worse I find I am agreeing with you. Do you think that "liberta" in my libertarian denomination is rearing its ugly head again? I must have that ailment seen to as a matter of urgency. LOL.

NxN,

Btw. it would be holy unfair not to mention, that this phenomenon is independent of ideological or political affiliation. It's our society at large, left and right. It's our culture. But right and wrong still remains right and wrong, and some critical issues are simply dealt with in the right way by Bush and threatened to be botched up by the Democrats.

This has become an issue about the President, and has very little to do with policies anymore. There is not a single thing this man has said or done that has not been immediately covered with scurrilous accusations by the left. Even when he makes proposals on issues such as immigration, which may as well have had Senator Kennedy's name plastered all over them, he still gets hurled abuse at him. And real public opinion, the Latino man on the street? "He is a racist". Oh really, yeah right.

Running Roach,

I found this for you, to save you the trouble.

[probligo]

Gringoman,

I am trying to find out just what "shortlist" of attributes Alexandra might include in her world view.

You can suspect whatever you like about my weltanschaung, I only need to be asked without the long obscure words and I would give it thought. Suffice to say at this juncture that out of the first list there are none that I would use as a global description of a group and only two that I might, with proof and sufficient provocation, apply to an individual. I repeat that there is far greater satisfaction in tailoring an epithet to the individual; makes it more personal like; requires thought and an element of inspiration for the deserving as it were. Out of the second list, I think that there are none that I would omit from "what I am for".

Now, having said that, I will wait with interest to see what Alexandra might have to say. I hope that you have a very happy day.

[gringoman]

Probligo to Alexandra:

While I might take issue (on a personal level) with the above, what would be even better would be for you to put forward an equivalent list for -

Conservatives
Neocons

I will leave out the extremes like neo-nazi and skinhead so that you do not have to use unseemly language.

For myself, I can think of far better epithets that I might use if the occasion warranted. I find that it is far more satisfying, and much more frustrating for right-whingers, if I do not.

Posted by: probligo | Wednesday, May 24, 2006 at 10:19 PM

Gringo to Probligo:

Alexandra clearly has done her work, according to her world-view, and done it well. One suspects that your own weltanschaung differs in some respects. Might this be so? Have you considered giving us the "equivalent list" for "Conservatives" and "Neo-cons" you ask of Alexandra? Why not give it a shot? Who knows? It might be interesting.

[RunningRoach]

Alexandra,
I began to write a long commentary on your post, starting from the 60's liberals, that as an Air Force combat pilot at the time I learned to endure (tolerate), and respond to some of your readers comments, and then decided ...the hell with it! I've been through too much and around too long to know that wisdom is more than a wise-guy just getting old. The "kiddies" of today will just not get it. All I can say about you being called a Nazi is congrat's and welcome to the club.

Regards, JCC

[probligo]

Here is a list of terms liberals apply to virtually every idea or action with which they differ:

Racist
Sexist
Homophobic
Islamophobic
Imperialist
Bigoted
Intolerant

And here is the list of one-word descriptions of what liberals are for:

Peace
Fairness
Tolerance
The poor
The disenfranchised
The environment

While I might take issue (on a personal level) with the above, what would be even better would be for you to put forward an equivalent list for -

Conservatives
Neocons

I will leave out the extremes like neo-nazi and skinhead so that you do not have to use unseemly language.

For myself, I can think of far better epithets that I might use if the occasion warranted. I find that it is far more satisfying, and much more frustrating for right-whingers, if I do not.

[Ghost Dansing]

Harry Reid is wrong...English should be the official language. However, nothing of what you posted has anything to do with Liberalism...only the mythology of Liberalism spun by modern Republicanism over the past three decades.

Liberalism is an ideology, philosophy, and political tradition which holds liberty as the primary political value. Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are guaranteed. In modern society, liberals favour a liberal democracy in the form of either a republic or a constitutional monarchy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed. Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion.

Since this is a Liberal Democracy, the establishment of English as the "official" language effects primarily reasonable and practical issues of State responsiblity...i.e. the State would not be obligated to cater to the linguistic needs of all immigrants and transients.

The market, on the other hand, can and does cater to linguistic variations for the purpose of profit. English as an "official" language does nothing to prevent to attenuate that activity.

Fundamental human rights that all liberals support include the right to life, liberty, and property. In many countries, "modern" liberalism differs from classical liberalism by asserting that government provision of some minimal level of material well-being takes priority over freedom from taxation. Liberalism has its roots in the Western Enlightenment, but the term now encompasses a diversity of political thought, with adherents spanning a large part of the political spectrum, from left to right. In the context of economics, the term "liberalism" refers to economic liberalism, which is associated with the political ideology of liberalism itself.

The interesting thing about American Liberal Democracy, is that the government of and by the people is in fact the guarantor of the widest range of personal and economic liberty possible. Most so called "conservatives" have difficulties when the guarantee of freedom must be applied to "all" citizens...even the ones they don't like, like Gays, or in the past Blacks or other minorities.

One may find politicians who are Liberal embrace this or that position...however it is not the result of Liberalism per se, and one can find instances where the position is in fact not deducable within the framework of Liberal ideals.

[rich]

The Democratic Party's Foreign Policy, to the extent it has one, is oriented toward French Foreign Policy. Do you think Harry Reid is gunning for nomination to the Academy Francais?

[Saul Davis]

I think it is absolutely commendable and desirable for Democratic politicians such as Sen Reid and Rep Pelosi to continue to take positions such as Sen Reid took regarding the use of the English language as the sole National language. We should endorse further contributions by the Democratic leadership in this vein. I firmly believe that Karl Rove could not have dreamed about setting up such a scenerio as the Democratic leadership espousing such positions. It is hard to imagine anything that would invigorate the Republican base, and the vast majority of centrist Democrats, in the critical upcoming mid-term elections, than Democrat leadership stating that it is racist to mandate English as the National language. Karl Rove is enjoying Sen Reid's public statements more than anyone can imagine. Keep up the good work, Senator.

[Sonar]

Thank you for this insightful post. Like other commenters, I see the topic (connecting vocabulary to politics) leading to discussion of MSM's involvement, MSM's politics.
May I draw your attention to the adjectives chosen for politicians in the middle. Politicians registered Democrat, 'though voting with Republicans on some issues are called "traitorous", "turncoat", "vichy", "bluedog"... and politicians registered Republican, on the occasions they vote with Democrats are called "moderate" or "progressive".

[North by Northwest]

Alexandra,

I read yesterday a silly rant which, like a bad song, got stuck in my mind. After reading your post, my thoughts were perfectly synthesized. It's your typical example of a liberal argument verifying the veracity of your post.

Part-1 is a short and swift assertion that Bush is...

....on the wrong side of America's very founding. He's at the other end of the scale with J.S. Mill, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison on the one end -- Hegel, Hitler, and Stalin on the other

The rest is a lengthy but not much coherent rant on the constitution, peppered with anti-Bush sound-bites.

Bushism, however, flies in the face of the Magna Carta, the English Petition of Right, the Mayflower Compact, The Virginia Declaration of Rights, The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, The Nuremberg Principles, and every Supreme Court decision that has upheld the right of persons to be secure in their homes.

Our founding is at the derivation of the world "liberal" which, significantly, is demonized by the state absolutist minority that makes up Bush's dwindling base.

For State absolutists power trickles down. The individual is not free but literally licensed by the all-powerful state. Freedom in this situation is reduced to whatever the state will allow. The American tradition is quite the opposite; it is a different paradigm. In America, the people are sovereign; and just as Jefferson described so accurately, the government derives its power from the people themselves. Freedom does not trickle down. With the ratification of the Constitution, this principle ceased to be mere theory. It is, in fact, the law!

With the Constitution, the "divine rights" of rulers was consigned to the dust bin of history. And so too, should Bush's state absolutism, a mere variation on the tired old theme of absolute state power.

The U.S. Constitution is, in fact, a "contract" between the state and the people. Monarchists, totalitarians, and other state absolutists will never recognize that principle. In our Democracy, the government does not merely tolerate a certain degree of individual liberty; rather, individual liberty is the only reason governments are empowered. The protection and preservation of those rights is the sole duty and responsibility of those in power. To do otherwise, amounts to a breach of contract. That is why Bush must be impeached. He has broken the contract.

There is nothing remarkable about this version, other than the sad fact, that it is so widespread. Variations revolve around the same mindless sound-bites, "Bush lied, People died"; "Bush spied, Constitution died". In short, the quality of political discourse and debate across party lines has been reduced to the exchanges witnessed on the Jerry Springer Show.

The depressing fact behind all this is, that if a Democratic President had acted in the exact same way as the President did, it would have been ignored. Not because it is a partisan cover up, no, because it is a non-issue, it's always been a red herring. If you listen to the rhetoric, you'd think we are about to dismantle congress and usher in an absolute monarchy. Sound-bites in a sound-bit society can do that. Absolutely amazing.

Btw. it would be holy unfair not to mention, that this phenomenon is independent of ideological or political affiliation. It's our society at large, left and right. It's our culture. But right and wrong still remains right and wrong, and some critical issues are simply dealt with in the right way by Bush and threatened to be botched up by the Democrats.

[Gang of One]

Iris a.k.a la gringa says:

Not only that, but English is the language of science and diplomacy (something the French don't want to admit...)

It is also the language of international commerce and of international aviation.

When I lived in Mexico, I taught English to mid- and high-level management in places such as Grupo Aurera [who are in joint-venture with Walmart], Siemens [the German electronics giant], Nestle de Mexico, and to the CEO of Lucent Technologies Mexico.
It is interesting that Mexicans in Mexico are more than willing, able and eager to learn Ingles, knowing full well that their and their nation's future is heavily dependant upon it. Yet the dims and the multiculti hand-wringers HERE are having cows about attempts to make English the official language of government. They will bray and they will exhort, to no use. They will scream and holler their vitriol and madness as they fade from the scene altogether, finding themselves covered by the dirt and debris of history's dung-heap. I saw the same thing happen to the PRI in Mexico in the late 80s and 90s and when Fox won the Presidency in 2000.
Enjoy the view and have fun watching these fools, clowns and whores implode.

[Iris]

RJBJ,

English is not like Spanish (my native tongue, I'm Hispanic...) or French, both having official "Academies" keeping the languages pure from "Anglo" corruption (I think German also tries, even though I don't know if they have an official academy...) English is actually allowed to evolve and "borrow" from others, which is more that can be said for the false imposition of purity in Spanish and French.
I, whole heartedly, agree that English needs to be the official language of the country, just like Spanish is the official language in Hispanic America and Spain. A people need to be able to communicate with each other. It is one of the measures of national identity. That does not mean that other languages cannot be spoken and used in the home and community, it just means that government business will be conducted in a common understood language. Not only that, but English is the language of science and diplomacy (something the French don't want to admit...) it is to the advantage of anyone throughout the world, if they are going to learn a second language to learn English... so go right ahead, call me a ginga, I'm proud of it!

[David]

Congratulations Alexandra. And my sincere thanks to Dennis Prager for putting into such eloquent words the gnawing feeling I've had in my gut since 1992: The joy of being called a Nazi by leftists with a decreasingly tacit sympathy for those who want to slaughter every Jew in Israel ('Neo-con' is the liberal code word for 'Jew-lover', didn't you know that?). Not to mention their support for socialized healthcare, banning private arms ownership, speech codes, state-funded art, medical experimentation bordering on eugenics... shall I go on? How does a thinking man compete with such compact, marketable pseudo-intellectualism? How about this - a bumpersticker that reads, "If my philosophy fit on a bumpersticker, I'd be a Democrat."

[Jeremayakovka]

fyi, none of the following words appear in the Declaration of Independence or in the Constitution: Racist, Sexist, Homophobic, Islamophobic, Imperialist, Bigoted, Intolerant, Fairness, Tolerance, Poor, Disenfranchised, Environment

("Peace" does appear three times in the Declaration and times again the in the Constitution and Amendments.)

[RJBJ]

Well said El Gringo: "Languages of course constantly evolve."

That's why "keeping English as a unified language" doesn't really have much to do with language, does it? I wouldn't call it outright racist. I'd call it outright scared, the push for which has nothing to do with keeping immigrants from crossing our border. It has everything to do with the fear of an "illegal horde" (which just happens to be a brown, "illegal horde") that supposedly threatens to dillute our culture, whatever that may be.

Is the discredited "Yellow Armbands" story still being peddled around these parts?

[gringoman]

Alexandra,

Excellent outline of today's verbal warfare. Of course, the real national language today is Liberalese, despite recent challenges from New Media, Talk Radio etc. The loony left gets to put down the "wingers" of the right and crow about Haliburton and the "evil capitalists" while on the take from a billionaire money-changer like George Soros and others. LibSpeak is in fact so dominant, that no conservative alive---and certainly no Republican---can keep from going on the defensive against it. Eg. A few might whisper about "accountability," "personal responsibility", "illegal hordes" etc, but they better get on board with the "compassion" and dumbed-down mantras or risk being fatwah-ed as a no-good Nazi. Marvelous game. Rather cunning. "Goebbels for a good cause." It can only be played in a society where everyone's brains have been scrubbed and washed well with politically correct soap. The Dems and their media enablers and campi have created that society, and know exactly how to drag in the Pubs, even the reluctant Pubs. Sanctimony and cant have never had it better. Languages of course constantly evolve. So too with Liberalese. LibSpeak was one thing under FDR. But we can see the dramatic change even from the last Kennedy to wear a military uniform. Is there any doubt that one of JFK's celebrated lines would now be turned inside out by his younger sibling, the powerful swimmer who bloviates in Liberalese, Senator Teddy?............

Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country can do for you.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

["The Mohammed Code." Now]

[Darrell]

The short answer is "yes!"