conservatives and history

[liberalitch]

Am I the only one who has noticed that Neo-cons actually know little if anything about history?

Okay, today.... i co-worker of mine.... also a teacher... said that she hated all of the NEW LIBERAL traditions that we have regarding immigration.... like:
1) Marry a citizen and you can stay
2) Drop a kid and you can stay (no separation of mom and child and child is citizen de sanguine.... of the blood)
3) and last but not least.... asylum.

...eh, i may be cheating.... being a history teacher but....
1 & 2 have been in place since the early 1800's and 3 was a consideration after the unification of Germany drove many anti-militarists out of Germany....

Where do they get this stuff?

What others have you heard?

[lutherj]

1. Separation of Church and State

The "religious" right is trying to assert that it is not in the constition, and was never intended by the founding fathers. I heard Bill O'Reilly pushing this one on Fresh Air.

[Sandpiper]

4. Then I wonder, why the omission

Of any reference to deity, or religion (other than no religious test for office) in the constitution.

Must have just slipped their minds I guess.

[liberalitch]

5. OOOps....

that 's right they really meant for us to have a theocracy.

[yardwork]

2. It would be quicker to list the things they get right.

It's not a new problem, either.

Back in the mid-1970s I had a high school history teacher who had a map with every country in the world that was socialist, communist, or anything other than pure capitalist colored red. Of course the Soviet Union and China were big huge red blobs. Canada was also red, as was Britain, all the Scandinavian countries, you get the picture.

His argument was that the U.S. had an obligation to invade Angola and prevent it from going red. When I said I thought that was a bad idea, he asked me, in a scathing tone, if I would change my mind if "every other country on the map was red except the U.S. and Angola." Since they pretty much all were red, I took it to be a rhetorical question.

Same teacher also had a number line on the board with "communist" on one end and "democracy" on the other end. I tried to point out that this was like comparing apples and oranges and one could, conceivably, have a democracy that chose communism as their economic model, but I got shut up fast.

I'm surprised I didn't get sent to the principal's office.

[clonebot]

8. conceivably but definetly not practically

remember that britain tried a form of socialized industries with a representative parliment and it just flopped until thatcher privatized. british air and steel (just too name two) went from last place in europe to the some of the best if not THE best performing in europe.

there are too many internal contradictions in a democratic socialist society, and secondly keep in mind that any country that has attempted it isnt a loose confederacy of smaller states with other agendas. they already had a centralized national gov't calling the shots and they were the size of delaware.

and completely socialized healthcare is tough sell as well. privatized health honestly creates alot of doctors who are willing to fill highly specialized positions, i.e. neurologists, cardiologists. it is interesting to note that here in california our health care costs actually aren't that high since we cap the amount that defendants get in malpractice suits. but then again thats only a correlation, it is highly debatable. also you are lucky if the government wants to use taxpayers money to fund extremely expensive procedures (mri's, radiology) not to mention find doctors who are skilled enough and modest enough to work in that field and earn a fraction of what u.s. doctors in the same line of work earn.

as far as welfare goes there is really only one organization here in the u.s. i can think of that does a really good job of maintaining a fine welfare system and that is the mormon church. when i was in the u.k. it was nice not having to really worry too much, knowing there were lots of opportunities to get assistance. the only thing is, you have to literally deal with being a second class citizen. and i dont mean like in the u.s. where you have a massive gap between rich and poor and dynasties like the bushes or the kennedy's. im talking about being a commoner verses nobility, and if you arent used to it (as i was, being an american) it really hit home.

but america managed to muck up that too. they created a second class citizen - its called "everyone who isn't white".

ok, i don't know how i get so off topic.

[mikey_1962]

3. If it makes you feel better...

the Neo-cons probably thinks she's an idiot too

[liberalitch]

6. to which I am sure that she is....

joyfully oblivious

[ieoeja]

7. "All schools used to be run by churches."

During the two decades between the death of King George II and the beginning of the American Revolution, the new Privy Council under King George III made drastic cuts in the funding of public education (sound familiar**?) and launched a propaganda campaign against public education in the colonies that claimed it was a failure, etc (sound familiar**?). In correspondence released decades after the councilors were safely in their graves it was revealed that they were actually upset because public education worked all too well. They reasoned that a well educated populace was more likely to rebel than one accustomed to letting their "betters" do the thinking for them. Therefore, they launched this campaign to undermine the people's confidence in public education.

How could the English have set out to destroy public education in the colonies if there was no public education to destroy as today's talk radio claims?

And, of course, Thomas Jefferson fought vigorously for the continuance of public education when American conservatives wanted to shut it down following the revolution. Why do historical arguments against Conservatives always seem to come down to quoting Jefferson?

**It appears that some conservatives DO learn from history. It is the rank-and-file who let their "betters" do the thinking for them that have failed to learn history.

[ieoeja]

9. "It is not a Right if it is not in the Constitution"

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
-- 9th Amendment

[Redleg]

10. They use history the way Hitler and his cabal used it.

As a way of glorifying their own agenda by aligning it with great historical figures of their own country. Hence the GOP referring to itself as the "party of Lincoln."

[ieoeja]

11. "States are responsible for everything not in the Constitution."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
-- 10th Amendment

The same cons who push this argument actually use the 10th Amendment to justify their position. So clearly they are aware of its existence and at least a portion of what it says. So this is more a matter of reading comprehension than history as they fail to read the amendment fully to see that powers not belonging to the States belong instead to the people. And, with the exception of the 2nd Amendment, "people" in the Constitution has ALWAYS been interpreted as referring to each individual.

Cons claim they, not Libs, are the true guardians of the 10th Amendment. So let us consider each sides position on various alegedly States Rights issues.

Segregation - Libs oppose state laws that challenge individual rights

Medical Marijuana - Cons oppose state laws that provide individual rights

Abortion - Libs oppose state laws that challenge individual rights

"Right To Die" - Cons oppose state laws that provide individual rights

In each of these instance where Libs have used Federal Power against a State law, Libs were protecting the constitutional rights of individuals. In each of these instances where Cons have used Federal Power against a State Law, Cons were NOT protecting the constitutional rights of individuals. So we have no constitutional basis for the Cons actions against State Laws, while the Libs actions do have a constitutional basis.