Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Our age?
A few posts ago I ended with the line "This is the age we live in." There were a few thinkers in the last century who would agree that an age has past, and that something new is arriving. I am not thinking of the fatalistic Teutons: Spengler, Hegel, etc. I am thinking of men like the reactionnary historian John Luckas and chronicler of decadence Jacques Barzun.
The question I am wondering about is more narrow that the above paragraph would imply. Has the U.S. entered a new age? The liberal reaction to the War in Iraq and the elite indifference to military service are new fashions in our history. And yes they are fashionable, disgustingly so.
Specifically, I have in the back of my mind a thought that this is our Augustan Age and it will be brief. That we have the power to massively influence the world, but our will is failing. In 20 years, the American people will just not be up for sending troops into the Sudan. But we could do it now, and we should. As time progresses, prosperity and the easy life will push us to the European mindset.
Therefore, now we need to push for democracy in the Middle East. We need to undermine the Mullahs and the Chi-Coms. Because we need to have middle-class democracies surrounding us when we go soft.
Any thoughts?
The question I am wondering about is more narrow that the above paragraph would imply. Has the U.S. entered a new age? The liberal reaction to the War in Iraq and the elite indifference to military service are new fashions in our history. And yes they are fashionable, disgustingly so.
Specifically, I have in the back of my mind a thought that this is our Augustan Age and it will be brief. That we have the power to massively influence the world, but our will is failing. In 20 years, the American people will just not be up for sending troops into the Sudan. But we could do it now, and we should. As time progresses, prosperity and the easy life will push us to the European mindset.
Therefore, now we need to push for democracy in the Middle East. We need to undermine the Mullahs and the Chi-Coms. Because we need to have middle-class democracies surrounding us when we go soft.
Any thoughts?
Comments:
<< Home
In a word...no. Elders bitching about their youngers is no new thing. But, of course, you knew that.
So, what is the issue? That we, as Americans, have become to soft to fight for freedom? Your average American would disagree with that. Bush WON re-election, don't forget that. That election was won on one issue-- and only one-- that being, should we fight, and sacrifice, for freedom. America said yes.
Please specify your concerns. If its just that Americans no longer have the will to fight-- well, the latest elections and asking you local bartender should disuade you of you liberal (d)illusions.
So, what is the issue? That we, as Americans, have become to soft to fight for freedom? Your average American would disagree with that. Bush WON re-election, don't forget that. That election was won on one issue-- and only one-- that being, should we fight, and sacrifice, for freedom. America said yes.
Please specify your concerns. If its just that Americans no longer have the will to fight-- well, the latest elections and asking you local bartender should disuade you of you liberal (d)illusions.
In a word...no. Elders bitching about their youngers is no new thing. But, of course, you knew that.
So, what is the issue? That we, as Americans, have become to soft to fight for freedom? Your average American would disagree with that. Bush WON re-election, don't forget that. That election was won on one issue-- and only one-- that being, should we fight, and sacrifice, for freedom. America said yes.
Please specify your concerns. If its just that Americans no longer have the will to fight-- well, the latest elections and asking you local bartender should disuade you of you liberal (d)illusions.
So, what is the issue? That we, as Americans, have become to soft to fight for freedom? Your average American would disagree with that. Bush WON re-election, don't forget that. That election was won on one issue-- and only one-- that being, should we fight, and sacrifice, for freedom. America said yes.
Please specify your concerns. If its just that Americans no longer have the will to fight-- well, the latest elections and asking you local bartender should disuade you of you liberal (d)illusions.
I guess impatience warrants posting information at least twice eh?
Sadly, the 'new age' you speak of, is not that new. That is to say that the mindset that is involved today was most definitely involved yesterday via the likes of Hanoi Jane Fonda and her freedom-hating cronies. In my opinion, it has become fashionable to not do research on issues such as the No Child Left Behind Act and the USA PATRIOT Act and then bitch and complain about how it affects your daily life.
God help us! The federal government has been given the proper tools to do their job! If anyone should be able to complain about the 'infringement' that these liberal pricks would suggest it is the conservatives and select libertarians. Get real.
The will of a collective nation is not failing, but being snubbed out by fashionable practices of the liberal mindset. That needs to be solved to a degree, however, it is that same liberal mindset that keeps the right side fighting the good fight. By and large, the military is getting a bum rap as of late due to the fact that most with the liberal mindset would have you believe that in order to join the military you must eat babies.
The problem areas that have been suggested here, (and there are many more, I am sure) have been problems for at least as long as we have been alive. This is history in Iraq, the people are given their country for the first time, and the liberal mindset wants you to believe that the country would have been better off without our (read that as the willing) interventions. Unfortunately, due to an affirmative action type of agreement somewhere on the Hill, liberals and hippies and other such pricks must be allowed to have a voice. That is truly a shame.
Sadly, the 'new age' you speak of, is not that new. That is to say that the mindset that is involved today was most definitely involved yesterday via the likes of Hanoi Jane Fonda and her freedom-hating cronies. In my opinion, it has become fashionable to not do research on issues such as the No Child Left Behind Act and the USA PATRIOT Act and then bitch and complain about how it affects your daily life.
God help us! The federal government has been given the proper tools to do their job! If anyone should be able to complain about the 'infringement' that these liberal pricks would suggest it is the conservatives and select libertarians. Get real.
The will of a collective nation is not failing, but being snubbed out by fashionable practices of the liberal mindset. That needs to be solved to a degree, however, it is that same liberal mindset that keeps the right side fighting the good fight. By and large, the military is getting a bum rap as of late due to the fact that most with the liberal mindset would have you believe that in order to join the military you must eat babies.
The problem areas that have been suggested here, (and there are many more, I am sure) have been problems for at least as long as we have been alive. This is history in Iraq, the people are given their country for the first time, and the liberal mindset wants you to believe that the country would have been better off without our (read that as the willing) interventions. Unfortunately, due to an affirmative action type of agreement somewhere on the Hill, liberals and hippies and other such pricks must be allowed to have a voice. That is truly a shame.
# posted by 
: 12:16 AM
: 12:16 AM
I think Minus came closest to articulating my point when he wrote:
"The will of a collective nation is not failing, but being snubbed out by fashionable practices of the liberal mindset."
Except I would delete the phrase "snubbed out" and substitute "superceded by." There is a point in the development of a capitalist economy where materialism and affluence combine to weaken the idealism that founded the economy in the first place. The perfect example is Europe.
The Harvard kids do not join the Army. That is weird. Even in Vietnam scores of Harvard grads joined. This is the curse of affluence. The benefit is that the powerful see materialism and snobbery as defining characteristics, instead of oppression and power.
Now would it be great if everybody was happy and soft? Probably. But we are not there yet. And the U.S. has to keep pushing freedom as long as it is has the will to do so.
"The will of a collective nation is not failing, but being snubbed out by fashionable practices of the liberal mindset."
Except I would delete the phrase "snubbed out" and substitute "superceded by." There is a point in the development of a capitalist economy where materialism and affluence combine to weaken the idealism that founded the economy in the first place. The perfect example is Europe.
The Harvard kids do not join the Army. That is weird. Even in Vietnam scores of Harvard grads joined. This is the curse of affluence. The benefit is that the powerful see materialism and snobbery as defining characteristics, instead of oppression and power.
Now would it be great if everybody was happy and soft? Probably. But we are not there yet. And the U.S. has to keep pushing freedom as long as it is has the will to do so.
I am curious as to your comments regarding the Harvard kids. Was the original intent one of mockery? Everything that I have ever read concerning the Crimson Sissies is a different story entirely.
With numbers such as 94% of the entire Harvard class (seniors) not in agreement with the US policies in Vietnam, and another small amount trying to join the reserves as an 'easy way out' (and only skipping the country if their respective units were called to action), how can the statement you made be anything but mockery?
An example of said fashionable practices can be found in the former 42nd. Draft dodging has been fashionable for at least that long. A promise was made and subsequently broken to a man who saved Slick Willie from the draft. For all intents and purposes, I will consider that an upper-echelon failure in itself, however, the issue is not that at the moment.
Clinton had his draft notice rescinded, was/is no stranger to perjury (and was disbarred because of it), denied an extradition order for bin Laden at least 3 times that I can remember off of the top of my head, made it fashionable to argue with the Republican controlled Congress, was able to bring about the shutting down of the Federal Government because of said arguments, did a grand job with Waco (sarcasm intended), was impeached (and acquited, I know) and this man gets his own library funded in no small part by the Saudi Royal Family and is further idolized as the greatest president ever. I have my doubts. This man ranks right up there with Hanoi Jane Fonda due to his runnings with a front organization for the KGB. Hippie makes it big scream the headlines.
This was not meant to be an attack on just one person that bleeds fashionable liberal practices, rather it's just an example of one of many.
This man is the product of Georgetown, Oxford and Yale, none of which are known for their conservative ideals. What a disappointment the liberals and associated dems are.
With numbers such as 94% of the entire Harvard class (seniors) not in agreement with the US policies in Vietnam, and another small amount trying to join the reserves as an 'easy way out' (and only skipping the country if their respective units were called to action), how can the statement you made be anything but mockery?
An example of said fashionable practices can be found in the former 42nd. Draft dodging has been fashionable for at least that long. A promise was made and subsequently broken to a man who saved Slick Willie from the draft. For all intents and purposes, I will consider that an upper-echelon failure in itself, however, the issue is not that at the moment.
Clinton had his draft notice rescinded, was/is no stranger to perjury (and was disbarred because of it), denied an extradition order for bin Laden at least 3 times that I can remember off of the top of my head, made it fashionable to argue with the Republican controlled Congress, was able to bring about the shutting down of the Federal Government because of said arguments, did a grand job with Waco (sarcasm intended), was impeached (and acquited, I know) and this man gets his own library funded in no small part by the Saudi Royal Family and is further idolized as the greatest president ever. I have my doubts. This man ranks right up there with Hanoi Jane Fonda due to his runnings with a front organization for the KGB. Hippie makes it big scream the headlines.
This was not meant to be an attack on just one person that bleeds fashionable liberal practices, rather it's just an example of one of many.
This man is the product of Georgetown, Oxford and Yale, none of which are known for their conservative ideals. What a disappointment the liberals and associated dems are.
# posted by : 9:16 PM
: 9:16 PM
Well, Clinton is a lefty draft-dodger. But Sen Kerrey is a lefty who went to war. That was not that unusual then. And I would wager that the 94% number is post 1968 when everything shifted.
Your main point I would agree with. And that is the problem. The elites who dominate this country need a sense of patriotic duty. They have lost that. This will trickle down to the masses.
Your main point I would agree with. And that is the problem. The elites who dominate this country need a sense of patriotic duty. They have lost that. This will trickle down to the masses.
The 94% is, in fact, 1968 proper. Not surprising in the least. Fashionable. Kerry went to war, and subsequently lied about his service there. Where is the honor in that? He is no different and no better than either Slick Willy or Hanoi Jane.
Your comments offer a glimmer of hope that the elitist set will somehow gain a sense of patriotic duty. I am willing to be that is more far-off than you may think. To achieve patriotism, you must first have pride and a sense of nationalism (in my opinion). Left in Clinton's wake was one half of a bi-partisan system that claimed a more centrist attitude, yet nearly abandoned its 'original support' of the proletariat. Now, you are faced with a role reversal in which the 'evil' conservatives are supporting the proletariat (a role which I believe was present all along). The dems need a major overhaul of their so-called representatives and associated party due to the liberal sentiment. I would be ashamed to call myself a democrat in today's world, if for no other reason that merely being called a dem automatically associates me with the liberal set.
Post a Comment
Your comments offer a glimmer of hope that the elitist set will somehow gain a sense of patriotic duty. I am willing to be that is more far-off than you may think. To achieve patriotism, you must first have pride and a sense of nationalism (in my opinion). Left in Clinton's wake was one half of a bi-partisan system that claimed a more centrist attitude, yet nearly abandoned its 'original support' of the proletariat. Now, you are faced with a role reversal in which the 'evil' conservatives are supporting the proletariat (a role which I believe was present all along). The dems need a major overhaul of their so-called representatives and associated party due to the liberal sentiment. I would be ashamed to call myself a democrat in today's world, if for no other reason that merely being called a dem automatically associates me with the liberal set.
# posted by : 11:47 PM
: 11:47 PM << Home
