I'm in agreement. The new America: Ask not what you can do for your country but rather, what your country can do for you.
Please excuse the cut & paste but it's a good read
The Liberal Gloat
By ROSS DOUTHAT
Published: November 17, 2012 660 Comments
WINNING an election doesn’t just offer the chance to govern the country. It offers a chance to feel morally and intellectually superior to the party you’ve just beaten. This is an inescapable aspect of democratic culture: no matter what reason tells us about the vagaries of politics, something in the American subconscious assumes that the voice of the people really is the voice of God, and that being part of a winning coalition must be a sign that you’re His chosen one as well.
This means the losing coalition must be doomed to wander east of Eden, and liberals have been having a good time with this idea of late. “Those poor, benighted Republicans!” runs the subtext of their post election commentary. “They can’t read polls! They can’t reach Hispanics! They don’t understand women! They don’t have a team of Silicon Valley sorcerers running their turnout operations!”
Back in 2011, the Obama White House earned some mild mockery for its “win the future” slogan. But now that the president has been re-elected, the liberal conventional wisdom is that the Democrats have done just that - that Republicans are now Radio Shack to their Apple store, “The Waltons” to their “Modern Family,” a mediocre Norman Rockwell to their digital-age mosaic.
Maybe it’s too soon to pierce this cloud of postelection smugness. But in the spirit of friendly correction - or, O.K., maybe curmudgeonly annoyance - let me point out some slightly more unpleasant truths about the future that liberalism seems to be winning.
Liberals look at the Obama majority and see a coalition bound together by enlightened values - reason rather than superstition, tolerance rather than bigotry, equality rather than hierarchy. But it’s just as easy to see a coalition created by social disintegration and unified by economic fear.
Consider the Hispanic vote. Are Democrats winning Hispanics because they put forward a more welcoming face than Republicans do - one more in keeping with America’s tradition of assimilating migrants yearning to breathe free? Yes, up to a point. But they’re also winning recent immigrants because those immigrants often aren’t assimilating successfully - or worse, are assimilating downward, thanks to rising out-of-wedlock birthrates and high dropout rates. The Democratic edge among Hispanics depends heavily on these darker trends: the weaker that families and communities are, the more necessary government support inevitably seems.
Likewise with the growing number of unmarried Americans, especially unmarried women. Yes, social issues like abortion help explain why these voters lean Democratic. But the more important explanation is that single life is generally more insecure and chaotic than married life, and single life with children - which is now commonplace for women under 30 - is almost impossible to navigate without the support the welfare state provides.
Or consider the secular vote, which has been growing swiftly and tilts heavily toward Democrats. The liberal image of a non-churchgoing American is probably the “spiritual but not religious” seeker, or the bright young atheist reading Richard Dawkins. But the typical unchurched American is just as often an underemployed working-class man, whose secularism is less an intellectual choice than a symptom of his disconnection from community in general.
What unites all of these stories is the growing failure of America’s local associations - civic, familial, religious - to foster stability, encourage solidarity and make mobility possible.
This is a crisis that the Republican Party often badly misunderstands, casting Democratic-leaning voters as lazy moochers or spoiled children seeking “gifts” (as a certain former Republican presidential nominee would have it) rather than recognizing the reality of their economic struggles.
But if conservatives don’t acknowledge the crisis’s economic component, liberalism often seems indifferent to its deeper social roots. The progressive bias toward the capital-F Future, the old left-wing suspicion of faith and domesticity, the fact that Democrats have benefited politically from these trends - all of this makes it easy for liberals to just celebrate the emerging America, to minimize the costs of disrupted families and hollowed-out communities, and to treat the places where Americans have traditionally found solidarity outside the state (like the churches threatened by the Obama White House’s contraceptive mandate) as irritants or threats.
This is a great flaw in the liberal vision, because whatever role government plays in prosperity, transfer payments are not a sufficient foundation for middle-class success. It’s not a coincidence that the economic era that many liberals pine for - the great, egalitarian post-World War II boom - was an era that social conservatives remember fondly as well: a time of leaping church attendance, rising marriage rates and birthrates, and widespread civic renewal and engagement.
No such renewal seems to be on the horizon. That isn’t a judgment on the Obama White House, necessarily. But it is a judgment on a certain kind of blithe liberal optimism, and the confidence with which many Democrats assume their newly emerged majority is a sign of progress rather than decline.
The Liberal Gloat
By ROSS DOUTHAT
Published: November 17, 2012 660 Comments
WINNING an election doesn’t just offer the chance to govern the country. It offers a chance to feel morally and intellectually superior to the party you’ve just beaten. This is an inescapable aspect of democratic culture: no matter what reason tells us about the vagaries of politics, something in the American subconscious assumes that the voice of the people really is the voice of God, and that being part of a winning coalition must be a sign that you’re His chosen one as well.
This means the losing coalition must be doomed to wander east of Eden, and liberals have been having a good time with this idea of late. “Those poor, benighted Republicans!” runs the subtext of their post election commentary. “They can’t read polls! They can’t reach Hispanics! They don’t understand women! They don’t have a team of Silicon Valley sorcerers running their turnout operations!”
Back in 2011, the Obama White House earned some mild mockery for its “win the future” slogan. But now that the president has been re-elected, the liberal conventional wisdom is that the Democrats have done just that - that Republicans are now Radio Shack to their Apple store, “The Waltons” to their “Modern Family,” a mediocre Norman Rockwell to their digital-age mosaic.
Maybe it’s too soon to pierce this cloud of postelection smugness. But in the spirit of friendly correction - or, O.K., maybe curmudgeonly annoyance - let me point out some slightly more unpleasant truths about the future that liberalism seems to be winning.
Liberals look at the Obama majority and see a coalition bound together by enlightened values - reason rather than superstition, tolerance rather than bigotry, equality rather than hierarchy. But it’s just as easy to see a coalition created by social disintegration and unified by economic fear.
Consider the Hispanic vote. Are Democrats winning Hispanics because they put forward a more welcoming face than Republicans do - one more in keeping with America’s tradition of assimilating migrants yearning to breathe free? Yes, up to a point. But they’re also winning recent immigrants because those immigrants often aren’t assimilating successfully - or worse, are assimilating downward, thanks to rising out-of-wedlock birthrates and high dropout rates. The Democratic edge among Hispanics depends heavily on these darker trends: the weaker that families and communities are, the more necessary government support inevitably seems.
Likewise with the growing number of unmarried Americans, especially unmarried women. Yes, social issues like abortion help explain why these voters lean Democratic. But the more important explanation is that single life is generally more insecure and chaotic than married life, and single life with children - which is now commonplace for women under 30 - is almost impossible to navigate without the support the welfare state provides.
Or consider the secular vote, which has been growing swiftly and tilts heavily toward Democrats. The liberal image of a non-churchgoing American is probably the “spiritual but not religious” seeker, or the bright young atheist reading Richard Dawkins. But the typical unchurched American is just as often an underemployed working-class man, whose secularism is less an intellectual choice than a symptom of his disconnection from community in general.
What unites all of these stories is the growing failure of America’s local associations - civic, familial, religious - to foster stability, encourage solidarity and make mobility possible.
This is a crisis that the Republican Party often badly misunderstands, casting Democratic-leaning voters as lazy moochers or spoiled children seeking “gifts” (as a certain former Republican presidential nominee would have it) rather than recognizing the reality of their economic struggles.
But if conservatives don’t acknowledge the crisis’s economic component, liberalism often seems indifferent to its deeper social roots. The progressive bias toward the capital-F Future, the old left-wing suspicion of faith and domesticity, the fact that Democrats have benefited politically from these trends - all of this makes it easy for liberals to just celebrate the emerging America, to minimize the costs of disrupted families and hollowed-out communities, and to treat the places where Americans have traditionally found solidarity outside the state (like the churches threatened by the Obama White House’s contraceptive mandate) as irritants or threats.
This is a great flaw in the liberal vision, because whatever role government plays in prosperity, transfer payments are not a sufficient foundation for middle-class success. It’s not a coincidence that the economic era that many liberals pine for - the great, egalitarian post-World War II boom - was an era that social conservatives remember fondly as well: a time of leaping church attendance, rising marriage rates and birthrates, and widespread civic renewal and engagement.
No such renewal seems to be on the horizon. That isn’t a judgment on the Obama White House, necessarily. But it is a judgment on a certain kind of blithe liberal optimism, and the confidence with which many Democrats assume their newly emerged majority is a sign of progress rather than decline.
It's when we start making them enmasse that they become a societal problem. And may be even a death knell.
Hark back to those days of yesteryear when the mighty Rush sayeth " I am an entertainer, I am here to entertain you with opinion and commentary on events and politics", I don't think anything there has changed except his bank account.
I didn't see anything there that speaks to the makeup if the House. Or are all the cited groups blowing those lections off. To me they are at least as important as the presidential election.
And I agree with Dave Ramsey and others that contend education has raised it's own price until there is no way for it to be cost effective vs the costs of student loans, etc.
I also believe there are individuals who have no need for a 4 year college.
There are some very high paying jobs that have absolutely no educational requirements.
The best I can tell neither party has any kind of mandate.
In two years that may change,
But in this election right now, the American electorate, form all ages, races, creeds & religions, voted for gridlock.
In answer to the original premise.
Does he still make a profit?
If he does, the answer is no.
Does he still make a profit?
If he does, the answer is no.
Last edited:
Great article that articulates very well what most of us have been trying to say but get shouted down or made to seem idiotic by the libs.
Thanks for posting. Where was it published?
America gone? No way is it over....it wasn't over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!
I guess the best indicator of Limbaugh's America being gone will be when he stops showing up in the general discussion forum at gun forums.
All this worry about the younger demographic being more liberal is overblown. The younger generation has always been more liberal. Then they get a job, get married and have kids and their positions tend to change. It has been this way for some time: “If you're not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you're not a conservative at forty you have no brain.” -- Winston Churchill
So just think about this. Rush's older, more conservative demographic is approaching 70. So the same generation that gave us Woodstock, free love, sex, drugs, and rock and roll is the same one that listens to Rush Limbaugh?
So just think about this. Rush's older, more conservative demographic is approaching 70. So the same generation that gave us Woodstock, free love, sex, drugs, and rock and roll is the same one that listens to Rush Limbaugh?
JB I thought for a minute that Rush was now writing for the NYT under the pen name of Thomas B. Edsall. That is until he comes completely off the rails with his very last sentence, that brings it right back to where the libs are. WRONG.
Like Rush has said for years "look at the actual results of the left's policies" (paraphrased). Edsall was writing exactly what Rush has been preaching for years, and as is usual with libs he gets the meaning completely wrong.
Like Rush has said for years "look at the actual results of the left's policies" (paraphrased). Edsall was writing exactly what Rush has been preaching for years, and as is usual with libs he gets the meaning completely wrong.
Last edited:
Ahhhh....
.....there's nothing like gun forum pontification in the aftermath of an election, which in itself is an explosion designed to destroy. But, what really gets destroyed?
Likely, the truth. There has been talk among some that there is a fourth quintile of voters that can have a major effect on an election. Many view this group as those that vote on a candidate based on superficial reasons instead of reason. Not many here will remember, but back when Nixon debated Kennedy, Nixon declined to allow makeup to be applied for the television debate. Because of that, Kennedy looked more fit, tanned and natural than how Nixon looked.
Even in this years debates, there were different outcomes in opinion of who won the debates, based on whether those opinions were based on television viewing, radio listening, or transcript reading. Shoot....the fourth quintile may even choose what a candidate's hair looks like rather then their political philosophy or experience governing a nation/state.
As for Rush, of those that have trashed him so badly, I wonder how much of his show has anyone actually listened to and observed. In the industry of talk radio, a host needs to acquire an audience that will listen to him (or her) for as much as 6 to 8 weeks before the listener actually "gets it." A typical listener can go from being a curiosity seeker to a thoughtful listener to an irate opponent because of what has been heard and then end up being a committed advocate after they have listened enough to really get the full measure of the radio host and his message.
As for the OP's first posting, let's face it.....it was the New York Times. Another of the waning industries in this country because they are having trouble getting ad revenue and reader subscriptions.
Oh, and yes, I am one of those guilty of being involved with gun forum pontification.
.....there's nothing like gun forum pontification in the aftermath of an election, which in itself is an explosion designed to destroy. But, what really gets destroyed?
Likely, the truth. There has been talk among some that there is a fourth quintile of voters that can have a major effect on an election. Many view this group as those that vote on a candidate based on superficial reasons instead of reason. Not many here will remember, but back when Nixon debated Kennedy, Nixon declined to allow makeup to be applied for the television debate. Because of that, Kennedy looked more fit, tanned and natural than how Nixon looked.
Even in this years debates, there were different outcomes in opinion of who won the debates, based on whether those opinions were based on television viewing, radio listening, or transcript reading. Shoot....the fourth quintile may even choose what a candidate's hair looks like rather then their political philosophy or experience governing a nation/state.
As for Rush, of those that have trashed him so badly, I wonder how much of his show has anyone actually listened to and observed. In the industry of talk radio, a host needs to acquire an audience that will listen to him (or her) for as much as 6 to 8 weeks before the listener actually "gets it." A typical listener can go from being a curiosity seeker to a thoughtful listener to an irate opponent because of what has been heard and then end up being a committed advocate after they have listened enough to really get the full measure of the radio host and his message.
As for the OP's first posting, let's face it.....it was the New York Times. Another of the waning industries in this country because they are having trouble getting ad revenue and reader subscriptions.
Oh, and yes, I am one of those guilty of being involved with gun forum pontification.
Similar threads
