The Death of Conservatism, Part 2
What do you get when 55 rich white landowners gather to form a more perfect union, establish justice and ensure 
domestic tranquility? A system that to this day protects the interests of the very rich! One of the main reasons George Washington was chosen as the first president was because he was in fact the richest man in the country (from hemp farming among other things) and was expected to protect the interests of the elite.
This entailed slavery, not empowering women, defining Native Americans as savages, blacks as barely human, and ensuring that only landowners could vote. Suppression of the poor and 
disenfranchised was endemic to the system. To this day (particularly) the so-called Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of corporate interests and against the individual in case after case. They've also ruled against affirmative action -- ignoring years of systemic racism that still exists to a disturbing degree. Several members of the current High Court are aggressively (and some would say heartlessly) determined to further empower the powerful and diminish -- and in some cases ridicule -- the rights of the people. We the People.
To be continued...
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
NYDamien posted 06:19 pm on 09/14/2007:
"Things like slavery were the common wisdom of the time."
My friend, what you've written is an apology for what has happened, and a poor one at that; it's no defense to say 'everyone else was doing it at the time.' I sympathize, though. It appears drawn from the same kind of history I was taught, in which "World History" and "Western History" are synonymous terms.
Have you ever read or heard of Howard Zinn? He's a historian I highly recommend. You could learn a lot about the resistance to the very idea of slavery that began right with the first importation of Africans in 1611.
Slavery was not the "common wisdom of the time," as your phrase glibly glosses over the sufferings of the enslaved and those who sought their freedom. Slavery was the FOLLY of the time.
What's our common folly? That we have any right whatsoever to preventive wars? That American intervention is always benevolent, or at least benign? For example, Bush's recent Vietnam obfuscation. 'Oh, if only we had made more war....(si
As if the titanic tonnages of bombs we can daily drop are actually seeds from the Tree of Life itself! And our naked emperor wonders why we are reaping the hatred of the world.
Maybe the folly of our time is the hubris that it's our manifest destiny always to be the global good guy. 'Hubris, a concept going as far back as ancient Greece itself... (Can you tell I'm doing my best John Hodges of the Daily Show impression? No? I'll try to be drier than dry, then.)
By your logic, is it now the common wisdom of our time that the president can wiretap without a warrant? Order torture and disappear opponents into secret prisons around the world? Freeze assets on the mere suspicion of the Treasury Secretary? And all the other violations of our civil liberties?
What a foolish interpretation of my words. The author of our Constitution owned slaves. Did Franklin march in the streets condemning slavery? It's unyielding, doctrinaire idealists like you that put the Mutant into the White House twice by eating your own. A Pragmatist, WITH Ideals, Like Clinton, gave us the best 8 years of our generation.
Wake up. Win! Then change all you want.
Whoa, calm down, hasn't anyone ever disagreed with you? Would you also use a hatchet to swat a fly from a friend's extended hand?
My intent is to point out a use of an old and disproven canard like "slavery was the common wisdom" in the context of the article by Mr. Belzer. You say he is twisting the meaning; I say you would benefit greatly from reading Howard Zinn. Doing so might prevent such a faux pas as trying to whtitewash slavery on this site.
Yes, Jefferson not only owned slaves, he fathered at least one child with Sally Hemmings. So now you argue that slavery was "the common wisdom" because Jefferson did it? It was the common wisdom because Franklin didn't march in the street? And the hypocrisy of saying "all men were created equal" and then spelling out several categories explicitly less than equal, that's ok with you, too?
You wrote:
"White landowners WERE smarter than the others because there was no public education at that time. The landowners, because they had the money, hired teachers and formed the first school, albeit for their families, not the public at large."
Because the public were the very people excluded from the political process! They had no say in how the wealth created by their labor was invested in their community.
Your use of "albeit" makes my point.
You use it to whitewash the real relationship between the landowners and everyone else. That same relationship obtains today. THAT'S Belzer's point.
"Wake up. Win! Then change all you want." So first we grab the levers of power, is that it? Then we can do good? Haven't you noticed how revolts start out well-intentioned, then degrade? This is how the wheel of samsarra, of sorrow and suffering, is turned, my friend.
We don't need to wait to win to change society. We won't change society by extrinsic means (as in using one hand to make the other hand type), either. We are already changing society _from within_.
Peace be with you. And maybe some decaf.
Right On! Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States" should be required reading.
Agreed, but as a college instructor, sometimes I'd settle for The Pop-up Book of American History. You have to at least know the basics before Zinn can sink in, and too many people don't even have that.
Richard you are a patriot.
I can easily sense your disgust with King George and his minions.
In your life when has our country been hated by so many countries?
It will seemingly last forever, at least in my lifetime.
Thanks for your fervent words.
Arianna is fortunate to have you as a pal.
Wow, the insurgents where rich white guys, what a different world we live in.
not much evidence here that the "poor" are capable of self government. or reading history.
hamilton, by the way, was not killed for his politics exactly, he was killed because he accepted a duel with a man whose character he routinely impugned.
burr, the man who killed him, had among other character faults finding a way to get the vote for non property owners in new york, advocating the rights of women, and working for the rights of negroes. in that last activity he was joined by.. hamilton.
but here's the kicker: all you poor folk out there outnumber the rich by ten to one. shouldn't take too much smarts to win an election now and again... even if you have to figure how to keep them from stealing it.
the rich may not "deserve" to make the rules. but those who do what it takes to be the ones who make the rules can generally make themselves rich.
Great point.
One can only wish that conservatism was dead.
Sadly it is not.......
Religion is the root of all evil.
Jack Jett
I am not a very religious person-but I would disagree with Jack Jett's statement "Religion is the root of all evil."
If not for what I call "real religion"--we might well still have slavery or at least much diminshed rights for many of our citizens.
It was religious people who fought against slavery and later, the segregationist, Jim Crow laws that most of our nation imposed in order to keep down citizens with black skin---
Most of what passes as "religion" and "Christianity" today is just a bastardized version and those who use that banner--to my mind are just one more group who seek to control the levers of power--using the banner of religion is an effective means of attaining what they seek.
MP
I'd amend Jack's statement.
Religion AND money are the roots of all evil.
Sons
Rich why don't you use your whatever it is that you have to get people talking about impeaching one of the fascists on the "supreme" court? There is a precedent. Roberts and Alito both lied during their confirmations that they would steadfastly defend precedent which they have in fact aggressively opposed ie brown v board of ed and others. Even if we can't impeach one of those bastards maybe we can get them thinking about watching their behavior even a little.
Funny how GWB sold himself as a good ol boy rancher when in reality he's just the latest in a long line of the elite ruling class.
Put on a pair of cowboy boots, clear some brush and all of the sudden another phony star is born. Oh, and don't forget he has his Daddy's elitist name to take him over the top.
and don't forget his grandfather had been a U.S. Senator, and President Franklin Pierce was on Bab's side of the family phonepole.
very well written. now we see the results of this unchecked capitalism started by these farmers and enhanced by Reagan’s deregulation who is the very god of the neo cons.
they don’t realize it but Reagan put the finishing touches on our form of capitalism but it will take time for this to play out.
Wont happen until the middle class in America is almost nonexistent. repubs working on that now. Doing their best to wipe out the middle class while the middle class line up to vote for them. Got to love ignorance.
unchecked capitalism will self destruct like communism did.
and Reagan gets the credit for bringing down the wall. read groby's book he wanted a socialists economic system like Germany not like united states capitalism where it is designed to enhance the wealth of the few.
most of middle class America still buys into the neo con ploy of the trickle down theory. while the wall streeter’s get rich, most middle class Americans work two jobs and then go out and vote repub.
the bill of rights did not come into existence until they were forced to do it. history tells us that those that have the gold make the rules until they get their heads chopped off.
hopefully ours will be a voter revolution and not a bloody one. time will tell. sometimes those in charge of a bloody revolutions are worst for the people than the previous liars and thieves.
The neocon elite are indifferent to the poor, except as a source of cheap labor and a wedge to excite the passions of the middle class. In fact they rather like the poor. They fear and loathe the middle class - who are an intolerable drain on their coffers and an obstacle to utopia.
or as Archie Bunker called it: "the tinkle down theory"
In New Orleans they call it:
"Trickling our our backs and telling us it is raining.
"To this day (particularly) the so-called Supreme Court has consistently ruled in favor of corporate interests and against the individual in case after case. They've also ruled against affirmative action -- ignoring years of systemic racism that still exists to a disturbing degree. "
NEARLY always consistantly ruling against the individual. But there have been rare instances when the individual won. Brown, Roe, and Lawrence vs. Texas.
Of course these rare glimmers of advancement for Blacks women and queers to determine OUR own lives, are the cases we will lose in the Roberts/Alito Bush picked Court.
Those nominations which Republicans selected and a handful of Democrats granted ,meant as a gay man I have NO JUSTICE, hence I armed myself.
The turned gentle angry people into angry people.
Another defining piece, Richard. Brilliant and clear.
Rich people in general don't get told "NO"! It makes them into monsters. We are misled now by that very type.
It's all about the pluralist movement in America. It's hard to balance between strict, full "government by the people", which would entail an almost town-meeting type governance, and complete monarchy. Majoritarian theory makes the assumption that most people want to participate in the government and are knowledgeable to participate. Unfortunately, the way our society is evolving (devolving seems like a more accurate depiction but isn't because it's the technological and advances in popular culture which are taking this country down its precarious path) people for the most part do not participate, and the ones who do articulate their concerns for the wrong reasons. Monarchy was not an option--that's what we had just thwarted. So a pluralist system was set up, where the elites are supposed to "represent" (see: representative democracy) the interests of their constituents. But this system only works when the society in general is aware and realizes when their interests are NOT being met, when the interests of corporate political parties are being catered to. That's where our democracy has failed us. Washington is as much of a figurehead as Bush. His competence as a general and his leadership as President are questioned by scholars who don't write the 6th grade textbooks which ingrain a sense of deity and idol worship on this slaveowner.
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,
But in ourselves, that we are underlings
Bring representative democracy back to America! Take the streets! Go to a protest! I know I'm preaching to the choir, because anyone who is reading this at least cares to SOME degree, but it's about time America mobilized and took our God Damned Country back.
écrasez l'infâme!
Gee, Richard, are you just figuring out that the world of 250 years ago wasn't quite as enlightened as it is today?
You criticize George Washington for, among other things, not "empowering women." Well, if that's your central point, you're absolutely right. He also failed to bathe regularly, didn't floss, ate red meat, kicked his dog, believed in a Divine Creator, and had a nasty temper.
Again, Washington was more enlightened than Charlemagne, and Churchill was more enlightened than Washington. What's your point?
Richard, the words are substantially correct, but I think you interpret and skew the meanings somewhat. Things like slavery were the common wisdom of the time. The war was fought for independence from England, not human rights. They felt that the only way tyranny wouldn't return was to vest all power in "we the people." But with that they felt that voters had to be smart enough to understand the issues. White landowners WERE smarter than the others because there was no public education at that time. The landowners, because they had the money, hired teachers and formed the first school, albeit for their families, not the public at large.
Washington was chosen as the first President not so much because he was rich but because they were looking for a strong figure to replace the King and General Washington fit the bill perfectly.
They were not completely oblivious to the shortcomings you mentioned however. They fought over most of those things in the numerous constitutional conventions and congresses convened. Give them a break. They tried the best they could. They did form our Constitution, our LIVING Constitution. They had an excuse, they had no prototype to follow.
What's our excuse now?
NO kidding.
It was rich white men who actually conceptualized and implemented, as a matter of government policy, the ABOLITION of slavery.
Certain parts of the world to this day (need I name the continent?) still practice and condone it.
Question for Richard:
Where is your draft constitution? How would you craft a government? Since you seen to think our current document is essentially useless...
That doesn't negate the fact that it was rich white men who actually maintained and fought to maintain the legality of slavery.
And slavery wasn't common wisdom at the time. That's why there's so much documentation to ensure slaveowners that it was okay. Rich white men decided they needed workers they wouldn't want to pay long before a Catholic priest announced that Africans had no souls and were therefore not human and it would be okay to enslave them. They had to convince themselves that it was okay! It wasn't "common wisdom."
Now, I do think our Constitution is fine as is, if only people would actually defend it.
Because judging someone from 200 years ago through modern ethical standards makes total sense.
I think you're being sarcastic, in which case, I disagree with you very much. Right is right, and wrong is wrong. It has nothing to do with history. There's never been a moment in history when those who were being wronged didn't protest. The fact the no one listen only means no one listened. It doesn't mean protests were made.
The societal values of the late 18th century cannot be judged through the lenses of 21st century western values. That's called projection, and it is a disingenuous way to analyze history. All we can do is acknowledge what did or did not happen, and that's it. Its not for us to judge the mores of 12 generations ago.
There's no question some new legislation will have to be enacted, and presidential power doctrines revisited upon the demise of this current evil empire.
But alas, this Evil Man and his coroborato
MARCH ON WASHINGTON SAT. SEPT. 15TH 2007 12 NOON COMMENCING NATIONAL WEEK OF ACTION TO END THE WAR/IMPEACH BUSH/CHENEY
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
