I think I can say that, on balance, this epithet has worked against those who have used it. It is nasty, and really not interpretable in any way except that of being a mean spirited attack, and symptom of a deep-seated anger, which usually passes well into the terrain of outright hatred. Many ordinary people, seeing it repeated over and over, realize that it originates not with moderate people who simply differ from them on tactics, but people who are really very different from them: people who do not share their values, their tendency towards civility, and who reject outright the olive branch of reasoned, ad hominem-free debate on matters of great concern to all of us.
For their part, Leftists have simply deployed an old tactic–demonization–without the slightest bit of thought. It is a reflex with them, and from their perspective, it works. Everyone around them is using it. They are attacking the right people. How could anything be wrong with it?
Clearly, use of this epithet is a synchronizing signal for the faithful, telling them their cause is just, and that of their foes venal, nasty, and–worst of all–deviant (as seen from the position of the perfectly candid and always wonderful, even if ever-changing, Left). Deviancy, for the conformist, is the worst of all possible crimes. If you doubt this, look at how anyone who failed to conform perfectly was treated in any Communist nation. Take Doan Van Toai: he questioned, legitimately, the behavior of a superior, and found himself in a concentration camp, in a cage, eating rice with sand in it. This happened to someone who had actively supported the Communist cause for years.
What I think Obama and the Left have failed to grasp–they are still giggling among themselves about the gullibility of the American electorate–is that this wave of conservatism is not like any that has happened before. The stakes are higher than they have ever been. We have never elected a Communist before. We have never ran deficits in peacetime like this before. We have never had a major network willing to question the Leftist orthodoxy with “boldness”.
The people whose minds are turning against Obama, and by extension the Democrats generally, will not be turned back by a few speeches. They will not be turned back by a few apparently moderate gestures, that mean nothing. They have changed qualitatively. They have learned history. They have studied the issues. No amount of Leftist leveling propaganda will undermine this, among those who have woken up and begun to think for themselves.
Yes, there remain many stupid and ignorant people out there, who will remain as an audience for the networks which dish out the unbalanced treatments of all the major issues of the day. But Fox will not do anything but continue to grow. It is the only source for many important news events. It is the only place both sides are given equal treatment. And Glenn Beck is the only one offering up contextualizing history, to help understand the events of the day.
And obviously Leftists hate him for this.
My question for any reading this is: why not debate him, if he is wrong? As far as I can tell, he open to all takers. Certainly I am. Pick any topic. If I have a strong opinion, I will defend it. I have tested my ideas in open debate hundreds of times. My faith is not shaky in the slightest.
Calling people names only convinces them of your moral and intellectual bankruptcy. It’s a cute little inside joke, but if the goal is to change minds, it changes them in the direction one would think you were trying to avoid. But that is a rational analysis, isn’t it? That is why Leftists can’t use this commentary. They can take this one point, and stop using that word. But to take the larger point would be to open themselves up to the possibility of change, of the notion they could be wrong. Those who do that will rapidly find they are no longer Leftists. And those who don’t, as I said, will be unable to grasp the abstract idea here.
13 replies on ““Teabaggers””
"never ran deficits in peacetime like this before"…um, yeah, too bad we're still at war
"Calling people names only convinces them of your moral and intellectual bankruptcy"…yes, but calling people Communists makes you right, without question
If I call someone who sells shoes a shoe salesman, is that objectionable? Communism is an identifiable philosophy that has been expressed historically, and has resulted in more violent and unnecessary death than any creed in human history.
Would you like me to review with you the reasons I am using that word? Do you need exposure to basic facts readily obtainable with little effort in the public domain? I will gladly help with your education.
With respect to our wars, Iraq and Afghanistan are not within an order of magnitude of World War One or Two. And both were much hotter when Bush was in office. Spending has decreased.
At the rate Obama is running annual deficits, servicing our debt will exceed the Defense Dept. budget within 5-6 years.
Obama will have increased our deficit more in 4 years than Bush did in eight, and Bush spent WAY more than he ought to have.
Your turn.
Sure, go ahead and explain why our president is a communist, I don't believe it, but clearly you do
Just because Iraq and Afghanistan aren't on the same scale as world war one or two does not make either of them any less a war–nor does whether they were hotter under Bush do they become any less a war
What was the Federal deficit last year, and what was it the last year under Bush? Or in 2002, in the midst of a massive recession? Are you capable of the simple exercise of reason? 2 is larger than 1, correct? One deficit that is twice another is twice as bad, or is math done differently where you come from?
As far as Communism, let me ask you this: do you believe there have EVER, at any point, been individuals in this nation who were Communists, but who denied it? Harry Dexter White, for example? Or Alger Hiss?
Is it possible, or did the mere existence of Joseph McCarthy make it impossible that anyone in public office could secretly be Communistic?
Your statement was with regards to deficits in peacetime, I'm simply trying to clarify to you that we are not in peacetime because we are in two wars, however instead of discussing that, you decide to try to belittle by insuating that I can't add and don't know the deficit is higher now than it was before…nice, juvenile, but nice
So, again, instead of actually explaining how the president is a communist, you just post silly questions, flexing the question. Interesting…
Was any part of my question unclear: is it possible for prominent public officials to have secret sympathy for the Communist goals of a global socialist hegemony? It's a yes or no question, and if you are unintelligent, the reason I ask it is that one must first admit that it is possible, before any further discussion is even possible.
As far as the deficit, the problem is that it is LARGE, INCREASING, and doing so at a rate virtually unconnected to the two wars which we are winding down, with combat operations in Iraq having officially ceased months ago, and with Afghanistan costing far less than what we pay annually in interest payments.
The point being made is that large deficits are bad, and that the only way to eliminate them are by some combination of raising taxes and reducing the size of government. Since the Federal Governmant has exploded far beyond the bounds set for both by the Constitution and prudence, the latter solution is the preferred one, and Obama is not the man for that job.
Nearly one trillion in our deficits is related directly to his farcical union handout plan, that he sold very cynically as a "Stimulus" package. Didn't work under Bush, and the much larger package under Obama did nothing either.
We can't spend more than we earn forever, and if we soak up all the profit, then we cause economic decline.
Obama, far more than any President in comparable conditions in American history, is bankrupting us. What part of this is unclear to you?
Here, since you're having trouble with my question, let me go slower:
1) Are we, the USA, at war with anyone? If so, with whom?
2) Please explain how Obama is a Communist. And, since it seems like the only way to move you along, the answer to your question is yes.
Yes, of course we are war with someone. You are dilating on pedantic details like a thought-starved child. Does that have anything to do with the larger question of our national debt?
We spend some $130 billion annually on the entirety of the War on Terror. Obama's "Stimulus" package was nearly $800 billion alone. Once you factor in our contributions to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which need to be eliminated, you are getting into the trillions again. Our deficits are in the $1.5 trillion range, and they are GROWING.
Comparatively, let me as this: are we running deficits under Obama that are substantially higher than under Bush, who was fighting the same wars? This is a basic question. The answer is yes, which leads to this question: why does the big point here escape you? Do you think you are being clever?
With respect to Communism, yes to what? Let me put the question this way: is it POSSIBLE Obama is secretly an admirer of some form of the Marxist doctrine as developed into a political subversion system by first Nechaev and then Vladimir Lenin?
I see people ask me to prove things whose possibility they are not even willing to accept in principle, since they are closed minded ideologues. That is a thankless task.
More generally: are there Communists in this nation right now trying to end our Republican system of government? For example, members of the Communist Party of the USA?
As far as Obama, the simple fact is that his biological father and mother were Communists; his grandparents who raised him from age ten on seem to have been Communists; a key influence in his youth was a literal member of the Communist Party; he sought out radicals–by his own admission–in college; his most important political influence–by his own admission–was Saul Alinsky, who was a Communist; his minister, Jeremiah Wright, is a de facto Communist; his friend Bill Ayers is a Communist (everybody knew they were friends, and only Orwellian doublespeak has obscured this fact; Ayers wanted him specifically on some of the groups he worked with, and got him); Obama was on the left wing fringe of both the Illinois Legislature and the U.S. Congress; and Obama has surrounded himself with Communist admirers as President.
Plainly, he was surrounded by radicals throughout childhood, and has continued to seek them out as an adult. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, chances are overwhelming it is a duck. This is common sense.
It has been my experience, with digging, that most people who deny he is a radical also wouldn't care if he was. They don't understand history. They don't understand how much human misery has been created by Communism, and how much WORSE it has ALWAYS been than whatever it replaced.
My goal with regard to my question on national deficit is that we are not in a time of peace so your comparison doesn't make any logical sense. Compare apples to apples. Obviously, we our debt is higher than during peace time.
Is a growing national debt bad, well yes it is.
In terms of national debt relative to gdp, we are not actually the worst we've ever been. Like you are so apt to point out, google it and you can see this fact plainly.
You still haven't given me evidence that Obama is a Communist. All you've done is say, he is a Communisty because he was around Communists. I was looking for hard facts, you haven't provided them yet.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that Communism is bad, it is. So you can skip any further statements to that fact and just provide hard evidence that Obama is a Communist.
My apologies for not referencing the question to which my yes answer was meant: "do you believe there have EVER, at any point, been individuals in this nation who were Communists, but who denied it? "
Considering the quote of yours I used in my first post: "Calling people names only convinces them of your moral and intellectual bankruptcy" I find it odd, and rather funny, that you would decide to call me a "thought-starved child."
You don't seem to want to debate. You are making pedantic points, that seem to indicate either a fundamental petulance, or intellectual incoherence that is normally indicative of low intelligence.
Are we or are we not spending too much money? Are we or are we not spending substantially MORE money than we did under Bush, fighting the same wars? These are the questions.
As far as Obama being Communist, I can't prove Obama is a Communist. That task doesn't interest me. The only proof people like you would accept is him coming out and saying it, which he manifestly won't do.
Will you agree that he has not provided even the most rudimentary information that would be required for a security clearance in any branch of the military or the intelligence community?
Will you further agree that he has chosen his entire adult life to surround himself with political radicals?
Here's a former friend of Obama who claims they were both communists in college:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/12/obamas_missing_link_1.html
Actually the guy uses the phrase Marxist/Leninist, but I think that's close enough to communism for your purposes.
That's no surprise, but thanks for posting that.
Most people who have been to college know Obama's type. They litter the Humanities and Poly Sci departments.
If I knew the Columbia scene, I could probably even tell you what coffee shops–other than the one listed by his supposed ex-roommate–he hung out at.
His radical past is so patently undeniable that literally the ONLY defenses his friends can offer are open attacks on the conversation itself and those who want to conduct it, and marginalizing truth-speakers by not granting them access to media outlets with broad audiences. IF the conversation ever happens, it will not be good for Obama. The evidence is damn near incontrovertible, although it does not reach the level of the "proof" disingenuous people demand.
The core point is that someone with his past should NEVER have been put in the White House. His actual constituency is only a very, very small segment of the American population, and includes NONE of middle class he supposedly cares about. Union workers are middle class, yes, but he only cares about them for the access to power that unions grant him, meaning the only people he REALLY cares about are Union BOSSES, who are NOT middle class. They make really good money.