I’ve previously written about the right trying to co-opt liberal leader Martin Luther King for their own cause, attempting to make him their own without regard to the actual history. In that same vein Mahablog catches cons attempting to make one of the most liberal presidents in history, FDR, a conservative hero. Once again, the facts disagree. But we should ask: why do they keep trying to do this? There’s clearly some sort of deficiency with the con icons why they think its a good idea to steal ours.
Republicanism is a dualistic religion, at its heart, the battle between the current hero/Big Brother, and the devil, always Bill Clinton. The default hero is St. Reagan, who has all sorts of stuff attributed to him (improving the economy, defeating the Soviets) that he didn’t do and of which he wasn’t aware, but every few years there is a new hero. Until recently the new hero was George Bush Jr., but Bush has fallen out of favor because, well, 70% of the country disapproves of him, and they need some of that 70% to get and keep power. The basic tenet of Republicanism, of course, is power, and if the political climate changes radically, they’ll change saints to reflect those now in power.
Anyhow, they usurp MLK and FDR because both are popular and dead. Since they are popular, they do not want the masses to associate them as being against such popular figures, and since they are dead, neither is around to complain about Republicans claiming their legacy as part and parcel of modern Republicanism (power at all costs). Obviously, there are other specifics (for example, being against MLK means being against civil rights, and openly being against civil rights puts the GOP against the suburban voters who are their real base, but one willing to be swayed), but that’s the basic idea.
Conservatives ALWAYS usurp popular liberal heroes for their own.
Just look at Jesus.
The default hero is St. Reagan, who has all sorts of stuff attributed to him (improving the economy, defeating the Soviets) that he didn’t do
Well..he did. The myth is that he didn’t.
Just look at Jesus.
There are always people looking to usurp Jesus. That includes those who offer the twisted logic that while they don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God, they believed him to be a wise teacher.
Such a viewpoint makes no sense.
I’ll admit that compared to the current conservative leadership Reagan looks like Captain America and King Arthur rolled into one.
But can you name another conservative hero besides Reagan, Jay? One who has stood the test of time?
the twisted logic that while they don’t believe Jesus is the Son of God, they believed him to be a wise teacher.
WHAT?
Blink.
Blink.
So you just said–please, please correct me if this is not how you meant it–that somebody who doesn’t consider Jesus the Son of God cannot logically consider him a wise teacher.
If I think Socrates was a wise teacher, then must I also believe he was the Son of God?
How about Mr. Cox, who taught my sophomore year history class. He was a hell of a teacher. Was he also, in fact, the SON OF GOD?
Explain this comment, Jay, or amend it. It’s ridiculous on its face.
So you just said–please, please correct me if this is not how you meant it–that somebody who doesn’t consider Jesus the Son of God cannot logically consider him a wise teacher.
That is what I said.
If I think Socrates was a wise teacher, then must I also believe he was the Son of God?
How about Mr. Cox, who taught my sophomore year history class. He was a hell of a teacher. Was he also, in fact, the SON OF GOD?
The last time I checked, Socrates never claimed to be the Son of God. If your sophomore history teacher claimed to be the Son of God, I sincerely doubt he would have been teaching shortly thereafter.
Here’s the thing: If Jesus is not the Son of God, then he’d have to be crazy. Perhaps I wasn’t clear enough, so I’ll let C.S. Lewis explain:
“I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg – or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”
That’s from ‘Mere Christianity.’
Lewis’ reasoning makes sense only if you accept the selected writings we call “The Bible” as authoritative. Most people who do so studiously avoid examining who authored those writings and when.
Sorry, Jay, I left out some context. I was responding primarily to this:
The last time I checked, Socrates never claimed to be the Son of God.
There are many Biblical scholars who insist that Jesus never made that claim either.
Lewis’ reasoning makes sense only if you accept the selected writings we call “The Bible” as authoritative.
No it doesn’t. It’s the very people who do not accept the Bible as authoritative that label Jesus as a ‘great or wise teacher’ or ‘a moral model.’
There are many Biblical scholars who insist that Jesus never made that claim either.
Actually it is a few Biblical scholars that make such claims in that Jesus never spoke of himself as the Son of God in a sense other than that in which any righteous persons might call themselves “sons” or “children” of God.
However, in the Old Testament, people spoke in the name of God, while Jesus spoke by his own authority. In addition, He claimed to hold the power to forgive sin, a power that was held by Jews as something only God could do.
Your statement is correct, but your logic is inside out, Jay.
It’s the very people who do not accept the Bible as authoritative that label Jesus as a ‘great or wise teacher’ or ‘a moral model.’
That’s correct, and also precisely my point. Lewis’ reasoning starts from an assumption that the Bible is authoritative in the statements it attributes to Jesus. Without that assumption, Lewis’ reasoning falls apart.
Sorry, Jay, I left out some context. I was responding primarily to this:
That did make it clearer. Thanks.
Second post–I agree on all, except for the characterization of “a few”.
Reagan only improved the economy if creating a classical bubble counts, and he didn’t defeat the Soviets, they defeated themselves. Pointing at he Berlin Wall did not cause the breakup of the USSR.
That is what I said.
That is retarded.
However, in the Old Testament, people spoke in the name of God, while Jesus spoke by his own authority. In addition, He claimed to hold the power to forgive sin, a power that was held by Jews as something only God could do.
And there’s the crux (no pun intended) of the matter.
If you interpret this to mean that Jesus was speaking and acting with the authority of God-on-Earth you come to one conclusion. If you interpret this to mean that Jesus demonstrated what was within the power of ordinary humans, you arrive at an entirely different conclusion.
That is retarded.
And Duros, please don’t use that as a term of disparagement. I’m asking as a favor.
sorry.
No problem and thank you.
Not only FDR and MLK, but they have also tried to co-op Truman and JFK of all people. All four despised the ideology that modern Republicanism represents.
Speaking of replacing Jesus, the other Republican hero, Rev. Moon who has spent a couple of billion supporting Republican ideology says he is the New Jesus. Out with the old, in with the new. Save your nappies, Jay.
Quite right, Mike. To get back to the topic at hand, it’s clear that Jay would rather spout mindless chunks of casuistry from C.S. Lewis than rise to the challenge of naming some genuine conservative heroes.
All the heros of our past were the liberals of their day. That includes Jesus. This is because history consistently proves that the conservatives are always wrong.
Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it, and so are those who hold their hands over their ears and say “la la la la” whenever the word “history” is mentioned.
I meant what I said.
Jesus had some pretty darn liberal views and yet the religious right has no compunctions invoking his name to try and inflict their theocratic agenda on the rest of us.
Meanwhile, James Dobson and Jerry Falwell are working on getting a camel thru the eye of a needle.
Reagan did not improve the economy — from peak to peak, the economy of the 1980s was no better than the economy of the 1970s.
And he did not defeat the Soviets either. Reagan endorsed the Team B estimates, which overestimated the Soviet strength versus what the CIA said — and even more than what the Soviets turned out to have at the time. Overspending did help (along with bad weather and the lack of arable land in Russia) defeat the Soviets — Kennedy’s and Johnson’s. (Incidentally, I think both men also spent too much on the military as well as Reagan.)
Anything else is a myth.
And Reagan (or, more to the point, his cronies) gave nukes to the Pakistanis. Defend that.
Jesus also had some very conservative viewpoints. The liberal way of bragging about how much they supposedly care for and give to the poor is in direct contradiction to what Jesus taught regarding giving. So please, stop trying to give Jesus an ideology. He didn’t have one.
As for conservative heroes, there are plenty:
Milton Friedman
John Locke (He rolled over in his grave when those twits on the Supreme Court handed down their Kelo ruling)
Alexander Hamilton
John Jay
James Madison (The Federalist Papers are the polar opposite to just about everything liberals espouse with regard to the role of the federal government)
And Mike, JFK did the one thing that liberals are never supposed to do: he lowered marginal income tax rates. IE, he cut taxes for THE RICH. Bad bad Kennedy.
As for conservative heroes, there are plenty
Hmm… one college professor (who apparently was appalled at Bush’s unfunded tax cuts) and four guys from the 1700’s.
Maybe you should add Hippocrates: he was anti-abortion all the way back in 450 BC.
All those guys were progressive for their own times. The conservatives in John Locke’s day believed in the divine right of kings and in dispossessing Scottish peasants.
Friedman? He was well respected even by many liberal economists, but only worshipped by the Grover Norquist wing of the 30-percenters. Most Americans probably have little idea who he is.
And JFK? That’s a good one. Do you honestly believe that if JFK were alive today he would agree with you about anything? Get real.
JFK’s tax cuts can be called “conservative” only if you believe the lie that liberals oppose all tax cuts all the time.
Your citing of him shows just how far you have to stretch to find any “conservative” from recent history who can be called a “hero” without making people gag.
Oliver should thank you for proving his point for him.
I didn’t site JFK as a conservative hero Wilbur The Addlepated.
JFK’s tax cuts can be called “conservative” only if you believe the lie that liberals oppose all tax cuts all the time.
Liberals are opposed to marginal tax rate decreases. Always have been. As such, JFK’s rate reductions, which cut the top rate, would have been assailed by liberals as nothing but “tax cuts for the rich.”
As for “four guys from the 1700s”, greatness transcends time. Ideas and philosophy are more important than worshiping at the altar of somebody like FDR and LBJ who while making excellent contributions to society (FDR’s leadership during the war, LBJ and his push for civil rights) both contributed heavily to the bloated government we have today and programs that have helped to foster a society that will have a permanent underclass forever dependent on the government teat. It’s not something to be proud of or boast about.
“So please, stop trying to give Jesus an ideology. He didn’t have one.”
Hey, Jay what did Jesus say about torture? He was all for it, right?
“Liberals are opposed to marginal tax rate decreases. Always have been. As such, JFK’s rate reductions, which cut the top rate, would have been assailed by liberals as nothing but ‘tax cuts for the rich.’”
Would have been? Were they? Or are you comparing liberals now to liberals then?
Because if you are, the sentence above need a few more qualifiers otherwise you just sound like an idiot.
Oh wait, you wrote, “Always have been.”
Okay, Jay, so if liberals have always been opposed to tax cuts, please find us evidence that liberals decried Kennedy’s tax cuts as ‘tax cuts for the rich.’ There’s no would have about it. Either they did at the time or they didn’t.
Does LBJ have an altar?
Diamond mentioned “Team B” and Reagan, but it really should be pointed out just which bunch of nefarious bastards made up “Team B:”
Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle
and they had cheerleaders pushing their agenda:
Donald Rumsfeld
Dick Cheney
That would be the same Rumsfeld who had no problem selling arms and chemical agents to evil Saddam.
The story of “Team B” and how they manipulated, twisted, and just plain made up intelligence to support a massive military build up under Reagan (along with funneling arms to the Middle East and South/Central America) by touting an “evil empire” that hated our freedoms is painfully familiar.
Of course, an inconvenient fact ignored by the cons in their mythologizing about Reagan and the Soviets was that all that military build up on the part of the U.S. had no effect on Soviet military spending. We simply poured money into the military welfare system with no discernible benefit other than padding some wallets while draining most everyone elses.
Someone wanted more conservative heroes?
Newt Gingrich
Pat Robertson
Reagan
Dare I say George Allan
Walter Mondale**
Oh, the founding fathers… but they were all racists and bigots right?
John Kerry is a hero to all of our stupid troops, and probably to George Bush too.
When the Democrat foolishly send Hillary Clinton up to bat in ‘08 she will be my hero.
A couple others:
Mitt Romney**
Rudy Guliani
John Roberts**
Sen. McCain
Dubya
No more than every other wealthy white male on Earth at the time.
Oh, wait, I’m meant to be the EXTREEMIST LIBRUL aren’t I?
“Addle-pated”? Rubber and glue, Jay, rubber and glue.
No, you didn’t claim Kennedy as a conservative hero, you simply defended the notions of those who do.
Liberals are opposed to marginal tax rate decreases. Always have been.
That is a gross oversimplification. It seems to escape you that JFK is an excellent counter-example.
JFK’s rate reductions, which cut the top rate, would have been assailed by liberals as nothing but “tax cuts for the rich.”
Your “would have been” here tells me that you don’t actually know how people at the time responded to the Kennedy tax plan. It’s not that hard to find out. Many liberals did oppose it, but many did not. Some of the strongest opponents were actually conservative business interests. Why? because they recognized that Kennedy’s tax cuts were not a supply-side giveaway but part of a comprehensive program of demand-side stimulus.
Ever notice, Jay, how reality always turns out to be a bit more complicated than your pat theories?
As for “four guys from the 1700s”, greatness transcends time
Yes, and what made these men great the revolutionary ideas that made them the progressives of their day.
Trying to ascribe modern political notions and theories to men who lived 300 years ago is both misleading and utterly futile. If you read the works of the founders and their writings honestly you’ll find that the ideas they advocate (and what they practiced) fall all over the modern political map. Trying to shoehorn them into curent trends simply cheapens our understanding of them. I could claim Socrates as a tried and true liberal (or conservative) and probably be able to find plenty of textural support but that would tell me little if anything about what he actually belived and how that impacts us today.
*The Founding Fathers were “liberals,” as most of us liberals use the word. The “conservatives” of those days were the “tories.”
*John F. Kennedy was a liberal. He said so himself. Therefore, “liberals” cannot be opposed to all tax cuts.
*The enormous majority of non-partisan biblical scholars these days do not believe Jesus made the claim that he was the one-and-only Son of God. He didn’t do so in the synoptic gospels, only in John, and John was probably compiled by Greek-speaking ghostics about a century after the Crucifiction. The Doctrine of Trinity really didn’t take over and become church orthodoxy until the 4th century. If you want to believe in the Trinity that’s fine with me, but by the same token I have no problem at all considering Jesus to be a wise teacher who was not a God.
Jeff, you forgot Grover Norquist.
Jeff also forgot:
Mark Foley
Trent Lott
Strom Thurmond
Jesse Helms
Spiro Agnew
Duke Cunningham
Richard Nixon
Actually, as I’ve said before, the current crop of Republosers makes me kinda said that we were so tough on Tricky Dick.