Gautam Mukunda wrote: > --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > He loves America - while hating all kinds of > > Americans who don't happen to be > > exactly like him. Rush Limbaugh succeeds by lying to > > the public, by pandering > > to their prejudices and to their completely > > misplaced resentments and grudges > > and envies and greeds. Instead of inspiring them to > > be better people, he > > tells them it's just fine to be selfish, greedy, > > stupid, ignorant shits. > > How arrogant. Basically your argument is that > Limbaugh is popular because he tricks the stupid > average Americans who listen to him, who are too dumb > and foolish to see through him - unlike the great and > wise Tom, who does. Just like David, you make my case > better than I ever could.
Why is it arrogant to believe that a lot of people don't like to think to carefully about a lot of issues and long-term implications of their stance on the same and generally tend to listen to emtoional arguments and be swayed by the prettiest, most emotionally resonant turn of phrase? I consider this to be a fact of political life. At least that is what life, books, history, current affairs and participation in political process have taught me. > In the 1950s, Adlai Stevenson, when told that "every > thinking person was voting for him" replied that > unfortunately, he needed a majority. It is, of > course, impossible to imagine Eisenhower (or Reagan) > saying such a thing. They may not have said it but are you quite sure that they did not think so? I find it hard to believe that any politician naive enough to expect the electorate to think carefully would be able to make it that far up on the political ladder. > Second, the > automatic condescension that most Americans don't > think. Apparently nothing has changed since then. If you subsitute the word 'people' for 'Americans', do you find the idea any more palatable? More akin to reality than to arrogance and condescension? > There's a point where the argument that criticism is > patriotic becomes stupid, not meaningful. If you see > Saddam Hussein's Iraq and George Bush's America and > can't choose between them because Bush's America isn't > perfect, it doesn't make you a patriot who nobly > criticizes his country. It makes you someone without > the ability of a chimpanzee to make moral > distinctions. And just how do you rate the ability of a chimpanzee to make moral judgments? :) > When the response of so many to > September 11th was to say that we deserved it, or it > was a product of our actions, or (as Michael Moore > did) that the attacks were mistargeted because they > didn't kill Republicans, they weren't prophets > engaging in self-criticism. They were self-hating > bigots who seek to weaken the defense of Western > civilization against those who would destroy it. The first and the last responses to 9/11 which you mention are despicable and not worth any kind of a serious debate. But as far as those who say that it was a product of US actions go, could they not be just people who appreciate the link between Bin Laden and CIA as well as the link between certain foreign policy measures of the US and the support Laden recieves from normal people in some parts of the world? I have not read much of what the American left has had to say about 9/11 but if they care to make the distinction between blaming US for Laden's psychoses and appreciating how US policies might have contributed to Laden's rise, then they may not be self-hating bigots. Ritu _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
