Harnessing that rhetoric to support our Constitution?
It would be hard to beat the way FDR did precisely that, back in 1936.
FDR Madison Square Garden, October 1936. (warning: audio of speech automatically plays when you open the page.)
Some highlights: here FDR describes the Republican administrations of 1920-1932:
We have not come this far without a struggle and I assure you we cannot go further without a struggle.
For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.
For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.
We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace -- business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.
They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.
Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me -- and I welcome their hatred.
I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it these forces met their master.
Good stuff, that.
Sorry about that long excerpt. Here is the transcript without the autoplay audio and formatting errors.
While i agree that we can turn this in our favor we need to more gnearicise the subject. When you say islamic FUNDIMENTALISTS, most of the nation will hear ISLAMIC fundimentalists. drop with islamic and discuess fundimentalists in the genaric, then make the arguments.
remember if you give a pserson a choice they will make the wrong one.
Always thought that fundamentalists (both religious and political) were inherently loopy. Thanks to the above essay (which I plan on reading in its entirety) and the essay "Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition (Jost, et.al., 2003)," I'm now certain that they're wired wrong. Needing the structure that the modern world can't give, they retreat and group togehter with like-minded people out of fear.
Fear of change and Fear of the Other, mainly. And we all know what happens when people start with fear. It graduates to hating the perceived enemy. Violence then follows.
I hope this unnatural father gets the full weight of the Canadian justice system square on his back.
This is just a damned shame!
I hope the father dies, horribly.
No apologies: I'm pissed!
I know many very good, sweet people who self-describe as "fundamentalist Christians" and don't meet this description of fundamentalism at all. I think the term is being used to describe at least two separate groups of people. Perhaps, instead of using the term "fundamentalists" to descripe people like bin Laden and Robertson, we should use "religiofascists" instead. Clear, accurate, and won't mix up the good people with the bad people.
While i agree that we can turn this in our favor we need to more gnearicise the subject. When you say islamic FUNDIMENTALISTS, most of the nation will hear ISLAMIC fundimentalists. drop with islamic and discuess fundimentalists in the genaric, then make the arguments.I was going to say pretty much the same thing. Concentrating on Islamic fundamentalism (and appearing to ignore the homegrown Christian varieties) is just going to look like good old American hypocrisy and selective outrage against the Muslim world.
Rev. Dorothy: ther eis a protistantc sect (came into existance in the late 1800's) that call them slves fundimentalists. they are dfirent then Fundimentalists who take the bible literaly and waht not. honestly the difrences i have seen is that the religiosu sect tends to take the new testiament literaly and ignore the old testiment. the Fundies tend to take the old testiment literaly and ignroe the new testiment.
Gag Halfrunt I woudl take it one step further and make sure we left of all mention of religion. communist, and free market fundiemntalists are jsut as dangerous. basicly we need to watch out for any one who pushes an idology over all else.
Again, I wish we had the Phantom Zone.
It would be especially suited to deter murdering fundamentalists. No one dies in the Zone, hence murderers could be sentenced to eternity in the Zone. If they couldn't die, they couldn't go to their hellish concepts of Heaven.
As I've said for years, Xianists and Islamists agree that theocracy is the answer.
They're only arguing over which book to use.
Keep in mind this is a single instance of a crime. Compare it with the video that pops up now and again of a stalker abducting a young woman who is later found dead. Aqsa Parvez's death is NOT a normal "islamic event." I remember a kid in 1st grade whose Christian mother forced him to kneel in rock salt when he was bad until his knees bled. When he was 12 she beat him so badly he lost hearing in one ear. Parents are sometimes overprotective, sometimes STUPID, like the woman who created the phony MySpace page that led to the suicide of Megan Meier. But that's another story...
http://dave-lucas.blogspot.com/2...qsa-
parvez.html
PWS (People Who Suck) will justify their actions using whatever they have handy, and fundamentalists screeds just happen to be very, very adaptable for that purpose.
Fascinating observations in that post. I'll be directing lots of people I know to it.
Dave Lucas --
I don't think it's a normal Islamic event at all.
I went out of my way to deemphasize as much as possible, that aspect of the story.
The point of the story from where I'm looking, is Fundamentalism is the same, no matter which religion one uses to justify one's beliefs with.
One of my very best friends is a Muslim. It is inconceivable this kind of behavior could happen in his household. Another of my good friends goes to a Christian church every week, sometimes even giving the sermon. It is inconceivable this could happen in her household. My two best friends from childhood (brother and sister) were raised Mormon. It is inconceivable this could happen in their households.
You know who was beaten badly as a child? Me. You know who else was beaten badly as a child? My dad. You know who else was beaten badly as a child I'm willing to bet cash money? My father's father.
This shit follows generational lines.
So does fundamentalism. It isn't essentially a religious thing at all. It's a women-hating women-dominating we have to be in control thing.
The key to breaking it is to educate the children. If you let the parents train them from childhood through the teens, it's already too late -- another generation is lost.
In its essence, this crap -- fundamentalism -- has absolutely nothing to do with any particular religion at all and has everything to do with controlling women.
Fundamentalism is as anti-American as it gets, totally against the heart of our shared American ideals.
He's basically saying that in order to pave the way for change, liberals have to first be aware of the sacred symbols and rhetoric of traditionalism and then attempt to harness those symbols to advance our cause. I think there is some truth in that.
Orwell had much the same insight 70 years ago in The Road to Wigan Pier.
Wow, Jesse! I never thought I'd see a man write something like this:
"In its essence, this crap -- fundamentalism -- has absolutely nothing to do with any particular religion at all and has everything to do with controlling women."
That is so truly the heart and soul of the matter. And obviously not something that bombs and Humvees will eradicate.
You know who was beaten badly as a child? Me. You know who else was beaten badly as a child? My dad. You know who else was beaten badly as a child I'm willing to bet cash money? My father's father.
Well, yeah. Again, you nailed it. This rigid thinking passes from generation to generation, until someone who thinks stops it.
My sister is raising her child in the part of Appalachia from whence our people come. (Well, to whence they come when they run off from indentured servitude in the 1700s, from which my parents came up North to the land of 12 grades of schoolin'.) And damn, it's ignorant. And fundamentalist. And backward.
The teacher at Head Start sent home a note explaining that my niece spent an hour in time out because she was lying. Her sin? Telling the other kids that her aunt is married to another lady, which happens to be reality. To the folks who have suffered the intellectual and ethical injuries of growing up in such a backward place, the truth is a crime.
Because reality, which is bigger than the holler, is dangerous as hell.
ravenwind --
The sad part -- understandable, but sad -- is that the culture is so dominant, that even a intelligent person such as yourself, is surprised to see a man who can see. *sighs*
PhoenixRising --
Oh, oh...
Yeah. I really hate being the coach in those third-removed conversations where I'm talking to my Mom who is talking to my sister who is bone tired from being a single mom with a professional career and a five year-old who's a real handful, and now she's got a kid at kindergarten who may be the problem or it might be her kid, and how does she interact with the kid's parents PLUS the teacher, and everyone has their own totally bullshit assessment which they think is TRUE...
*sighs*
Trying to coach THAT through Mom -- who is really good, but it's like watching a seal balance a ball on top of a tiny platform on top of 3 ten meter rods while trying to hold a precise position within 10 feet of a designated mark in the midst of the open ocean during a cat five hurricane with 50 foot swells sweeping through and a pod of killer whales that LOVES seal pinging away. And the seal is tired. And not in the mood to play.
*sighs again*
>It's a women-hating women-dominating we have to be in control thing.
Jesse, I think it's more than that.
It's a control over 1/2 the resources thing. Less competition you know.
It's a control over the weakest among us thing (children, aged).
Women just happen to be the easiest target.
and then there's this -- of which words or explanations cannot be said.
http://www.parentsbehavingbadly....ay-old-
daughter
About the 12:57 story--I also wanna send the sumbitch who did that to the Zone.
You know who was beaten badly as a child? Me. You know who else was beaten badly as a child? My dad. You know who else was beaten badly as a child I'm willing to bet cash money? My father's father.
This shit follows generational lines.
Yes.
It's a contagious mental illness.
Thanks for picking up on the post in Hullabaloo from December 2004. I don't recall ever having seen a link to that before, outside of my own bookmarks files.
As you noted, that piece by Davidson Loehr argues that the fundamentalist mindset may have made a certain amount of sense 20,000 years ago. But today, it's anathema not only to American ideals, but to technical civilization as well.
Of course, fundamentalism fits right in to the decline of the state and the renaissance of tribalism.
Want to go to the stars? Or even survive as a civilization more than a few more decades? Lose the fundamentalism.
Me? If I live long enough, I want to see THIS. With the Mark I eyeballs. Up close and personal.
Amazing, amazing post. This is the third time I've come back to read it. I mean, you and I agree, before we were ever in contact we were in sync, but it's how you express it. The weight of your experience behind it.
Yes, it follows generational lines, perhaps backward for thousands of years. But, Jesse -- it stopped in this generation. With you.
Let's all say amen.
Karen Armstrong defines fundamentalism as fear of modernity. But I think fear of women is more blunt and can reach ordinary people more, if you can get past all the things that women symbolize. Not just weakness (as one commenter above mentioned) but carnality, life-force, and sustenance. To not have women in control is to not have nature in control, to have god no longer in covenant with you.
Isaac's requested sacrifice of Jacob was g*d asking for destruction of Sarah's only child, her only link to the line that would follow. This threat established not just g*d's dominance over Isaac but Isaac's dominance over Sarah -- she had no say in the outcome.
Actually, the story had Abraham supposedly commanded to sacrifice Isaac; Sarah was Isaac's mother, not his wife.
"Supposedly" because I don't believe God actually asked any such thing.
I like Woody Allen's version of the story: "I WAS JOKING!"
Stormcrow is correct that fundamentalism is hostile to technical civilization.
Tech Civ is essential to the long-term survival of the human species, because we must establish self-supporting colonies off this planet, and eventually outside this solar system, because the Earth and the Sun won't last forever. Eventually, [in a few billion years] the Sun will expand into a red giant star and boil away our atmosphere and oceans. Also, some other disaster could strike earlier, like another "Dino-Doom" class asteroid impact.
Since fundamentalism is hostile to technical civilization, fundamentalism is also hostile not only to human happiness, but to human survival.
Alas, we are, to some degree, biologically programmed for fundy-type thinking, but as Ruk said, "Survival must cancel programming". 
By ravenwind:
"Wow, Jesse! I never thought I'd see a man write something like this:"
THAT is as sexist a remark as religion is sexist.
It is in the ignorant category of "all men" and "all women".
We men are NOT "all" like that.
Yet more:
Fundamentalist stabs Evolution believer:
http://news.independent.co.uk/
wo...icle3253070.ece
I promised I'd not comment in here again, and Jesse, YOU were the reason I was goin all apeshit and pissed off on YOUR postings.
So I'm sorry I'm here again . . . . but.
This thread and it's source story, and assorted links, is one of the most VIBRANT AND ESSENTIAL things I've read in decades.
It was well done, well thought out, and well phreakin presented.
Jesse, you COULD have done without the ending couple thoughts ya posted, but that's not why I'm commenting here.
Your use of the source story, linkage to Digby, and then linkage to the source article from Dr. Loehr (sp) and the info about the STUDY done on fundamentalism was brilliantly laid out and presented.
Good work deserves praise. Your effort in this thread was fuckin STELLAR.
Digby has it on the BUTTON, and this whole thread you post Jesse, as you set it up, should be primer reading for progressivism kindergarten 101. I hope some of the 'sadsack' blogs pick up on it. It's the KEY to our future.
Now, how do we begin to hammer the putrid phucks screwing up our planet and our lives with this info? Digby had some great starts.
Jesse? GNB? What?
I might even follow in line if all y'all come up with something rightous and right to follow.
Cuz, ya know, I AM phreakin pissed off at the present state of things . . . 'kin hooman's ain't taking care of business.
And as Dr. L closes with in HIS linkie, it's a cradle to grave effort, to keep the balance of fundamentalism and liberalism and hold them to their best equity.
Hell of a phuckin read, Jesse.
When yer good, yer great.
Damn I hope the shit you've been thru someday levels out so you find peace you deserve. It HAS to be a hell of a trail you walk.
And I'm not HALF the man to walk that one. Luck to ya.
(back to lurk mode)
My dear larue --
You should know you're more than welcome as a commenter here at GNB.
Yes, you do tend to get pissed off from time to time. I try not to take it personally.
You're a valued part of the GNB community and welcome to comment here. I don't remember asking you not to comment, and so far as I know, neither have any of my colleagues. (If so, please email me privately, so we can get cleaned up anything we need to.)
If you were simply getting upset and decided not to comment in order to avoid commenting while upset, well, I can understand that. I often will start writing a comment and then either come back to it later when I'm no longer triggered, or just throw it away and not say anything. In the act of writing, I discover what I was about to say is inappropriate, thoughtless, or simply rude.
I'm not at all saying your comments are inappropriate, thoughtless or rude. I'm saying I often have to throw away comments I write when I'm all full of being pissed off at someone, because when I look at what I just wrote, what I've said is inappropriate, angry, rude, or simply not what I want my name associated with.
So I throw away the comment. Even stuff I've spent an hour or so writing, filled with lots of links proving how right I am and how totally full of shit they are. *cracks up*
Those two posts I've put up this week about people having to be right. They're not by accident. Heh. And don't apply only to people on the other side of the political or moral aisle.
What I find works for me is to try very hard not to comment when I'm all upset. And if I am, to come back to it later. I have to be fairly rigorous with it too, otherwise I'd be getting in fights all the time. It isn't as if I can do what I do with this blog and keep everyone happy all the time.
Sometimes I even have to ban people. In general, we throw someone off the site about once or twice a month. Most of them y'all don't even know about -- they're spammers. I think we've only thrown three or four people off for policy issues, i.e.: for refusing to follow the rules. We're in our sixth month right now, and only have 10 IPs banned. I'd say we're fairly open.
I've found your comments in the most part, to forward things. Sure you get hot under the collar a bit now and then. I have no problem with that -- this board is a safe space for you as well -- just so long as you don't personally attack people.
Anyway, it's always interesting to hear what you have to say. It really isn't necessary that everyone on the board agree with everyone else. This isn't an echo chamber.
*Holiday hugs for you*
Speaking of the sacrifice of Abraham...
From http://www.missdynamite.com/.
Genuinely offended? Put it in an email. Seriously. Don't comment. (If you're not offended enough to take the time to send me an email, then I don't care.
Jesse,
Can I comment if I LOVE the link? :D
I'd put it up in my office, but most of my cube is already full of year-end-review snark from Dilbert and (flipside) soothing pieces from the wonderful, un-ironic Mr. Toast.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
