https://flaclagmarogcons.ga/les-femmes-en-blanc-tome-29.php This is a daring investigation into the American politics of resentment. The author is a left-wing Catholic, but he respects and empathizes with some aspects of conservatism - at least in the Burkean sense of a need for preservation and moderation. To an outside, the beliefs of modern American conservatism seem perverse and contradictory. Dionne says, of course, that they mean it - they do want to reduce government to the minimum level possible, and they do blame it for social alienation or econ This is a daring investigation into the American politics of resentment.
Dionne says, of course, that they mean it - they do want to reduce government to the minimum level possible, and they do blame it for social alienation or economic want. But this is selective - much of this conservative base prefers to keep their Social Security or Medicare. The problem then is the difference between their reactionary idealism and the demands of government as it exists.
The history of conservative politics, Dionne argues, is full of appeals to this base, and then perceived betrayals or failures - first Goldwater who suffered a staggering loss in , Richard Nixon Vietnam, China, Watergate , H. Bush taxation , or W. Even Reagan, the standard bearer of conservative resurgence, would now be treated with some betrayal or suspicion - which one of the leading Republican candidates in would dare to suggest reducing the nuclear arsenal or amnesty for illegal immigrants or the benefits of diplomacy? Another element of conservative fear is that of being left behind by demographic and social changes of the rest of the country.
Likewise, there is also a degree of alienation in a sea of generational change - take the rapid progress of LGBT rights, for another example, which would have been unthinkable ten years ago. This is made manifest in resentment of political elites.
This too has a long history, from Phyllis Schafly's conspiratorial pamphlets, or Ted Cruz's derision of 'New York values', or Glenn Beck's 'we surround them', or Goldwater's furtive wish to cut the east coast off of the rest of the country. Much has been made about political polarization and the inability of the political parties to cooperate. But Dionne says this is an uneven polarization. Bernie Sanders stands almost alone with even a return to FDR-style social democracy; but there are many Tea Party candidates, self styled conservative revolutionaries, already in government who steadfastly refuse to compromise.
This yields an environment where compromise and deliberate government is nearly impossible, where even incomplete market liberalism is considered a betrayal, or a long road down to the continual boogeyman of socialism. For them, this ideology cannot fail, it can only ever be failed. A further invocation of its principles, this time, will therefore lead to its real success. If not now, then they will do it again. His provocations are partly attempts to keep himself in the news free advertising and direct appeals to the base, which resent the party establishment and Washington 'insiders' after the shellacking of the election.
They , who are not real Americans, have made America weak, we will make it great again. Dionne proposes a different paths. He hopes for a return to a different kind of ideology, with Eisenhower's 'big tent' conservatism, as a way to save the party and help it stay afloat in the demographic tides. But what will make them change their minds, or how will anyone else win? How can anyone negotiate with them? As well defeat them as often as we can, challenge the narrative at every chance, push through campaign finance reform, guarantee the right to vote for all, mobilize them, and let demographics do its work - or what, make a covenant with Leviathan?
This book has a staggering amount of political detail. This is a convincing story. View all 8 comments. Jun 18, Chuck rated it it was amazing Shelves: Apr 08, Joe rated it really liked it. Reagan changed the terms of the American political debate without changing the underlying structure of American government. Dionne gets it right in "Why the Right Went Wrong: From Goldwater to the Tea Party a "Our current political turmoil and the ongoing discontent on the right grows out of this essential fact: From Goldwater to the Tea Party and Beyond.
Don't let anyone ever tell you that it was a reaction to President Obama that made the Tea Party. The Republican party made the Tea Party through years of false promises and by fanning the flames of discontent when it served their purposes. Now that the political brush fire has gotten away from them, they don't know what to do about it. Dionne even gets into the first half of the presidential race and how the rise of Donald Trump is a natural extension of Republican fear mongering.
Trump simply says more clearly and crassly what Republican candidates have hinted at before. It's easy to see the hate in "We're gonna build a wall and Mexico's gonna pay for it! The current civil war within the Republican party is a long time coming and I think it will ultimately be good for the party. That can only go on for so long before people start to get mad about it.
Abortion's not going anywhere, gay marriage isn't going anywhere, Mexican's aren't going anywhere, Muslims aren't going anywhere. The sooner they get on board with that, the happier they'll be. Look, I get it, change is scary and it's fun to imagine there was a perfect time of peace and prosperity in this country but that memory is an illusion.
The truth is, it was a great time to be alive when you were a kid not for any social or political reasons, but mostly because you were a kid and being a kid is awesome. Dionne makes a straight forward compelling argument with this book. I hope when the election is done, he does a follow up postmortem on the state of the Republican party.
It's ironic that it takes a liberal to highlight changes that need to be made within the Republican party but apparently the Republican's are too busy checking out the Emperor's new clothes to check their own temperature. Feb 14, Peter Mcloughlin rated it really liked it Shelves: Fairly balanced assessment of the far right from a center left politico. As with most books on politics it will probably have a shelf life of two weeks. Anyone who is not a movement conservative aka a normal person will agree with most of the assessments of Dionne.
The audience of movement conservatives who need to read this never will. Nov 17, Danielle Wells rated it really liked it Shelves: The title of this book, while catchy and enticing [to some] may not represent the spirit in which this book seems to be written. From the title I would assume it's meant as a negative bashing of political conservative voters. But in reality it is a history of the Republican party from to present day. Written by a Democratic columnist, commentator and author, it seems as unbiased as one could be in his position. Reading others reviews of this book I found that the author seems to be an unb The title of this book, while catchy and enticing [to some] may not represent the spirit in which this book seems to be written.
Reading others reviews of this book I found that the author seems to be an unbiased source The books wasn't filled with gaffes of conservative politicians and denouncements of the Republican party's agenda again It was an explanation of how the Republican party maneuvered through elections, voting on bills and every day life in government. But even that could not be explained without involvement from the "other side", Democrats, and even those Independents inbetween.
He outright condemns the Democrats throughout the book for their own mistakes, lies and misconduct as well as Republicans. I feel as if I got a well-rounded view of events in the book. Each chapter is about 30 pages long and the material is quite heavy. I found that I had to be alone and concentrating very hard in order to remember names and dates and keep up the story. The author doesn't assume that you know of the "players" mentioned unless it's a president or a major player that you would most likely know anyway.
It's pretty easy to read and it's straightforward. But my wanting to expand my knowledge with the knowledge that I know very little about politics made me pick up this book. I wouldn't say that I side with either Republicans or Democrats outright. This was an interesting read and it definitely spurred me on to wanting to read about events mentioned with in the book. I think that it could be a beneficial book for both political parties to read. Because I don't associate myself with either party because each party has issues that cannot be overlooked in my mind at least , I sympathize at times with both sides and therefore am invested somewhat to their cause.
I found that I could easily let myself be offended by the tone of the author at times when he was offering his opinion about a "mistake" made, or what he thought was stupidity by Republicans. I was also surprised at the information I discovered about Republicans that Fox News or any Republican sympathizer so quietly dismisses to be quite specific. But I powered through because I wanted information. It was easy for me to fact-check and I found that the author wasn't lying when he mentioned things that I found hard to believe.
IF anything, this book opened my eyes. And since knowledge is power, I think you should read it too. Best-selling author and accomplished Washington Post columnist, E. This insightful page book includes the following sixteen chapters: T Why the Right Went Wrong: The Ambiguous Hero, 2. In the Shadow of Goldwater, 3. From Radicalism to Governing, 4. The End of the Reagan Majority, 5. Put on a Compassionate Face, 7. The New, New, Old Right, Dreams of Celestial Choirs, The Logic of Obstruction, Saying Yes and No to Obama, Reforming Conservatism or Trumping It, and High-quality professionally written book.
Historically accurate, fair, civil and respectful tone throughout. Interesting topic in the masterful hands of E. The historical view of the America right since the s. It was a path laid out by Dwight Eisenhower and the like-minded Republicans of his time. The moderation that characterized their approach is precisely the quality that American conservatism is now missing and badly needs. Describes key differences between Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats are not.
Cuts to the chase on what conservatives must do in order to achieve a successful government. President Reagan in proper perspective. He expanded the size of government.
He strongly supported the redistributionist Earned Income Tax Credit. He offered amnesty to undocumented immigrants. He sought to eliminate nuclear weapons. And he approved some protectionist measures on trade. I have little interest in streamlining government or making it more efficient for I mean to reduce its size.
I do not undertake to promote welfare for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden.
An interesting portrayal of President Nixon. He approved the indexing of Social Security benefits to inflation. Urged on by dissident Democrat Daniel Patrick Moynihan, he pushed for the Family Assistance Plan, an attempt to establish a minimum guaranteed income for poor families. I just about fell off my chair in the Reagan Library when I heard him say this in a speech: They represented forward thinking on our part. He pushed through three tax increases as president, one of which made Social Security solvent for the past 35 years. Reagan got these ideas from FDR, and often paraphrased lines uttered by his one-time idol.
He did dramatically better than other Republican presidential nominees in similar counties and towns when he ran for president, too. The Republican nominee for president has received a majority of the popular vote only once since Most tellingly, Republican nominees before Trump consistently lost the Reagan Democrat-dominated states of Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, and Pennsylvania, winning only one of those states Iowa in one race The current congressional majority, for example, is due to the and waves, which were clearly a reflection of anger at President Barack Obama rather than an endorsement of Reaganism.
And Republican domination of statehouses and state legislatures has resulted mainly because these representatives have rejected Reaganism. Republican governors and state legislatures have continued to increase the size of government, cutting taxes on the margin but largely following the real Reagan by keeping services strong first. Sorry, but you reveal your liberal bias with comments like "They are pro-family because being surrounded by close relatives is the best defense against threats that surround them.
Don't worry, though - in general, I agree with the case you make about the paranoia of Republicans. Sorry to see you did not confront the enabling mentality of the Democrats. I'm curious to know what you think of the psychology of Libertarians. While I concede that stereotyping the millions of individuals in each of the two major parties is a gross exercise, there do seem to be recurring behaviors in the politicians representing each party.
Personally, I find both unacceptable and I'm baffled that we continue to settle for self-serving, party-first, powergrabbers whose principal interest is how to get re-elected. I would think we'd recognize by now that these characteristics are the opposite of what we'd really like in politicians - selfless, people-first servantleaders whose principal interest is how to serve effectively and leave office quickly. I do not own a gun. But believe that others have the right to do so.
They do NOT have the right to use that gun to force others to do their will without a thoughtful relation to the situation. I know MANY liberals who are religious How does that play into anything. Yes Conservatives are more likely to talk about their religion it seems but that almost feel more like learned behavior on the part of Liberal minded people who are religious than anything else, you cannot espouse your belief for fear of being 'closed minded' Which is ironic because you speak of fear and protection often in your article.
Really okay, the funny thing about this is how many cases can you see a Conservative actually beating up an immigrant? A better question is what is the socio-economic realities of immigration without assimilation and how does that change a culture bias moving forward? The funny thing about how you say it is fear rather than realization of cultural change that MUST take place if assimilation is not taken.
This is not to say that Cultural change is either good or bad but if you do not fight to preserve your own heritage then what good is it in the first place? For instance if you want to destroy the Native American culture it is pretty simply done by diluting it over time. Honestly the way you respond it sound like it is out of fear when in reality it is a profound understanding of cause and effect that cause these actions Okay, I lived in Italy for a while. What is the difference between the Mob and a Government Entity?
I will tell you this, The Mob is nicer to deal with. Someone who claims not to have a healthy fear of the Military or the Federal Government and at times the State Government does not have a very good understanding of history or the power that Laws and Governance takes on over time.
The larger the amount of authority and laws the easier it is to justify persecution. Again what kind of tripe have you cooked up here? You mean Pro a Family Unit? Okay, the way a society works is typically as follows. Family, friends, community, government. If you remove Family from the equation then you have a larger unit to start with in order to create identity. This belittles the support system and frame work on which people can learn, grow, and move up into an understanding into the rest of society. Poverty is most often the result of a destroyed or broken family structure.
So yeah Conservatives would rather people have a happy and whole home. But hey we also understand that this has challenges as well. So for instance a Farmer has a terrible farmer and his farm burns to the ground. Republicans and Conservatives HATE that there are cut offs in assistance once you reach a certain dollar amount.
It should be a sliding scale so as you become more successful in money the government still rewards you for every dollar more you make. Government subsistence programs currently are designed to encourage substance living and dependence. So yes I hate a program in which the system penalizes someone for taking the next step towards self reliance and encourages use of assistance rather then encouraging planning and thoughtful approaches to growth.
I mean imagine if we subsidized peoples grades in school, Viola everyone can have a PhD without effort, that makes everyone equal then right?
Yes, I admire people who take initiative. That attempt to create and develop. I admire someone more who without imagination, without a mommy or daddy to pay for them, lays it all on the line and is willing to accept what the world gives them and then work hard to transform it. Someone who recognizes where they currently are and tries to take the next step.
The Angry Right: Why Conservatives Keep Getting It Wrong [S. T. Joshi, Robert Glisson] on linawycatuzy.gq *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Since The Angry Right has 12 ratings and 1 review. Louise said: Joshi posits that while conservatives can win elections, they look around and see a stalled age.
Obviously this author is a liberal. Everywhere I go people are being propagated by left-winged ideologies. That is quite a spotlight on your fallacy. All Americans, other than Native Americans, are immigrants. But, you writing as if whites are not immigrants. I totally agree with this article. It's my experience that conservatives are angry. They are angry about everything. Yes, I consider myself liberal. I thought the liberal description pretty much fits. I'm religious, but even in that I am not like many other religious people.
I Tend to focus on grace, love, and forgiveness. Christian people I know who consider themselves conservative tend to focus on sin, hell, and punishment. I believe that this is a very accurate view of a liberal and why "their" view makes them a better person. I call it the morally superior theory of liberals. I even wrote a children's book on race. But when I talk to liberals and disagree with the current liberal stances on race they always seem surprised. They say 'but you worked with minorities I'm surprised you think that way'.
It usually takes just a few minutes for me to explain what I have seen that works for helping the poor and minorities. However I disagree that people are hardwired with these views. Nothing is more nurture than nature than partisan politics, IMO.
Any alcohol is bad, yet the groups that drink heavily stay healthy and happy. Darwinian competition makes workers more productive in developed countries. Serious commerce arrived late in history but changed our lives a lot. Back Find a Therapist. What Is the Best Way to Propose? What's the Solution for a Coddled American Mind?
The conservative world view Conservatives see the world as a challenging place in which there is always someone else who is ready to steal your lunch. Conservatives are pro-gun because they want to be able to defend themselves against criminal threats of any type. They are mostly religious because religious rituals foster feelings of safety in a dangerous world such that the most dangerous countries in the world are also the most religious 1. They tend to be more hostile to immigrants, foreigners, and racial or ethnic minorities and to view them as more of a threat.
They fear attacks by other nations and therefore support a strong military and a bellicose foreign policy on the theory that a good attack is the best defense. They are pro-family because being surrounded by close relatives is the best defense against threats that surround them. They oppose welfare for the poor because this encourages dependence so that the failures of a society are parasites on the successes thereby inverting the proper incentive structure. They admire wealth because successful people are seen as having worked hard in pursuing a moral obligation to provide for themselves and their families in a difficult and uncertain world.
The liberal world view The liberal world view is mostly the opposite. Liberals feel that protection of citizens against crime is better left to police and that armed citizens are a threat to those around them. They are less religious than conservatives because they perceive the world around them as less threatening. Moreover, they rely more on science, and education , as a means to solve problems. Liberals are more welcoming to immigrants.
They favor negotiation and consensus-building over warfare in foreign policy and do not believe in excessive military buildups that drain social spending. Liberals are happy to pay their taxes if they believe that the money is being used to improve the quality of life of others whether they are poor or rich. Liberals are less interested in family ties as a protective bubble.
They support welfare programs for the poor because these may reduce child poverty, as well as reducing crime and social problems. Liberals are suspicious of wealth feeling that much of it is inherited or obtained through sharp business practices or outright corruption. Blog post accessed at: San Francisco Chronicle, accessed at: Be sure to read the following responses to this post by our bloggers: Partisan "Science" is a reply by Loretta G. Well I expect the wrath of the right will descend upon you for your views.
Do you think some of us are born liberal. I would love more posts from you on this topic Thanks!! As I have seen in my lifetime, We are largely products of our environment. Submitted by Paula Marshall on September 3, - 2: Talk about therapist bias Submitted by Julia on September 18, - Submitted by Dylan Bundy on July 27, - 9: Julia, you're right on the money. Bias is ridiculous on this fake psychology website. This is cherry picking Submitted by rolf on October 9, - 2: Submitted by Dave G on December 10, - 2: Yes -- George Soros is so Submitted by lkfnmjkln on May 11, - 3: Rich liberals are phoneys.
Submitted by Lee C on November 14, - 8: Liberals need conservatives for the same reason a parasite needs a host. Conservatives do not volunteer more. That is an easily disputed myth. What's a mud room? Submitted by Anonymous on October 9, - 6: However, guns war and capitalism are symptoms of those excesses.. Too polarised my friend. Conservatives in the US are not comparable to European conservatives. Submitted by astorian on October 9, - Sorry, but that's incorrect. Submitted by Teresa on June 23, - 7: Charity Submitted by Myrna on December 3, - 1: Bull crap Submitted by Randy on May 3, - To me some aspects of Submitted by Humberto on October 9, - 5: Simplistic over-generalizations Submitted by Susan Heitler Ph.
Liberals also tend to include Submitted by Non-Liberal on October 9, - Here is her living last time I knew of it: Jesus, who are you trying to kid! Continued on next post You seem like a VERY angry person. I might suggest you do some work integrating your shadow. Non-issue Submitted by Janice Robinson on August 25, - 9: A young conservative has no Submitted by Anonymous on October 10, - A young conservative has no heart, and an old liberal has no brain.
Thought this might be a good article Submitted by Anonymous on October 11, - 8: Unfortunately bias prevails, as usual At least credit George Lakoff for this characterization of conservatism. Submitted by Mark Plus on October 11, - Submitted by Anonymous on October 13, - 7: As to the where I read: