Political & Elections

Winchester said:

“If you look at the history of stand-up comedy, all the great pioneers were raging anti-authoritarian leftists (or in the case of George Carlin, somebody who loathed both liberals and conservatives from the left). Some might be classified as apolitical anarchists. But they all shared a burning hatred for conservative beliefs.”

 

I appreciate the civility of this thread.  I really do.  And so I apologize in advance if I burst that bubble.  But in the words of John McEnroe, “You can not be serious.”

 

Statements like the above quoted are infuriating to me because they illustrate the extreme depth and breadth to which politically correct liberal bias has permeated American culture.  It’s to the point where even ludicrously impossible claims like this are so easily accepted as conventional wisdom that even many conservatives nod in tacit agreement. 

 

Does anybody in their right mind honestly believe that ANY of the following “great pioneers” of stand-up comedy were “raging anti-authoritarian leftists” who harbored a “burning hatred for conservative beliefs?”  

 

Burns and Allen

Andy Griffith

Red Skelton

Laurel and Hardy

Abbott and Costello

The Three Stooges

The Marx Brothers

Martin and Lewis

Bob Hope

Tim Conway

Jackie Mason

Joan Rivers

Phyllis Diller

Milton Berle

Rich Little

Jack Benny

Steve Allen

Jackie Gleason

Rodney Dangerfield

Bill Cosby

 

To the best of my knowledge several of the above named people were registered Republicans.  But even that’s beside the point.  Regardless of their political affiliation, it is simply not possible to consider the lives of these people both on and off the stage and come anywhere close to concluding that they were raging leftists who hated conservatism.  To think otherwise is to revise history, and to let it pass is to be complicit in the revision.      

 

The liberal mantra in years past was “question authority.”  Well these days the new “authority” is liberal political correctness.  Nowadays it’s “hip” and “cool” and “with it” and “in” to be liberal.   Everybody wants to be cool.  Nobody wants to be an outcast, and so way too many people just accept the liberal version of conventional wisdom.  The result is that foolishness like the statement quoted above not only goes unchallenged but is actually accepted  in a resigned, defeatist, “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” sort of way even by people who in fact would know better if they thought about it for half a second.  And once something has become conventional wisdom in this way it’s not long before it becomes “truth,” even when the facts prove it’s not.   This is how “truth” that is not true becomes accepted as a fundamental premise of the discussion. 

 

Think people, think!  Get your head out of the sixties.  Stop accepting that stand-up comedy was born when Lenny Bruce took the stage.  Stop accepting the conventional wisdom of liberal political correctness.  Question everything. 

 

Question the new authority.   

"According to the minds of MediaMatters, here's an egregious case of media bias. Surpisingly, it's in regard to Fox News and whether the term "public option" was what they should use when reporting on the health care debate."

Since MediaMatters is solidly left wing there's no "surprise" at all that they'd find fault with Fox.  It's what they do.  

It's the reason they did it. It was not to better inform or a more descriptive name. It was done because the polls showed that people had a negative reaction to "government" and not "public."  It is the same spirit as death panels.

"Government library"= good one. 

"Public" and "private" are the norm but isn't "public" just a euphemism for "tax-payer supported"? Given how "tax" was such a dirty word back when this was all going down (and still is, actually), I think Fox showed a good bit of restraint by settling on "government". Matter of fact, that they even bothered to consider bucking tradition and going with a fresh label shows the kind of progressive tendencies that should have endeared them to the circles that, unfortunately, are criticising them.

Slightly off topic to the thread, but: why is the word "government" such a mood killer for the populace?

-- Edited by catahoula on Thursday 16th of December 2010 07:32:51 PM

According to the minds of MediaMatters, here's an egregious case of media bias. Surpisingly, it's in regard to Fox News and whether the term "public option" was what they should use when reporting on the health care debate.
At the height of the health care reform debate last fall, Bill Sammon, Fox News' controversial Washington managing editor, sent a memo directing his network's journalists not to use the phrase "public option."

Two months prior to Sammon's 2009 memo, Republican pollster Frank Luntz appeared on Sean Hannity's August 18 Fox News program. Luntz scolded Hannity for referring to the "public option" and encouraged Hannity to use "government option" instead.

Luntz argued that "if you call it a 'public option,' the American people are split," but that "if you call it the 'government option,' the public is overwhelmingly against it." Luntz explained that the program would be "sponsored by the government" and falsely claimed that it would also be "paid for by the government."

While I realize the supporters of Obamacare felt they should be allowed to dictate the terminology, focus group tested as it not doubt was, I'm not sure I agree that a news organization was thereby bound to assist them.

Check out the Blue Collar Comedy Tour.

While they might be conservative, they are most definitely not conservative comedians. I have watched nearly everything to come out of BCCT and there's really nothing political that I remember.

The statement, in a vacuum, implies that only the wealthy benefit. It is commentary when not properly explained.

Well, Poet, you may have liked my post, but the information in your post gave me some sincere joy. What a wonderful thing this is. I do hope it continues unabated, as there will be a lot of institutional folks that will find this non-ideological sort of thing both threatening and trivial. Still, I think there is something inside us all that craves the grace and joy of beauty...almost like a conscience when it comes to morality, right and wrong.

As you may have guessed from my screen-name, I work with wood. And I love what I do, never failing to take the time to learn from either an individual, an object or a piece of wood. Here, in this forum, we deal with politics, truth, justice, right and wrong; but what moves me is beauty. To me, death's opposite and true foe is beauty, not justice and not right and wrong. Beauty.

Also, when you reply, there is a "posting how to" page which describes some of the features of the board.  It is below, and left of the "submit post" button.

Woodwork, I loved your post! You might be interested in knowing that the pendulum is mercifully swinging back in the direction of tradition and craftsmanship in the areas of painting and sculpture. Ateliers have sprung up all over the world (many in the US and Canada) to address a growing desire among young artists to learn the craft of the "old masters". Many disillusioned art degree holders, who shamefully enough were never taught the rudiments of drawing by their college art depts., are flocking to these schools. As a result, sight size drawing, and patient use of Grisaille and glazing in the employ of realist expression have caught on in a big way. Young artists everywhere are rejecting the undisciplined "modern art aesthetic", too long dominant in university art departments, which holds that any form of "self-expression" qualifies as "art". And speaking strictly for myself, the change isn't coming a moment too soon!

If you're an art afficionado, you might want to check out the massive (but highly enjoyable) Art Renewal Center websight (www.artrenewalcenter.org), which features beautiful realist works by masters both past and present.

Btw, does anyone know how to insert a working link in posts on this board?




-- Edited by Poetsheart on Wednesday 15th of December 2010 05:00:59 PM

-- Edited by Poetsheart on Wednesday 15th of December 2010 05:02:03 PM

That's why labels and stereotypes are, at best, hardly a good representation of what a person thinks and believes.  Humans are a quizzical bunch and full of contradictions.  

Nathaniel Hawthorne and Herman Melville could almost have been part of the real, original Tea Party.  I didn't realize they shared all our life experiences such that we could predict, without a doubt, what their current, 21st century political views would have been.

At least I buy them as part of Woodwork's original thesis of artists.  Bo Derek and Chuck Norris?  Not so much.

Ditto Dale Earnheardt Jr.  Good folks all, but not artists.

Should we then ask if every liberal or Democrat who is a celebrity or in the public eye what their viewpoints are on various social and financial issues?  Should we take one of the most controversial issues and ask where they fall on the spectrum to judge whether they are truly liberal or just slightly liberal?  

Interesting list, winchester! By whose standards are these folks defined as "conservative"? Are they all registered Republicans? Politically active? If they self-identify as conservative, how do they define the term? There seem to be, for instance, two types of conservatism: economic and social. Some people are socially liberal while being economically conservative, and vice-versa. I don't see any reason to believe that Kelsy Grammar, for instance, is a social conservative. How about Susan Lucci? Susan Lucci?

The passage quoted in the OP is:

“69% of Americans approved of the measure.  Both sides had to give on areas that were hard to swallow.  For the Republicans extending unemployment for those affected by the recession and for the President it was continuing the Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthy.”

And jazzy said “I don’t see what’s not neutral about the passage you quoted.”

It’s not neutral for two reasons, both of which are tied to the word “wealthy.”

The first reason is the multiple negative connotations associated with the word “wealthy.”  “Wealthy” is a code word for exploitative.  When we say we tax “the wealthy” we send the implicit message that such taxation is punitive, and deservedly so.   Also, by using the word “wealthy” we promote, or at least assume, class warfare by suggesting that WE, or at least somebody other than “the wealthy” get to decide how much THEY can afford. 

The second reason is that it misrepresents the tax code.  Taxes are based on income.  Wealth is based on net worth.  They're two entirely different things.  Many "wealthy" can live off their wealth, have little or no income at all, and therefore pay little or no taxes at all.  Many who earn high incomes this year might have earned little or even lost money last year, or next (same goes for corporations).   So we're not really taxing “wealth” or "the wealthy" we're taxing this year’s production only, and those who achieved it.

Replace the word “wealthy” in the original passage with the word “producers,” or the phrase “those who create growth” and the passage takes on a whole different meaning.  It is a more correct representation of the tax code, and rather than sounding punitive or promoting class warfare it sounds economically stimulative.

 

Woodwork asked:

How many great 20th century politically conservative artists can you name: I'll bet it's a fraction of politically liberal 20th centry artists. Why do you suppose?

Here's Mark Goldblatt's answer:

"the professoriate at American colleges leans leftward is well known; peer-reviewed studies set the ratio of liberal to conservative faculty nationwide at three to one. There is reason to suspect that the numbers may be even more skewed among writing faculty. A 2006 study of teachers at elite journalism schools conducted by the conservative Center for the Study of Popular Culture put the ratio of registered Democrats to Republicans at four to one — a disparity that would have been much worse if not for an outlier result at the University of Kansas, where Republicans actually slightly outnumbered Democrats. Though there are no reliable data on the politics specifically of creative-writing faculty, a quarter-century of academic experience tells me that journalism schools are bastions of ideological neutrality compared with undergraduate and graduate writing departments.

You have to wonder, under the circumstances, whether the ambitions of a young conservative novelist would be unreservedly encouraged and diligently nurtured in a contemporary MFA program.

If the answer is no, then the ramifications are profound — and profoundly disturbing. For the issue here runs deeper than the run-of-the-mill ideological browbeating that goes on in college classrooms across the country. Students can always weigh their professors’ rants against more moderate views, and indeed contrary ones, that they hear off campus. But MFA programs now seem to exercise a gatekeeper function. If you don’t pass through one of them, your odds of literary recognition are vastly diminished. It may be that we’re cutting off future generations of conservative novelists at the knees."

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/253529/where-are-conservative-novelists-mark-goldblatt?page=2

hayden wrote:

---

I guess sympathy comes from the same perception as the old "bleeding heart " phrase. ...All in all, I think where we come down on the political spectrum does not have much to do with sympathy. 

---

I don't either. And certainly, I had no intention of invoking "bleeding heart liberal," but I can see where someone might honestly draw that analogy, as you did.

As I said, 

My theory is that those that see the world through the prism of their own longsuffering joy and pain tend to be liberals, as do artists ...and for the very same reason. I am usually made happy for their art and less happy for their politics. I am the same with capitalists: love the economic growth, but they do tend to be shi t for romantic poetry and good dance tunes.

 

Takes all kinds.

and just to be clear, I love art --especially poetry..and I love a good dance tune when, in the evening, I'm dancing with my wife out on a night on the town or simply in the kitchen. I think you may have istaken the tone of my little theory.

Fwiw, how many great 20th century politically conservative artists can you name?
I'll bet it's a fraction of politically liberal 20th century artists. Why do you suppose?

I'll go first. Off the top of my head:
Elliot
Pound
Waugh
Didion
Wolfe
Dos Passos

 

Sometimes, and sometimes through the bottom of a bottle which we may or may not have paid for.

In any case, the difference in the distinction is whether we tend to see the world through the vibrant romance of our own joy and pain and to what degree. Sympathy is a virtue, but it is not always a necessary virtue, even when a virtue...except when composing an anthem or ode.

jazzy wrote:

---

  Is a bias toward the underdog (those affected by the recession) always a liberal bias?

---

It depends, I suppose, on whether or not the underdog is in the right or in the wrong and if they are being helped or hurt by either liberal sympathy or, perhaps, condescension. At one time, Stalin was an underdog (and very poor), as was Mao. They were, by their own definition, leftists. In America, for this reason, at the height of their power, liberals all over the world tended to feel their pain.

 

My theory is that those that see the world through the prism of their own longsuffering joy and pain tend to be liberals, as do artists ...and for the very same reason. I am usually made happy for their art and less happy for their politics. I am the same with capitalists: love the economic growth, but they do tend to be shi t for romantic poetry and good dance tunes.

 

Takes all kinds.

 

-- Edited by Woodwork on Tuesday 14th of December 2010 11:45:13 AM

Jazzy, I think sometimes it is just playing-down to the public and not essentially a liberal bias (unless we stipulate that playing down to the public is a liberal vice?). Almost like sports announcing wherein nothing just is, it is rah-rah: "Crushed" instead of tackled; "out of the park" instead of a homerun.

All my liberal friends think I am a conservative and all my conservative friends think I am a moderate and I have more liberal than conservative friends, so I am never sure. When I hear this sort of reporting my first thought is that it is simply crass...though, from time to time I think it is political.

Is a Talk Show host a "media" or a platform for an agenda?

-- Edited by longprime on Tuesday 14th of December 2010 09:45:59 AM

Part of my point is that I'm not remotely wealthy yet I benefit from this well. They're portraying that this only benefits the wealthy. As I said, from percentage POV I get a bigger benefit that some of the "wealthy". I could have done without the commentary though. Just the facts, ma'am.