HuffPo’s Peter Dreier Tries to Take His Critics On and Fails, Revealing his own Dishonesty
Poor Peter Dreier. When I quoted him accurately in my first blog post about Frances Fox Piven, unable to disown what he had written, he instead erupted in a torrent of verbal abuse and ad hominem attacks, calling me, among other things, an “ultra right-wing propagandist” and “lunatic blogger.” Resorting to this kind of name calling is what someone does who can’t argue on the facts.
Since his article came out right at the same time as my most recent blog post criticizing Piven’s politics while condemning those making death threats against her, he can’t accuse me of being part of the crazy bunch that are making themselves look stupid and illiterate. But wait a minute, this is precisely what he does do, as you shall see.
Dreier tells his readers that Piven is a great writer and “acclaimed academic” whose work has focused on influencing “government policy” to lift “Americans out of poverty.” In the late ’60s, Piven and her husband Richard Cloward encouraged people to sign up for open-ended welfare payments in hopes that it would bring the system down. Not only did this almost drive New York City into bankruptcy, but it hurt the people they claimed to be helping. This was exposed in an article by John McWhorter published in TNR last March. He wrote here that “rarely in American history have people with such a destructive agenda had such power over the lives of the innocent. I wish Piven and Cloward had stayed obscure teachers instead of helping to ruin the lives of, for example, some of my relatives.”
I have no objection to debating Peter Dreier or anyone else on the issues, but I believe he is being disingenuous about what Richard Cloward and Piven argued for back in their now famous 1966 article, as well as what Piven is calling for today. Instead of dealing with the serious conservative critique of their views, he says those that oppose their argument are part of a “conservative lunatic fringe,” part of a group of the “right-wing echo chamber” — his favorite phrase for dismissing the arguments of others.
I wish Dreier would get his facts right about me. He writes that I am a “conservative historian whose political trajectory…was from Red Diaper baby (son of Communists) to 1960s student radical, to ultra-right wing propagandist.” Two wrong statements in one short sentence. Neither of my parents were Communist; I was brought up in a Red Diaper baby milieu, but my father was a fellow-traveler who distrusted the CPUSA, and my mother was an anti-Stalinist Jewish anarchist. And as anyone who looks up my books and record of publishing knows, I am hardly an “ultra-right wing propagandist” but a prize-winning historian who respects the truth and takes it where it leads me.





I’d not be surprised if his hysterics merely increase the influence of your work. Can people who read him really resist the temptation to look you up and draw their own conclusions?
Yes.
Lefties are incredibly resistant to anything that might possibly challenge their worldview.
That’s why so many lefties that write about conservative books don’t bother to read them.
For instance, I wonder how many have read his book on the Rosenbergs? And how many condemn it out of hand? How many pretend that Venona never happened, and that the papers do not prove the guilt of the Rosenbergs (though the Venona Papers are damning)?
That began my conversion from unthinking college liberal; people kept talking about the innocence of the Rosenbergs (I keep thinking of capitalizing “innocence”), but no one would point me to actual evidence.
I read Ron Radosh’s book and never looked back.
I appreciate this post a lot; it means my work has not been in vain. And as you probably know, this case and its true believers never stop propagandizing. I have an article on the forum on the case tomorrow at NYU at http://www.mindingthecampus.com, that will be on line tomorrow morning. Take a look at it. We’re having an all day forum on the case at GWU on June 22nd this coming Spring,and we’re inviting all of them to confront them directly with the evidence. Perhaps that will help.
So thanks Again. Ron
Ron,
The truth is never in vain…..unacknowledged, unappreciated, ignored or actively suppressed, maybe…but never in vain.
Like love, it has only one quality…it is the sum of itself.
Thanks for your work
For the true believers, you correct. But, in this hyper-linked world not all readers of Dreier will be true believers: and with Dreier’s hyperventilating, traffic will come. And those who know neither, and find Prof. Radosh through Dreier, will come to a conclusion based on what they read; a certain percentage who never knew of Ron Radosh will come to value his writing and his opinion.
The boring ideologue Dreier does not do very well at RateMyProfessor.com. One of his students writes:
“He is a doctrinaire and biased political advocate, not a balanced and disinterested scholar. Reading lists reflect his bias. Easy grader, unless you challenge his political views.”
Another says:
“Dreier seems like he wants to bring the Soviet Union to LA. He hates and feuds with almost everyone who does not want to give up freedom, their car or own a home. He is Mr. Grumpy and seems to not understand what fun is. He wants us to listen to the commie Weavers from the 1950′s about how horrible America is. Dr. Dreier is a troubled man. SAD!”
Still another:
“This is not a class where you learn and are graded on your performance, it is a political indoctrination chamber where you are rewarded with an A if you work for Dreier’s political movement outside of class and are punished if you do not. If you openly disagree with him, watch out!”
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com/ShowRatings.jsp?tid=81284
Yikes. Spooky stuff, Roger. Good find!
Mr. Simon:
How is it that this man hasn’t been named Chancellor yet?
Far too unsophisticated. Now as a Dean, or Deanlet, the man shows real promise.
More amazingly, how has this person avoided being named to an advisory position in the current White House?
Ah, if only PJM were as open as RateMyProfessor. Anti-Muslim statements are a dime a dozen on PJM, but when I read the following (a comment on a recent Kimball blog) —
“Fock Muslims, Muhammad (POS) the child rapist and Allah. Sue me!”
– I protested, calling the comment “disgraceful.” My protest wasn’t printed and the slur remained. For me, this is a common occurrence on PJM, except for RR’s blog which is truly open to all comers.
I also salute the openness of Michael J. Totten, who is always ready to debate, clarify and educate.
You pretty much stick to slurs and unprovable accusations, don’t you?
Are you capable of rebutting an argument or presenting information? At least Lawrence took a stab at that on his scurrilous and lying response to Radosh to Ron’s previous column about Sow Piven. Lawrence must be the boss. He delivers the bomb, and then the little ankle biters run around like snapping turtles.
Keep standing tall. The Old Guard radicals and their recruits will never recognize logic and reason, because they are driven by emotion. Exposing them is a great service to all of us, and I appreciate your efforts.
I’m a follower of science news, and have found the ‘climate scientists’ who have hidden their ‘proof’, data and computer programs (despite FOI laws) use the same tactic against legitimate scientists who challenge their outrageous claims of anthropogenic global warming. Openness is absolutely required for scientific truth, but perhaps any closed society eventually develops ‘group think’. The internet’s freedom of information phenomenon is taking them all by storm, and they are lashing out with the only tool they have, slander.
By the way, Glenn Beck today said he currently is dealing with 15 death threats. Again, he stresses non-violence and tells his listeners to look things up for themselves, not to take his word for anything. So far, he has maintained the courage to continue exposing the shadow government and the shadow media.
Glenn Beck is providing some important information, and it’s information that isn’t available elsewhere in the media. The problem is, that he is: the ‘anti-Patrick Henry’ who wants to laud the Founding Fathers, yet preach non-violence (not only did Ghandi’s non-violence only work in the case of an already-dead Empire, but his victory led immediately to the deaths of millions in religious violence); and, he is a goofball.
The most stunningly stupid thing for these lefty idiots to do would be for them to murder someone like Beck, Limbaugh, Palin, O’reilly, or Hannity.
Do they have any idea what this would start?
Giffords was one thing – a horrible moment that is just an act of senseless rage by a moron. As a person, pretty much everybody liked her and she wasn’t a really polarizing figure with a huge following and a big public foot print. What happened to her really brought together most of the sane people and even a lot of the somewhat nutty folks have toned things down.
Somebody major gets killed – especially someone from the right after all of these other nutcase lefty butchering-people incidents that the media barely covers – and there is going to be a campaign of retribution and ugliness that I think the left doesn’t begin to understand.
The massive effort that was made to conduct the truly civil Tea Party campaign while having a lot of combative rhetoric was ALMOST universally without violent acts and MOST most of the acts that did occur were instigated by SEIU / AFSME people after the events.
Right-wingers have made real efforts up to this point to be peaceful, but if folks who are venerated by the movement get butchered, then I imagine all bets are off and there will be lots of blood spilled.
I know a lot of annoyed people who have calmed down a lot since November, but, it wouldn’t take much to relight those fires especially if its due to people being murdered by fanatics and how we know the Justice department would basically applaud the murder of right wing people and protect the murderers.
The left had better consider who it is that are armed to the teeth and how many of them are veterans (or active duty) before they start assassinating people they don’t like.
“I challenge Dreier to show me where I have ever compared “liberal Democrats to communists, socialists, radicals, subversives,” etc.
He must have confused you with a number of the people who comment here. Consider the previous thread.
So, you’re saying he really is illiterate?
Mr Radosh is too polite.
But your post isn’t factual anyway Dwight, as long as you are referring to me.
I’ve never discussed Drier.
It’s you and sock puppets Matthew, Josef and Lawrence that are in the same class as the Stalinists.
As you know, for a dedicated leftist like yourself, the most annoying thing of all is that you have no readily availale gulag to ban conservatives to. We shouldn’t be allowed to point out that the left has murdered hundreds of millions to implement marxism.
Come to think of it, it might be even more annoying that despite the obvious relish that marxists kill with, they still haven’t succeeded in sustaining a marxist country for more than 71 years. China is getting close to Russia’s record, but it probably shouldn’t be included, since unlike America’s looney tune leftists, the chinese grew a brain and abandoned marxist economics.
You should consider converting from Stalinist to modern Chinese marxism. They still get to torture and imprison about 30 million people at any one time, so that aspect of your power hunger could still be satisfied.
If you see me as a “dedicated leftist,” that is just another example of how you lurch into extreme statements. The irony of the name “Proreason” jumps out at one.
Secondly, the point is not whether anyone talked about Dreier or not but whether they equated liberals with communists and Stalin. I named no names, but did you happen to do that?
yep, that was me.
I started about the time that leftists like yourself started blaming the Tucson massacre on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party, and then I ratcheted it up when you nuts started in on Radosh for calling out Sow Piven.
Of course, the undeniable mass murders of every major leftist government doesn’t prove that you guys are murderers, but I do think the connection is a LOT stronger than the connection between Ms. Palin and an isolated sociopath like Jared Loughner.
But compassionate leftists like Krugman and the libwit nuts on this forum see things differently. You would think that with their subdued confidence, the sock puppets wouldn’t sky up every time the subject is brought up. But you do sky up, don’t you.
Your “yep that was me” proves that I was correct on that point. Was that so hard?
Then your, “leftists like yourself started blaming the Tucson massacre on Sarah Palin and the Tea Party,” is simply makeing stuff up. I have said from the beginning of this discussion that the people who said that were w-r-o-n-g.
Since you have been reduced to the goofiness of throwing the name “leftist” out there, it becomes the equivalent of “uncle.” Got it.
Dwighty-boy’s a not-so-facile practitioner of the old Hegelian trope of thesis-antithesis-synthesis. Loosely rendered, he attempts to appear oh-so-reasonable and even-handed, appearing to consider both sides when the real trick is to work the trope to move the line to the left and marginalize those who call him on it.
His steadfast refusal to address fundamental first-principles questions is the giveaway. That’s pure kryptonite to collectivist Superman wanna-bes. Why? Because it exposes the pedigree of their ideas.
Ayn Rand (wait for the reaction – it’s going to be precious) had his type pegged pretty well:
You see, ideas do have consequences. Over the last two hundred years or so, the left have built for themselves an epitaph of infamy, having delivered slaughter, atrocity, enslavement and impoverishment on a scale that beggars the imagination. Their ideas. Their consequences. Scum like Dwight rail against the right, but he’s got nothing to say about the fact that none of history’s greatest mass murders were ever held accountable for their crimes. Mao is still lauded today for his role as the “The Great Helmsman” – never mind the 60-80 million he is directly responsible for murdering. Folks in Russia are waxing nostalgic for old Uncle Joe. The Left here would just prefer not to talk about it. Noam Chomsky never apologized for his exercises in in outright lying and pretzel logic when it came to excusing the Khmer rouge for the butchery of over one-third of their countrymen. Castro the executioner gets a pass and a hero’s welcome in New York. Chavez in Venezuela – he’s their boy.
But there’s a butchers bill due for all of that, payable in blood. As Jean-Francois Revel put it so well,
“Scum like Dwight” ?
My apologies. I meant to say, “statist scum like Dwight…”
Please accept my correction in the spirit in which it was given.
Okay, so the charge is made that we right-wingers equate liberals with Communists, et al. I admit to doing so.
So, Dwight, tell me how I am wrong in this. Please, rather than merely making such a charge sound as if it is such a “Terrible Thing”, you explain what the difference is. The Left LOVES nuance, so please explain the nuance to us mouth-breathers. Please show us how the policies and RESULTS of them are at all different.
Now, remember, it was the Socialists themselves who declared in 1944 that the Democratic Party had become the Socialist Party. I figured I’d give you a starting point. Wouldn’t want to have you tripping over the fact that the Left and Right both agree on this little matter. Isn’t bi-partisanship wonderful?
Last little note: You have never yet responded to one of my challenges to you. I ask for specific things, to which you cannot respond dismissively. I request a cogent argument, which you have never yet proffered.
Since both Dennis Kucinich and Joe Lieberman are liberals, the term obviously covers a broad range of people. Some are more liberal on social issues than economic, with foreign policy and the military being two other areas where people can show varying degrees of being liberal or conservative. If a person wants social security and medicare, they are liberal in that area, yet many conservatives, if grudgingly, want both as well. If a Catholic union leader owns ten guns, is against abortion, and in favor or invading Iraq; what is he?
In general, liberals believe in expanded government and regulation, but also in the private ownership of most businesses, who will then pay relatively high taxes because it is their duty as citizens. Conservatives will say that the taxes are too high, extreme conservatives will talk about “at the point of a gun.” But all these terms are general and are cast about generally, but your and others use of liberals are communists is clear hyperbole.
For communists, check the the USSR. The way you admit to using the word simply breaks down the definitions of words in order to make them be what you want them to be.
George Washington wanted big government; George Mason did not. The idea of having a country at all is a liberal idea. TTT has done a decent job of describing the communitarian impulse. I have tried to point out how “conservatives” who believe in maintaining the strongest military in the world contribute to this Big Government impulse.
Anyway, what is the question that I supposedly am avoiding?
Dwighty-boy won’t give you much beyond Hegelian triangulation. Anything else will expose the pedigree of his ideas. Can’t have that. Ruins his game. Hence – no cogent argument. Ever.
He asked a question: I answered it. You can’t address the substance, which is essentially the human impulse to form communities and government. After that, good things and sh*t happen. Your response should be to show where or at least how one draws lines between liberty and community. As far as I can tell, if you have a first principle, it is ALWAYS to be against taxes and regulation.
Name calling may be your second principle; where does that come from?
According to our western myths, the principle to be against cities and their attendant government, regulation, and corruption begins with the Tower of Babel and is continued with Abraham leaving Ur and staying away from the Cities of the Plain. Abrahamists identified “evil” and stayed away from it, but also forfeited earthly POWER as a result. In Sumerian mythology Enkidu has to come to the city to give up his animal innocence become a man. Yahweh began in the desert fires, and somehow ended up in Medieval Cathedrals. Earthly power brings all the other “bad” communitarian stuff. Do you want first principles that go back this far, or subsequent ones?
Nice little dust cloud you raised there, but it’s still no answer to some simple and direct first-principles questions you’ve been asked elsewhere in these forum, Dwighty-boy. You respond with archeology, triangulation and more questions. Which is no answer at all.
Keep on dancing, and we’ll keep on laughing. At you, not with you.
Archeology? Where did THAT come from?
Hw about a cloud by day and a pillar of fire of fire by night, but in either case you are one of the grumblers, that Moses and God were continually disgusted with. Somewhere out there, there is supposedly a question I have not responded to, but when you guys get pressed on it, or anything, you vanish, just as the manna did if you did not eat it on the same day.
You can’t respond to the formulation of the Constitution, history, mythology, the Bible, specifics on any topic of substance, but you can grumble and name call. How about calling for help from someone who knows something in ANY of these areas? It would at least make it more interesting for me, and hopefully less embarrassing for you.
Still no anwers. Hey, Dwighty – your burning bush is ringing. Better answer that one.
The radical left has lost the ability to debate, Ron.
Their “debating muscles” have atrophied because they have gone unchallenged for nearly forty years. The lapdog media covers for them and Hollywood produces propaganda films for them.
Therefore, when an articulate, well-reasoned, fact-heavy, calm, respectful dissent from leftist orthodoxy is produced, …they resort to the smear machine. What else can they do?
Stanley Kurtz book of FACTS has been largely ignored…only Stanley himself has been addressed, and entirely with false attributions and slander.
The fact that you get the same treatment, (or David Horowitz, Roger Simon or Victor Davis Hanson), is sadly…no longer a surprise.
They cannot discuss (much less defeat) the FACTS…so they must make the source of those facts immediately “untrustworthy”.
The leftist of today is an intellectual 97 lb. weakling. Lie, distort, slander and smear….then wait for the lapdog media, entertainment and academia to jump on the scamwagon.
Not a man or woman of honor among them. Sad, actually. There was a time they stood for something. That day has passed.
They don’t WANT to debate, so it isn’t useful to speculate whether they could or not.
They don’t want to legislate either. Judicial dikatat and Executive fiat are the preferred methods of governing.
And of course, free speech is a burr in their sides. If little lenin wins in 2012, that will quickly become a quaint artifact of the past.
“…post criticizing Piven’s politics while condemning those making death threats against her”
I want to see the evidence concerning these alleged death threats. Sometimes left-wing activists also pretend to be conservatives.
Piven and Cloward represent the nonviolent Left that has caused so much destruction in the last some forty-five years. They probably have never even slapped anyone. Many people were so intimidated by the violent radicals of the 1960s that they were easily manipulated by their nonviolent cohorts. I am somewhat reminded of the bad cop/good cop scam police officers sometimes use while interrogating a suspect.
I don’t know what you expected. You might as well discussed the Universe with some nasty object you stepped in at the dogie park. People with an agenda not always respond to a rational argument. Unlike you I would compare Liberal Democrats to Socialists. After all when you take from one person at the point of a gun and give to another person, well that is socialism. I would call Liberal Democrats to subversives when millions of criminals are allowed to remain in this country after they have entered the country illegally. This subverts the law that they have sworn to uphold and diminishes the value of citizenship. OK vote whore Republicans as pander to them and they are wrong, too.
When you are over the target you are going to take flak. You’ve been around long enough to know better Ron. The mask has come off, and what’s underneath is ugly, and the commies know it.
Mr. Radosh:
“Last year he emailed me calling me names and saying that the only reason I got up in the morning was so I could go shopping in Wal-Mart to exploit the poor!”
Don’t you just LOVE doing that? I always wait for Wal Mart’s “Exploit The Poor” Sale, when they deeply discount their goods so that more poor people shop.
“I wish Dreier would get his facts right about me. He writes that I am a “conservative historian whose political trajectory…was from Red Diaper baby (son of Communists) to 1960s student radical, to ultra-right wing propagandist.””
Uh-huh.
“I am hardly an “ultra-right wing propagandist” but a prize-winning historian who respects the truth and takes it where it leads me.”
Stop the denial, he’s nailed you cold on that one.
If you are honest and have a respect for the truth, then by definition you ARE ultra-right wing.
Welcome to “the Borg”, the coffee-pot is now attached to your left hip.
Don’t you just LOVE doing that? I always wait for Wal Mart’s “Exploit The Poor” Sale, when they deeply discount their goods so that more poor people shop.
LOL! That’s right – we always look for the Capitalist-Oppressor-Running-Dog-Lackeys-of-Elvis-Presley Wal Mart coupons in the newspapers. Never miss ‘em.
‘…calling me, among other things, an “ultra right-wing propagandist” and “lunatic blogger.”’
Unjust and untrue. Of course, if he’d said you wrote for an ultra right-wing website that employs several lunatic bloggers, he’d be right on target.
Uh Dwight, other than point out the hundreds of millions of murders leftists were responsible for in the 20th century, and the Viet Nam era riots, and the many crimes of the Greenies/Communists, and the rape of Cuba by Castro, and the 3 million dissidents imprisoned by the leftist government of China, and your obvious joy at the Tucson murders, and the obvious hypocricy of anybody defending Sow Piven…all real life and unquestioned atrocities by leftists, where exactly have we lunatic bloggers offended you?
You should be thrilled. You have Tucson, you have Obamacare and your death panels, you have 39 unvetted czars, you have 3 trillion in new debt, you have your precious abortions still protectd by law, you have two new nuts on the Supreme Court who will live for another 40 years apiece, you have illegal aliens streaming into the country to further degrade the middle class and violate our laws, you have your cipher in the White House, you have your own raving lunatics in Pelosi, Reid, Franks and Kerry, you have climate change, you have envy pumped up on steroids, you have 19 year old zombies who can go 4 years without ever hearing a rational thought, you have paid-for Unions, you have paid for racist minorities, you have your nationalized auto industry pumping out useless electric go-carts that go 25 miles per charge.
I just don’t see how you can be unhappy.
It’s that you can’t shut us up. That’s it, isn’t it. No matter how many times you call us nuts, some of us just won’t shut up.
Try to have a good day.
“…your obvious joy at the Tucson murders….”
Oh, I forgot about proreason. I guess I should add lunatic readers as well.
thanks for paying attention. I’ll be in touch.
You are one very, very sick individual. Take care.
Joseph, just a little clarification, this is NOT an “ultra-rightwing” site. Such would not have Leftist writers posting, and such as you and Dwight would be banned.
This “ultra-rightwing” phrase is tossed out as an epithet. It is a way of casually dismissing opposing views, without having to address the arguments. It’s how the cool kids deal with the smart kids, by denigrating them. If they are not hip, then it doesn’t matter that they are right. It is a juvenile tactic.
I am close to that description of ultra-rightwing, as I have libertarian leanings, but am mostly Conservative. The Libertarians are the Ultra Right. This is not a Libertarian site. You really could stand to learn what these things actually mean, rather than tossing out Leftist buzzwords.
“I challenge Dreier to show me where I have ever compared “liberal Democrats to communists, socialists, radicals, subversives,” etc.” Why haven’t you? Isn’t it about time?! What are you waiting for, or it is a case of spinelessness? Since Obama was elected, they are coming out of the woodwork like termites. Maybe in the far distant past peering through the mists of time, the “liberal democrats” were not quite up to commie standards but that was a long time ago. Nowadays, its just another beard for what they truly are. Stop being on the defensive. Your behavior is quite surprising and atypically cowardly.
And we have ourselves another “BINGO” here. As I was saying…
You say it like it’s a bad thing.
A little advice from a giant mind holds truer today than ever before-
” I seek no victory, for the honor of my soul and character consists in deviating from the paths of fools, but not in conquering them. ”
Maimonides
Mr. Radosh-his ideology is based on lies, and deception. How can he think clearly, nor agrue based on fact?
Simple, he can’t, nor anyone on the left-to argue about a lie is sinking onto the bottom of the hellhole.
Ron,
Now a little empathy for Beck should be forthcoming.
As an alien I have on occasion caught a retransmission of Beck when surfing the news channels and at no time did I ever hear him inciting anyone to violence, but I did learn a lot about American history from him, and how much I was duped in history class taught by the British in their dominions.
Truth is in the eye of the beholder. Facts when researched and presented properly are Facts (ex: man made climate change currently not included).
Progressive ‘Truth’ is based on Myth not on facts. The myth of ‘we are here to help you, just shut up and do as we say and please no debates, we know what is best’ is the most obvious one and used ad infinitum by the left.
Should you attack them with facts they will attack your facts with myth and dreams of what could have been and what could yet be if only you would shut up and listen.
SSSSSHHHHH just listen, I promise this won’t hurt…..
Mr. Radosh, consider the juvenile, personal insults aimed at you as a victory. If not a compliment.
Dreier, in all sense of the meaning, is a gnat amongst giants in the universities.
Continue the mature, more appropriate high road, Mr. Radosh.
For this Dreier character knows nothing of intellectual discussion/debate. His students are leaps and bounds above this man-child..
A book has just come out about Hugh Carey, who was governor of New York (1975-1982) who dealt successfully with the fiscal crisis in New York City, caused by the Pliven strategy of overwhelming the city welfare rolls.
I have never been in a WalMart but if doing so will exploit the poor then I will now do so.
This will make up for the gov’t forcing me to help lift other Americans out of poverty against my will.
Life is all about balance.
Being drafted into the Salvation Army isn’t my idea of balance. I didn’t even register or anything – they just drafted me. I’m a conscientious objector, opposed to war against the middle class.
Progressives destroyed the bottom rung of the ladder of economic success by corrupting a public school system in which half of the students never graduate and half of those wo do are fundamentally illiterate. Every major inner city in America from, Chicago, Detroit, Oakland, St. Louis, every school board and school district, every city council in those inner cities is 100% controlled bt the Democrat Party and progressives and has been for 100 years. Everything that is wrong with the inner cities of America that policy can affect Democrats and progressives are responsible for. They have their boot heels on the necks of poor black and hispanic children all across America and are crushing them every day.
The Democratic Party and Progressivism is the most powerful force obstructing opportunity for America’s poor and minority. It oppresses them with their creation of the modern welfare state. Progressives engineered a welfare system that destroyed the inner city black family and created a vast “under-class” so mired in the culture of dependency and povert that they may never escape.
Progressives are the most racist bunch of monsters in history. Margret Sanger is the champion of the progressives. She was such a nasty racist with her evil eugenics programs. Hitler modeled his eugenics programs on the American Progressive Eugenics Movement of the early 20th century. Her whole purpose for abortion was to rid society of what she called the less desirable minorities. Her legacy lives on in the racist fact that children of color are the victims of 2/3 of all the abortions committed since Roe v Wade. Black women, who make up only 12% of the population have had over 40% of the abortions ever committed. They are nearly 4 times more likely than their caucasion counterparts to get abortion, just as progressive darling Margret Sanger planned.
For decades now, the ‘progressives’ (liberals or ‘The Left’) in our country have been propelled by two powerful influences: Saul Alinsky and Cloward and Piven. (Of course, Marx and Engels figure in, too, but why state the obvious?) In 1966, Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven authored an article in “The Nation” magazine that has been followed as closely as a blueprint by organizations such as ACORN and, dare I say, the Democrat Party (at least the present-day incarnation of the Democrat Party). Incredibly, we are seeing the fruits of that seditious strategy in the news everyday. And I say ‘seditious’ advisedly, because the end result will be the capitulation of our national sovereignty and way of life to those who seek to control us and rule over us.
Ive tried to sort out the nonsense at Huffpo.I cant stand being on the site for more than an hour.Theres always someone ranting and raving about 1-evil conservatives, 2- Jews 3- hatred of themselves or GWB.
Not healthy i tell ya.Since the noise from the Left sphere forced me to pay attention to politics in 2007, their harsh shreiking is unfounded.(There is no conspiracy!)
Meanwhile none of them have ideas or solutions only venom.So im moving on ,retraining and looking after myself.Without govt support or health insurance since i can afford to pay my own way.
I can also think critically and vote my own way too.
Want to get out of here alive?Become a cyber hightech nation.Leave the manual labour stuff for China and push the limits of the technology especially the Internet.We created it.
P.S. Meanwhile all my family in the US are still employed and working.They have been the whole time.
Dear Ron,
I await your confirmation
Spyridon
["I challenge Dreier to show me where I have ever compared “liberal Democrats to communists, socialists, radicals, subversives,” etc."]
Mr. Radosh! With that statement, I’m left to wonder why you haven’t, given that you put great weight on “facts” in your writings. Have you never written anything about the ideological demographics of the Democrat Party?
Liberalism > Liberal-Progressive Socialism > Social Liberalism > Socialism
The Democrat Party is home to all these “means to an end” evolutionary shifts of socialism. Likewise, Communist’s also find a home in the Democrat Party. For goodness sakes, who facilitated the formation of the Congressional Progressive Caucus? Certainly wasn’t the Democratic Liberals of America! Are you professing many of the 60′s and 70′s, now intellectual elites around and within the Democrat Party, do not profess themselves and their ideologies as socialist and communist? There’s probably no more than a bus load of classic liberals (in government or activists)left in the democrat party.
Would you be so kind as to elaborate on your comment/challenge to Mr. Dreier?
But the problem, or one of them, is that in political “discussions,” (which is what we do around here) the least thoughtful, most volatile people immediately jump to the far end of whatever issue is being discussed; Bush becomes Hitler, Obama becomes Stalin and all meaningful dialogue ceases.
People can rightfully be criticized for doing that and may defend themselves by denying they do it. On the other hand, plenty of people around here would, instead say, “what’s wrong with that, Obama DOES equal Stalin. We can throw in that when they are losing an argument, “centrist” becomes “leftist” which, of course, also equals Stalin.
These people consider themselves, loud, but astute patriots, who call a spade a spade, but they are really people who aggregate-free associate-namecall until meaning ceases to be, and there is nothing left but emotion. One can understand why Mr Radosh would want to distance himself.
Yes, Dwight, there is some of that. Part of the necessary discussion is about the definition of Left/Center/Right.
Myself, I see “moderate” Republicans as being on the Left. They are the Democrats who were driven out of the Democratic party by the Socialists.
In Europe, there are essentially no Parties on the Right, not as we define it here. Their Right-wingers are liberal Republicans here. McCain would fit right in. If the country as a whole were to shift to the Left, then by definition, the Center would shift leftwards as well.
So, is there an absolute set of criteria of Left/Right? Who gets to define what that is? The Mouthpiece Media? Much of the struggle to take back our country from the Leftists is to strip away their lies, one of those lies being the definition of Left/Center/Right.
For my part, I believe that Conservatives are just Right of Center. Libertarians are Far Right. I am in between, and so am Center-Right.
The media, by contrast, defines any Conservative as Far-Right. Those on the Left think Bill O’Reilly to be a Right-winger! Amazing! Likewise, they think a moderate Republican is on the Right, when I see such as Left of Center, as actual Democrats.
I think it is all defined by one’s view of the size and scope of government. If you believe government has a positive role to play, then you are on the Left. If you think government is a necessary evil to be kept as limited as possible, then you are on the Right. To me, there is no large expanse of middle ground. It is a clear demarcation, a line between Left and Right.
Or try it a different way. Take all of the country who have any discernible political consciousness. Find the middle guy using your criteria of righty and lefty, and the two sides define themselves from that.
But lets face it, about 100 million people or more would not really care one way or the other in any way you or I would define as political. But far more people than not want government to help, to do a lot of stuff. They may not want to pay high taxes, or any taxes, but they want stuff done. You can talk them into opposing a particular thing like Obamacare, but they still want stuff done for them, probably more stuff than has ever been done for any other people in the history of civilization. Don’t you agree?
As for O’Reilly, he knows his demographic; he is center right and frames most of his points from a righty perspective, but he also will play devil’s advocate. He will say left-wing loon twenty times for every one time he will say right-wing loon, so that tells you something. Obviously, he is well to the left of Rush and Hannity, but still to the right of center. It is cute how his attempts to be “fair” to Obama are seen as going soft etc around here. People know that Rush and Hannity are not “fair’ but don’t care. O’Reilly tries to at least appear fair, insufferably arrogant and self-promoting as he is.
Notice that AGW alarmists use the same tactics as the radical left, they are the same people. They don’t debate skeptics because they cannot, just like Scientologists cannot debate critics.
And here is a column discussing that well-known expander of big government and early pre-communist, Andrew Jackson.
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/26/old-hickorys-ghost/?src=fbcivilwar